HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 16 - COUNCIL READING FILE_c_Initial Study-MND
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0475-2019
1. Project Title:
1144 Chorro Street Mixed Use Development
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 Bell, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7524
4. Project Location:
Primary Location: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-427-012), San Luis Obispo, CA
Off-site Historic Resource Preservation: 868 and 870 Monterey Street (APN 002-416-040), San Luis Obispo, CA
Proposed Planned Development (PD) Overlay Zone: 1144 Chorro Street (APN 002-247-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (876 Marsh Street, 895 Higuera Street, and 890 Marsh Street; APN 002-427-016, -014,
and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street (973 Higuera APN 022 -432-011 and -012), and one
parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (898 Higuera; APN 022 -425-011), San Luis Obispo, CA.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Mark Rawson
Jamestown Premier SLO Retail LP
P.O. Box 12260
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
6. General Plan Designations:
General Retail
7. Zoning:
Downtown-Commercial with Historical Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed project consists of demolition of the majority of an existing one-story commercial building,
construction of a new six-story mixed use building to include approximately 30,000 square feet of
commercial/office space and 50 residential dwelling units, and the application of a Planned Development (PD)
Overlay zone on a 0.38-acre parcel located in the historic district in downtown San Luis Obispo (project). The
basement of the existing one-story structure on-site would remain in-tact and the rest of the structure would be
demolished and removed. The proposed 80,249-square-foot building would be 75 feet in height. Proposed
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 2
demolition and construction activities would result in approximately 50 cubic yards of ground disturbance. The
construction phase of the project is anticipated to last approximately three years.
The first floor of the proposed development would be comprised of three retail suites with accommoda tions for
restaurant use, a residential lobby, commercial office lobby, and a small parking facility with ADA parking, and
delivery/drop off spaces. The second and third floor have been designated for commercial office uses. The fourth,
fifth, and sixth floors would be comprised of residential apartments. Twenty-five percent of the proposed residential
units would be reserved for tenants with moderate incomes (See Section 23 – Source References; source reference
1).
The first three levels of the development would have a light-colored exposed brick exterior and would be setback
approximately 10 feet from the edge of the street/property line to accommodate outdoor dining areas and pedestrian
circulation. The upper three levels of the development would have a t raditional stucco exterior and would be set
back 22.5 feet from the property line to accommodate an outdoor deck area with trees and large planters and reduce
the perceived scale and height of the development as viewed from the street. The project would include the removal
of three existing street trees located along the sidewalk adjacent to Chorro Street and one existing street tree along
the sidewalk adjacent to Marsh Street. Two new blue jacaranda (Jacaranda mimosifolia) trees would be planted
along the frontage of Chorro Street and two new blue jacaranda trees would be planted along the frontage of Marsh
Street.
The proposed small parking garage to be located onsite would consist of a total of seven parking spaces, including
1 accessible van space. These spaces are intended to be utilized by car share and short -term use, including pick-up
and drop-off uses. Several strategies have been incorporated into the project design detailed in a Parking Demand
Reduction Plan (source reference 14) to demonstrate compliance with City Zoning Regulations, including provision
of shower and locker room facilities for employees who use alternative modes of transportation, provision of secure
on-site bicycle parking for all employees and residents, and provision of up-to-date public transportation and
rideshare information in office and employee break rooms and welcome packets for new employees and residents.
Water service for the project would be provided by the City ’s Utility Department and the project would require a
total annual water demand of approximately 851,014 gallons (2.61 acre-feet; source references 1 and 2). The
proposed development includes a garbage room with space to accommodate three garbage receptacles, three
recycling receptacles, and several green waste receptacles that would be serviced three times per week by San Luis
Garbage company.
The project is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, which allows for a maximum building height of
50 feet and a minimum height of two stories. The City’s Zoning Regulations (Title 17) allow consideration of an
increase in maximum height up to 75 feet within this zoning designation if the project includes provision of
community benefits, including, but not limited to, the following criteria: Silver rating on the LEED-CS or NC
checklist (or equivalent measure), no more than 33% of the storefront level to be used for private parking facilities,
and the public benefits associated with the project must significantly outweigh any detrimental impacts from the
additional height. In weighing potential public benefits, relevant considerations would include objectives related
to affordable housing, modal split (strategies designed to promote a permanent shift to alternative transportation
modes for project occupants), historic preservation, and open space preservation. The project has been designed to
meet the Silver rating on the LEED-CS checklist, include no more than 33% of storefront area as private parking,
and provide affordable housing and pedestrian amenities.
The proposed project would result in a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of 3.87. The City Zoning Regulations limit FAR
for buildings in the C-D zone greater than 50 feet in height to 3.75. Allowable FAR may be increased up to 4.0 in
the C-D zone if requested with a transfer of development credits for open space protection or historic preservation
or through a density bonus alternative incentive for affordable housing. The project includes the permanent
preservation of an offsite building located at 868 and 870 Monterey Street that is listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, which is intended to address this requirement.
The Planned Development (PD) Overlay zone is typically applied to parcels to provide for flexibility in the
application of zoning standards for proposed development. Application of the PD Overlay zone is proposed to be
applied to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing
Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on the east side of Morro
Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022-425-011; see
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 3
Figure 3). This PD overlay zone would allow the residential density units of the Downtown Centre to be completely
utilized within the new building at 1144 Chorro Street, and would allow potential future development on the parcels
on Morro and Higuera Streets to accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in
the other four parcels. Based on the City Zoning Regulations, Planned Development (PD) zoning shall be approved
only in conjunction with derived long-term community benefits and where the project can help achieve the vision,
goals, and policies of the General Plan. Through the PD Overlay the project proposes to meet three of the
Mandatory Project Features (§17.48.060) by providing:
a. Affordable Housing: A minimum of 25% moderate-income;
b. Energy Efficiency: LEED Silver rating; and
c. Public Amenity: Guarantee long-term maintenance of a significant public plaza on the Downtown Centre
site.
The project’s potential for cumulatively considerable impacts has been evaluated in Section 21 , Mandatory
Findings of Significance. Potential future development on the two parcels located on the east side of Morro Street
(APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-011) allowed by
the available density units and PD Overlay has been included in the reasonably foreseeable cumulative development
scenario.
9. Project Entitlements:
Development Review (Major)
Planned Development Overlay Rezone
Affordable Housing Alternative Incentives
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below:
• Northeast – One-story restaurant, Downtown Centre plaza including restaurants, bookstore, and movie
theater
• Northwest – one- to three-story commercial and mixed uses including restaurants on the first level and
studio apartments on the upper levels
• Southwest – One-story restaurant, one-story non-profit office, a one-story commercial printing and
shipping office
• South – Chase bank parking lot
• Southeast – four-level parking structure and shoe store, three-story mixed-use building with commercial
retail on the first floor and studio apartments on the upper floors
11. Have California Native American tribes traditio nally 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 cul tural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record
search for the property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is included in Section 18:
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have
been received.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 4
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 5
Figure 2. Project Location Map.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 6
Figure 3. Proposed Planned Development Overlay Zoning.
Figure 4. Project Architectural Rendering.
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 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 Game 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 Hou sing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off -site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less 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 checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which
they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 12
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099, would
the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
3, 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, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 6 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project is located in the downtown historic district of the city of San Luis Obispo (city) and is generally surrounded by retail
and commercial uses. The project site currently consists of a one-story building with an exposed brick exterior that historically
operated as a department store. The visual character of the project vicinity is comprised of exposed brick and stucco commercial
developments varying from one to four stories tall, street trees, sidewalks, and crosswalks with brick pavers.
The topography of the city is generally defined by several hills and ridges such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis.
These peaks are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the city. The project
vicinity exhibits intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks, including Cerro San Luis.
The City Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) identifies specific goals and policies intended to protect and enhance
the city’s visual quality and character. Policies in the COSE include, but are not limited to, promoting the creatio n of
“streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways during construction or modification of major roadways, designing new development
to be consistent with the surrounding architectural context, and preservation of natural and agricultural landscapes. Based on the
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 within the cone of view of a scenic roadway.
The primary goal of the San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, Chapter 4 – Downtown Design Guidelines is to preserve
and enhance the attractiveness of the downtown area to residents and visitors as a place where people prefer to walk rather t han
drive, and where the sidewalks, shading trees, and variety of shops, restaurants, and other activities encourage people to spend
their time, slow their pace, and engage one another. The Downtown Design Guidelines include standards for the physical
development and design of new projects within the downtown district, including, but not limited to, the following:
• 4.2-B.1b – New buildings that are significantly taller or shorter than adjacent buildings shall provide appropriate visual
transitions.
• 4.2-B.1d – Portions of the building above 50 feet should be set back sufficiently so that these upper building walls are
not visible to pedestrians on the sidewalk along the building’s frontage .
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 13
• 4.2-B.2 – New buildings shall not obstruct views from, or sunlight to, publicly -owned gathering places including, but
not limited to, Mission Plaza, the Jack House gardens, and YCLC Cheng Park. In these locations, new buildings shall
respect views of the hills, framing rather than obscuring them.
• 4.2-B.3 – New buildings should not shade the northerly sidewalk of Marsh, Higuera or Montere y Streets at noon on
December 21st. Information demonstrating this objective shall accompany all applications for architectural review as
detailed on application checklists.
• 4.2-B.4 – Tall buildings (between 50 and 75 feet) shall be designed to achieve mu ltiple policy objectives, including
design amenities, housing and retail land uses. Appropriate techniques to assure that tall buildings respect the context
of their setting and provide an appropriate visual transition to adjacent structures include, but a re not limited to:
a. For large projects that occupy several lots, variable roof heights and architectural features that penetrate the
roof plane are encouraged to diminish the mass and scale of the taller structure;
b. Reinforce the established horizontal lines of facades in adjacent buildings;
c. Maintain the distinction between the first and upper floors by having a more transparent ground floor. On
upper floors, consider using windows or other architectural features that will reinforce the typical rhythm of
upper story windows found on traditional commercial buildings and provide architectural interest on all four
sides of the building;
d. Larger buildings (where frontages exceed 50 feet) should be clearly expressed at the street frontage by
changing material or setback to respect the historic lot pattern and rhythm of downtown development;
e. Abrupt changes in building heights and/or roof orientation should be diminished by offsets of building form
and mass;
f. Use roof overhangs, cornices, dentals, moldings, awnings, and other decorative features to decrease the
vertical appearance of the walls;
g. Use recesses and projections to visually divide building surfaces into smaller scale elements;
h. Use color to visually reduce the size, bulk and scale of the building;
i. Use planter walls and other pedestrian-oriented features on the ground floor such as windows, wall detailing,
and public art.
j. Consider the quality of natural and reflected light in public spaces within and around the project site and
choose materials and colors to enhance lighting effects with respect to available solar exposure.
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 is located in an urbanized area
of downtown San Luis Obispo with intermittent views of Cerro San Luis. Based on the City’s 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
within the cone of view of a scenic roadway. 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 0.4 mile east of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101). Based on Caltrans’ California
Scenic Highways online mapping tool, this section of U.S. 101 is eligible for state scenic highway designation, but is not
officially designated. The project site would not be visible to viewers travelling along U.S. 101 due to existing trees and
vegetation along U.S. 101 and existing development. Based on the City’s COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the
project site is not located along roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic value o r within the cone of view of
a scenic roadway. 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 site and building design have been designed to comply with the City’s Downtown Design Guidelines. The first three
floors of the proposed development would have a traditional brick architecture style, that would be consistent in character
of neighboring buildings. The top three floors would be constructed of traditional stucco and would be set back 12 feet 6
inches from the frontage of the first three floors to eliminate views of these floors from the pedestrian perspective observed
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 14
from the Marsh Street frontage of the building and set back 21 feet from the Chorro Street frontage of the building in
compliance with City Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed development would be further screened by roof
gardens on the fourth floor. Located on the northea st corner of the intersection of Marsh Street and Chorro Street, this
project is situated to cast a shadow inward, towards the alley and services areas of adjacent neighbors. The project has
been designed to avoid casting a shadow on either sidewalk of Marsh St or Chorro St, on any given day of the year between
11:00 a.m. and 2:00 p.m. and would therefore be in compliance with the City Downtown Design Guideline 4.2-B.3.
A Visual Study was prepared to assess the proposed project’s potential to obscure views of Cerro San Luis from public
gathering places, including the Downtown Centre Plaza/Paseo Courtyard , in accordance with Zoning Regulations Section
17.32.030.F. Implementation of the project would not result in the obstruction of existing views of Cerro San Luis as seen
from the Downtown Centre Plaza/Paseo Courtyard. Based on the project site location, the project would not have the
potential to obstruct views of surrounding hills from any other public gathering places, such as Mission Plaza, and would
not significantly obstruct views from other public viewing locations including views along Marsh Street and Chorro
Streets. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with City Downtown Design Guideline 4.2-B.2. Lastly, the
project would be subject to the review and approval of the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) to assess consistency
with the City’s Community Design Guidelines and other applicable regulations governing scenic quality. Therefore, the
project would not result in a conflict with applicable zoning or other regulations governing scenic quality and impacts
would be less than significant.
d) The project is located in an urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as well as
light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the sit e
include streetlights along Chorro Street and Marsh Street, spill-over lighting from surrounding commercial, retail, and
mixed-use development, and intermittent vehicle lighting from vehicles travelling along Marsh Street or Chorro Street or
parking within either the Chase bank parking lot or Marsh Street parking structure adjacent to the project site. The project
is required to comply with the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and
new development, which include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and
directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, maximum light intensity, and hours of operation . The
project would be subject to review and approval by the City Architecture Review Co mmittee to ensure compliance with
these standards prior to final approval. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or 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 has been
designed to comply with all applicable standards set forth in the City’s Community Design Guidelines and would be subject to
review and approval by the City’s Architectural Review Committee, Planning Commission, and City Council prior to finalization
of design plans. No potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetic resources would occur and no mitigation measure s
are necessary.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 15
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 the Califor nia
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 Protocol s adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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?
7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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))?
3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 3, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
3, 7, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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 DOC FMMP (source reference 7).
The project site currently consists of a one-story commercial building with several street trees along the frontages of Marsh Street
and Chorro Street. No portion of the project site or immediately surrounding areas support active agricultural uses. The project
site is not located within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultu ral uses. Based on Figure 6 in the City COSE, the
project is not located within or immediately adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act Contract.
According to Public Resources Code Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10 -percent native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 16
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 sup port
any forest land or timberland.
a) The proposed project site is not in agricultural use and is not located on lands designated Farmland by the FMMP.
Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
b) The project site is not located within an Agricultural Zone, and the project site is not located within or immediately adjacent
to land under an active Williamson Act Contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing zoning for use or
a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur.
c-d) The project site 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 conve rsion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned
Timberland Production and no impacts would occur.
e) The project includes demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new mixed -use development in the city’s
urban downtown area and therefore would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could result in
conversion of nearby agricultural land. Therefore, the project would not result in changes in the existing environment that
could result in conversion of forest land to 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 within or adjacent to Prime Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or
forestland use, or land under a Williamson Act Contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land 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: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
11, 12,
13, 14,
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?
11, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations? 11, 14 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 10, 16 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 17
The city of San Luis Obispo 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 (ARB), 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 ground -level ozone, partial
nonattainment for federal ambient standards for ground-level ozone, and nonattainment for the state standards for PM10 (source
reference 9). The City Conservation and Open Space Element identifies goals and policies to achieve and maintain air quality
that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit the city. These goals and policies include meeting State
and Federal air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking,
biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recen tly 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,
a Clean Air Plan (2001) has been adopted by the SLOAPCD.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and th e
activities involved. The California Air Resources Board has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected
by air pollution (i.e., sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with
cardiovascular and chronic respiratory diseases. The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors,
including residential dwelling units of the Wineman building to the northwest, single family residential dwellings to the sou th,
and several hotels and inns including the Granada Hotel, Garden Street Inn, Hotel Cerro and Hotel San Luis Obispo.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potentia l to contain NOA must comply with the California Air Resources Board
Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. 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 (source reference 10).
a) In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP), a project must be
consistent with the land use planning and transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the CAP (source
reference 12).
The project would provide a high density development within the city’s downtown district and would include a variety of
measures to encourage its occupants to employ alternative modes of transportation, including, but not limited to, provision
of secure bike facilities and showers onsite, and posting and distribution of public transportation information to employees
and residents. The project has been designed to include 25% of the housing units for moderate income individuals. The
project would therefore be consistent with the land use policies identified in the CAP that encourage cities to develop at
higher densities and encourage growth within their respective urban reserve lines to reduce overall vehicle trips and travel
distances. The project would also be consistent with the CAP land use policy that encourages mixing of compatible
commercial and residential uses when it would reduce occupants’ dependence on automobil es and/or improve the
jobs/housing balance.
Transportation Control Measures (TCMs) are controls implemented at the local or regional level to reduce emissions
resulting from the use of motor vehicles. TCMs are primarily intended to reduce vehicle use by promoting and facilitating
the use of alternative transportation options. Many of the TCMs identified within the CAP are not applicable to the project,
such as campus trip reduction programs, local and regional public transportation improvements, motor vehicle inspection
programs, and maintenance and development of park-and-ride lots throughout the county. The project would be generally
consistent with the CAP TCM to promote bicycle use through provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, locker and
changing room facilities to encourage project employees to bike to and from work. The project site is not located in or
adjacent to an area with proposed/needed bicycle infrastructure or improvements as identified in the CAP or City of San
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 18
Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan. As described above, the project location and provision of moderately affordable
residential units would contribute to the project occupants’ overall reduction of dependence on automobiles and daily
vehicle miles travelled. The project would be consistent with all applicable land use and transportation control measures
identified in the CAP. Therefore, impacts related to a conflict with an air quality plan 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 result in emissions of ozone precursors including reactive organic gasses
(ROG) and nitrous oxides (NOx) and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). In 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 the disturbance of approximately 0.38 acre and would require approximately 50 cubic yards of
total earthwork. This would result in the generation of construction dust as well as short- and long-term construction
vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NO x), and
particulate matter (PM). Based on the screening emission rates for construction operations in the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, as shown in Table 1 below, the project’s construction emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s
applicable thresholds for ROG, NOx, DPM, or PM10.
Table 1. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Total Project Emissions APCD Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) +
Nitrogen Oxides (NOx) 5.69 lbs 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.25 lbs 7 lbs/day No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.29 tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
Operational Impacts
Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in vehicle trips , natural gas use, and architectural
coating off-gassing that would generate criteria pollutant emissions. Based on Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD’s CEQA
Handbook, the project would not exceed any of the operational thresholds established by APCD for greenhouse gas or
ozone precursor emissions (Table 2).
Table 2. Project Operational Emissions
Use
Total
Proposed
Square
Footage/Units
Size of Project
Expected to
Exceed APCD
GHG Threshold
% of GHG
Threshold
Size of Project
Expected to
Exceed APCD
Ozone
Precursor
Threshold
% of
Ozone
Precursor
Threshold
Exceeds
Thresholds?
Sit Down
Restaurant 11,049 sf 14,000 sf 78.9% 19,000 sf 58.2% No
Offices 26,442 sf 75,000 sf 35.3% 149,000 sf 17.7% No
Residential
(apartment units)
50 units
(27,169 sf) 122 units 40.9% 192 units 26.0% No
Weighted Average 47.36% 28.09% No
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 19
As shown in Table 2 above, each of the project’s proposed uses were compared to the size of project expected to exceed
SLOAPCD GHG and ozone precursor thresholds. The percentage of each threshold was then weighted based on the
proportion of that use within the proposed building (17.1% restaurants, 40.8% offices, 42.0% residential uses). Based on
the weighted average of each proposed use percentage of the SLOAPCD thresholds, the project would not exceed
SLOAPCD’s Brightline GHG threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year (MTCO 2e/yr) or the
25 pounds per day threshold for ozone precursors. In addition, o perational air pollutant emissions associated with vehicle
trips (mobile source emissions) would be notably minimized through the mixed-use design of the project, location of the
project as urban infill development, provision of bicycle amenities, and location near public transit stops. Lastly, residential
and commercial energy use for lighting, heating, and c ooling is a significant source of direct and indirect air pollution
from buildings nationwide. Through full compliance with the California Building Code and LEED Silver certification, the
project’s operational air pollution emissions associated with these building components would be reduced significantly.
Therefore, the project would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the
project region is non-attainment, and impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including , but not limited to, residential
dwelling units of the Wineman building to the northwest, single family residential dwellings to the south, the Learn,
Connect, Play Preschool located at the First Presbyterian Church, and several hotels and inns including the Granada Hotel,
Garden Street Inn, Hotel Cerro and Hotel San Luis Obispo. Construction activities such as excavation, grading, vegetation
removal, staging, and building construction would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust
that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors. Mitigation measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce
exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant with mitigation.
d) Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke and dust and equipment
exhaust and fumes. Excavated and demolished materials may also contain objectionable odors within unearthed materials.
The proposed construction 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.
The SLOAPCD Naturally Occurring Asbestos Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as
having a potential for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) to occur. The project would include approximately 50 cubic
yards of earthwork, demolition of the existing structure onsite, and construction of the new mixed-use development.
Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and ARB Air Toxics Control Measur e (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105), the applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation measures AQ-3 and
AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol
and procedures if NOA is determined to be present onsite.
The existing structure located on-site was constructed in 1955 and may have the potential to include asbestos containing
materials (ACM) and/or lead-based paint. Demolition of this structure 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 the existing structure. Based on compliance with identified mitigation and existing
regulations, potential impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
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;
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 20
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 pou nds 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 Su bsection
(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:
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of
grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be used in all
construction and dust-control work.
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 shal l be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders or soil binders are
used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m .p.h. on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads.
k. 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 shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 21
include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. 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.
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a
geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance
with California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. 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 asbestos containing materials (ACM), the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM
exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If asbestos containing materials (ACM) are determined to be present onsite, p roposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding ACM,
including the ARB Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to , the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and,
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified ACM.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction 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 structure
onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structure 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 structure, 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.
Conclusion
Mitigation measures have been identified above to address potential project impacts associated with sensitive receptors’ expo sure
to air pollutants and potential impacts associated with naturally occurring asbestos. Upon implementation of these measures,
residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 22
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
18 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
3, 18 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
3, 17 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project site is located in an urban ized area within downtown San Luis Obispo and is surrounded by retail and commercial
uses. The project site currently consists of a one-story building with several street trees located along the frontage of Marsh Street
and Chorro Street. The nearest water feature to the project site is San Luis Obispo Creek, which is located approximately 500
feet to the northwest.
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 corrido rs
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 signi ficant
trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks.
The City’s Tree Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 12.24) was adopted 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 includes
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 Program 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 located withi n
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 23
the project site (source reference 17). Two tree removal permits were previously approved for the project site in 2013 and 2016
for the removal of onsite carrotwood, eucalyptus, and Brachychiton trees. The trees were never removed and these permits have
since expired. Therefore, this analysis considers removal of these trees.
a) The project site is fully developed and located in downtown San Luis Obispo, surrounded by moderately dense commercial
and retail uses. Due to the level of existing development, frequent 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. The
project is not located within an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. Bird species protected by the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to pass through the area, but due to lack of suitable foraging
habitat and highly active urban environment, these species are not expected to nest within the project area. Therefore,
potential impacts to these species would be less than significant.
Based on existing site conditions and lack of suitable habitat, the project site does not have the potential to support any
candidate, sensitive, or special status species identified in local or regional plans, po licies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
b) There are no mapped blue line creeks and no riparian vegetation or other sensitive nat ural communities within or
immediately adjacent to the proposed area of disturbance. The project is located approximately 500 feet from the nearest
creek and associated riparian habitat and would not result in any direct impacts to this habitat area. Therefore, the project
would not result in impacts to riparian habitat or other sensitive natural communities and impacts would be less than
significant.
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, shorelines, or ridgelines. Bird
species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to pa ss through the area. While in an
urban environment, mature trees do have the potential to support nesting habitat for birds. The removal of trees and
construction activity proximate to nests may result in abandonment of eggs and potential avian harm or mortality, resulting
in a potentially significant impact. This impact would be mitigated to less than significant by implementation of mitigat ion
identified below, which requires either avoidance of tree removal and construction within the nesting bird season, or pre -
construction surveys and avoidance measures to ensure nests, eggs, and nesting birds are not harmed (refer to Mitigation
Measure BIO-1). Therefore, 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 tre es or significant native vegetation. The project includes the removal of
two existing carrotwood trees, one existing Brachychiton tree, and one palm tree on -site. The two larger street trees
currently located on the Chorro Street frontage of the property would remain in place and the project would add four new
street trees (Jacaranda trees) to be located along the Chorro Street and Marsh Street property frontages. The City Arborist
has previously approved two tree removal permits for the two carrotwood trees, a eucalyptus tree, and the Brachychiton
tree onsite. The trees were never removed, and the permits have since expired. 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
plans. The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and has recommended methods of preservation for the trees to remain
and supports the removal of the trees requested. The City Arborist has determined that the replanting plan to provide four
new street trees (Jacaranda trees) is appropriate for the project, the City Arborist’s recommendation will be provided for
consideration by the City’s Tree Committee. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 24
f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation
Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The project is not located within an area
designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Site preparation, ground-disturbing, and construction activities should be conducted outside of the migratory bird
breeding season when feasible. If such activities are required during this period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a nesting
bird survey and verify that migratory birds are not nesting in the impact zone. If nesting activity is detected, the followin g
measures shall be implemented:
a. The project shall be modified via the use of protective buffers, delaying construction activities, or other methods
designated by the qualified biologist to avoid direct take of identified nests, eggs, and/or young protected under the
MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code;
b. The Environmental Monitor shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to City Planning staff and the
City’s Sustainability Officer documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, a nd
applicable project mitigation measures.
Conclusion
The project site does not support suitable habitat for sensitive plant or wildlife species, wetlands, riparian habitat, or ot her
sensitive biological resources. The project would not conflict with local plans or policies for protection of biological resources.
Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant based on the discussion above and
implementation of mitigation measure BIO-1.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5 ?
3, 6,
19,20,
21
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5 ? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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. The City of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash,
the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County; 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 25
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:
a) Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources ;
b) Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove a
threat to health and safety;
c) Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing and materials of nearby historic
structures; and
d) Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective eff ect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is located within the Downtown-Historic Preservation Overlay Zone (C-D-H). The Downtown Historic District
is one of five Historic Districts in the City which also include Old Town, Chinatown, Mill Street, and the Railroad Historic
District. The Downtown Historic District was developed along the City’s earliest commercial corridors along Monterey, Higuera,
Chorro, Garden, and Marsh Streets, and has retained its historical use as San Luis Obispo’s commercial and civic center. The
Downtown District was primarily built in the 1870s-1910s when the town’s population increased rapidly from about 600 people
in 1868 to 5,157 in 1910. Architectural styles in the downtown include examples of Classical Revival, Italianate and Romanesque
structures and more modest early American commercial (Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 5.2.2).
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, sites,
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 Committee
(CHC), whose role is to review and provide recommendations to City Council regarding certain projects associated with historic
districts and/or resources. The ordinance establishes the City’s historical designations “Master List”, “Contributing 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 City Historic Preservation Program Guidelines provide guidance for construction within historic districts and on properties
with historic resources, alterations to historic resources, and reconstruction of historic resources.
An Architectural Evaluation was prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants to evaluate the h istoric-period built-
environment resources (i.e., resources 50 years old or older) that are present within the project site (source reference 19,
Attachment 2). The existing one-story building located on the project site, constructed in 1955, operated as Rileys Department
Store from 1955 to 1993, when it was purchased by the current owners. In early 1955 co-owners of the company, Coy C.
Humphrey and Herbert A. Landeck, acquired the subject property at the corner of Chorro and Marsh Streets, and in May 1955
announced plans for a new store. The City issued a building permit (No. A475) on June 23, 1955, listing C. F. Hamlin as the
engineer and [Theo.] Maino Construction as the builders. Overlapping with construction of the Rileys store, a new Union
Hardware building had been under construction next door at 1126 Chorro Street, which was later acquired and incorporated into
the Rileys Department Store in December of 1959-60.
For an entire century, Rileys Department Store and its direct antecedents played a large role in the commercial life of San L uis
Obispo—both at its original location on Higuera Street and at the subject location at Chorro and Marsh Streets. It was, as it
claimed to be, a shopping destination for many Central Coast communities, where customers could find merchandise not readily
available elsewhere. The larger, more modern store located on Chorro and Marsh Streets, with its interior designed by a
merchandising and design professional, was also part of the evolving story of post -World War II consumerism, when Mid-
Century modern storefronts began to prevail and when shopping acquired recreational and acquisitional aspects for an expanding
and relatively well-off middle class.
The parcel is occupied by a rectangular commercial building made up of two adjoining buildings with a slight recessed area
between them on the Chorro Street frontage. The building is one story high, with an interior staircase and mezzanine railings.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 26
The main structural support depends on a grid of columns and beams, with infilled exterior wall areas of Roman brick interspe rsed
with anodized aluminum-framed plate-glass door and display-window assemblies.
a) On November 26th, 2018, the City’s Cultural Heritage Committee reviewed a conceptual plan of the proposed project and
provided a number of specific directional items to the applicant, including, but not limited to, revision of the Architectural
Evaluation Report to address the existing structure’s potential historic eligibility within the district, a request for alter native
architectural styles, and additional architectural details to increase consistency with the Historic District’s prevailing
significance and distinctive architecture, and a request for the provision of a height analysis of buildings in the vicinity
and within the Historic District, including the Masonic Temple. The current project design plans have been revised in
response to the comments and recommendations made from the Cultural Heritage Committee's conceptual review.
The former Rileys Department Store building within the project site was evaluated pursuant to CEQA to determine whether
it meets any of the eligibility criteria for listing in the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) or otherwise
constitutes a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA , or whether it is eligible for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District in conformance with
Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance. The CRHR includes buildings, sites, structures, objects,
and districts significant in the architectural, engineering, scientific, economic, agricultural, educational, social, politic al,
military, or cultural annals of California. Eligibility to the CRHR is demonstrated by meeting one or more of the following
criteria:
• Criterion 1. Associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or
regional history or the cultural heritage of California or the United States;
• Criterion 2. Associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history;
• Criterion 3. Embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or
represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or
• Criterion 4. Has yielded or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the
local area, California or the nation.
When considering the potential for historical significance under CRHR Criterion 1 throug h 4, the question of the physical
integrity of the building must also be considered. Guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation makes it
clear that determinations of eligibility require that resources possess not only significance but als o integrity; that is,
resources must “retain enough of their historic character or appearance to be recognizable as historic resources and to
convey the reasons for their significance.” The integrity of built environment resources is evaluated against seve n aspects
of integrity: location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
The primary directive of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance is that a prospective historical resource shall meet
three criteria: a high level of integrity, sufficient age (generally 50 years), and significance. These criteria are standard
within the preservation community, with each criterion accomplishing a specific goal. The integrity threshold is to ensure
that resources retain the physical ability to convey their significance. The 50-year-old threshold is not, as is sometimes
thought, to certify that an older building is automatically an important one; rather, the threshold is meant to ensure that
sufficient time has elapsed to be able to make an informed assessment of its significance. It is often the case that local
ordinances are more inclusive than CRHR eligibility criteria, where factors such as familiarity in the landscape, a broad
base of personal experience with the resource, and even nostalgia may be considered along with historical importance.
The opening paragraph of Section 14.01.070 of the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance states, “In order to be eligible
for designation, the resource shall exhibit a high level of historic integri ty.” The seven aspects of integrity specified in the
City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance—location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association —are
identical to those aspects of integrity evaluated in determinations of eligibility u nder CEQA.
Based on the Architectural Evaluation prepared for the project, t he former Rileys Department Store building at 1144
Chorro Street does not retain sufficient physical integrity to the period of its significance (1955–1967) to be able to convey
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 27
its historic-period identity and role in the commercial life of San Luis Obispo. Similarly, the former Rileys Department
Store building does not meet the high-integrity threshold criterion for historic resource listing under the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance. The building’s historic character and appearance have been altered and diminished by the loss of
important original, character-defining features (such as the prominent and distinctive signage, scalloped awnings, and
enclosed window display cases along both Chorro and Marsh street frontages; well -proportioned landscaped niche on
Chorro Street), as well as by the interpolation of newer, incompatible features (new modern entrance on Marsh Street;
new, boxy awning style and configuration on both street frontages; intrusive marble wall panel on Chorro). For a business
that relies on branding and visibility, the loss of distinctive and prominent signage (the letter “R” above the canopy on the
Chorro Street frontage, and a tall neon “Rileys” sign that rose above the roofline at the corner of Chorro and Marsh) is a
substantial loss to the building’s integrity of design, materials, feeling, and association. The interpolation of the marble
wall cladding and brick-and-cement bench on Chorro Street; the expansive, angled canvas awning along both street
frontages; and the prominent, new black anodized aluminum door assembly installed on Marsh Street, which demolished
a small original display case and created a blank windowless face for much of the Marsh Street e levation, have caused
further inroads on the integrity of design, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association that would need to be present
to meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR or for local designation . The addition of discordant materials such
as the heavy black steel doorway assembly on Marsh Street, and the inclusion of marble slab panels on the Chorro Street
elevation, post-date the store’s operation. The current canvas awning is also a later addition in a style that does not ma tch
the original design. These additions degrade the physical integrity of the exterior design (source reference 19, Attachment
3).
The Architectural Evaluation noted that it appears the Rileys Department Store owners treated the building’s exterior from
a practical point of view and were not zealous about maintaining or promoting the Mid -Century aesthetic as a selling tool;
the customers evidently patronized Rileys for other reasons. The owners were far more vested in the appearance and
modernity of the store’s interior. As a result, they never made full use of what the building did offer, particularly by
blocking potential views of the array of merchandise within (expansive windows were blocked with very ordinary display
cases, which have all been removed). The strongest association with the former Rileys Department Store would depend
on an interior with good integrity – capable of conveying the building’s prior use and documentation of their business
practices. With the exception of the original interior s taircase and mezzanine railings, these aspects of the overall design
have not survived.
Therefore, the building does not meet the eligibility criteria for listing in the CRHR, for local designation on the City’s
Master List of Historic Resources or as a contributing resource to the Downtown Historic District, or otherwise constitute
a “historical resource” for the purposes of CEQA. In order for the building to express its integrity as part of the continuing
development of San Luis Obispo as a commercial hub and/or its association with its merchant/owners (Herbert A. Landeck,
Sr. and Coy Humphrey), it would need to be restored using the Secretary of the Interior Standards for Restoration to its
c1965 appearance by restoring/replicating the signage, decorativ e canopy awnings, and display window cases; removing
the steel door assembly on Marsh Street and reconstructing the original doorway and display window; removing the marble
panels; restoring the landscaping; and restoring the character-defining interior features and primary fixtures.
A Historic Preservation Report was also prepared for the project in order to evaluate the project’s overall consistency with
the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines regarding development within historic districts and development
adjacent to historical resources and with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties
(source reference 20, Attachment 4). The project site is located within the Downtown Historic District and some individual
City-listed historic buildings located within the Downtown Historic District (e.g., Wineman Hotel, First Presbyterian
Church, Masonic Temple) are sited in such a way that both the historic building and th e proposed Marsh & Chorro
Development project would be visible concurrently.
The project incorporates numerous design elements to be compatible with adjacent and nearby architectural styles and
materials. The massing of the proposed building is softened by subdued colors and fenestration (i.e., the arrangement of
windows and doors) of the lower stories, as well as the setback and change in surface material of the uppermost stories.
Cornice trim is suitably incorporated at an appropriate scale. The building is designed in an unobtrusive contemporary
style that neither misleads viewers to assume it has historic value nor attempts to dominate or compete with the more
flamboyant architecture of the historic Masonic Temple on the opposite side of Marsh Street. Marsh Street is noticeably
wider than Higuera and Monterey Streets, but the numerous mature street trees (existing and proposed) would provide
considerable screening of building mass on both sides of the street. Marsh Street at Chorro Street is also located at a lower
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 28
elevation than the uphill topography that characterizes the intersections of Higuera and Osos Streets or Chorro and Palm
Streets, where buildings that are tall to begin with look even taller against the horizon. The City parking structure on th e
opposite corner of Marsh and Chorro Streets provides a tall visual counterpoint to the proposed project development. Other
nearby designated historic buildings within a one -block radius have limited views of the project site from the city street,
generally because of the narrowness of the cross streets and screening provided by street trees.
Based on an analysis of historical development of the Downtown Historic District, the character -defining features of
adjacent and nearby designated historic buildings, site topography and sightlines, the proposed materials, colors, massing,
and other design features of the project, the project would be compliant with the City’s Historic Preservation Program
Guidelines and consistency with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Treatment of Historic Properties (source
reference 20, Attachment 4).
Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant
to §15064.5 and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited
to, Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the
property but did not request consultation. A discussion on their request is include d in Section 18: TRIBAL CULTURAL
RESOURCES of this initial study. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
The project would include minimal ground disturbance onsite associated with demolition and removal of the existing
building, with the exception of the basement, which would be retained in place, as well as construction of proposed
stormwater retention facilities, for a total of 50 cubic yards of proposed earthwork. The project is located within a Burial
Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis Obispo Creek identified in “Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE.
Based on the project’s location and proposed ground disturbance, the pro ject may have the potential to impact previously
unidentified cultural materials during subsurface grading and excavation activities. Mitigation measure CR-1 and CR-2
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training of all construction personnel and preparation of an
archaeological monitoring plan that would ensure monitoring during the d isturbance of native soil that may contain
archaeological resources. If previously unidentified cultural materials are unearthed during proposed ground-disturbing
activities, mitigation measure CR-3 has been identified to require work be halted in the area until a qualified archaeologist
can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, based on the limited extent of proposed earthwork and identified
mitigation measures, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of archaeological resources would
be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is partially located within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Lu is Obispo Creek identified in
“Figure 1: Cultural Resources” of the City COSE. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however,
the unanticipated 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-4. Potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains
would be less than significant with compliance with existing state law and incorporation of mitigation measure CR-4.
Therefore, impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct 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 o r 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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 29
CR-2 Archaeological Monitoring: The applicant shall provide an arch aeological monitoring plan prepared by a City-qualified
archaeologist to be implemented during construction. The plan shall identify the qualified professional who will
conduct the monitoring and shall require monitoring by a City-qualified archaeologist during any ground-disturbing
activities within native soil that may contain archaeological resources. The archaeological monitoring plan shall include
a description of: Native American involvement, how the monitoring shall occur, the location and frequency of
monitoring, what resources are expected to be encountered, circumstances that would result in the halting of work at
the project site, procedures for halting work at the site and notification procedures, monitoring reporting procedures,
and specific detailed protocols for what to do in the event of the discovery of human remain s. The plan shall recommend
specific procedures for responding to the discovery of archeological resources during the construction of the project
consistent with Section 4.60 of the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. The plan shall be
submitted as a part of the building permit.
CR-3 In the event that historical or archaeological remains are discovered during earth disturbing activities associated with
the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if
necessary. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative
shall monitor any mitigation excavation associated with Native American materials. The conditions for treatment of
discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans.
CR-4 In the event that human remains are exposed during earth disturbing activities associated with the project, an immed iate
halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director 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 the recommended mitigation measures, the project would have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 22,
23, 24,
26
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
1, 24,
25, 26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October of 2018,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and beginning in January 2020, MBCP
will be the City’s primary electricity provider. MBCP provides 100 percent carbon -free electricity.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 30
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 green 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 non -residential 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 electricity supply , all electric new buildings are
carbon free and avoid health and safety issu es 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 has yet to adopt the ordinance. Unlike
other 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 will be required to build more effici ent
and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in -lieu
fee that will be used for the same purpose.
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) is an internationally recognized green building certification system
that provides third-party verification that a building or community was designed and built using strategies aimed at improving
performance metrics in energy savings, water efficiency, CO2 emissions reduction, improved indoor environmental quality, and
stewardship of resources and sensitivity to their impacts. LEED provides a point system to score green building design and
construction. The system is categorized in nine basic areas: Integrative Process, Location and Transportation, Sustainable Sites,
Water Efficiency, Energy and Atmosphere, Materials and Resourc es, Indoor Environmental Quality, Innovation in Design, and
Regional Priority. Buildings are awarded points based on the extent various sustainable strategies are achieved. The more points
awarded the higher the level of certification achieved from Certified, Silver, Gold, to Platinum (source reference 22). The project
has been designed to earn enough points to achieve a LEED Silver rating for building design and construction (Building Design
and Construction [BD+C]).
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 -
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 o f cleaner and renewable energy resources in
order to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. These strategies include promoting a wide range of
renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and e xisting developments, and
increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs (source reference 24).
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 rely on the local electricity service provider, MBCP, to supply project electricity needs. MBCP provides
100 percent carbon-free electricity.
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 California
Building Code including applicable green building standards which include thermal envelope standards (preventing heat
transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresident ial ventilation requirements, and non-
residential lighting requirements. The project has been designed to achieve a LEED Silver certificatio n, which
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 31
demonstrates that the project has been located and designed in a manner that achieves high energy efficienc y, including,
but not limited to, access to quality transit, provision of bicycle facilities, and development within an infill site. Compli ance
with existing building codes and achieving LEED Silver certification would ensure the project would not result i n a
potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources,
and through use of 100% greenhouse gas-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 California Building Code 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, encouraging energy-efficient “green-buildings” as certified by the U.S. Green Building
Council’s LEED, and pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly design. The project would not conflict with other goals and policies
set forth in the City Climate Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy efficiency. 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, would meet the criteria
for a LEED Silver certification rating and would not conflict with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency.
No potentially significant impacts related to energy would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
27, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 27, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 28 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
28, 29 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 32
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?
30 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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? 31, 32 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City 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 the City of 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 offsh ore
Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producing
a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposite d
by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These are typically in valleys (source
reference 27).
Faults capable of producing strong ground shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Riconada, 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 Department of Conservation
Fault Activity Map and the City Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or
within the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone (source references 25, 26).
Seismic-related ground failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers mor e than
the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater
rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubri cating
the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in
creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the gro und. The
likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide
Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with high liquefaction potential.
Slope instability and landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes
include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can be
contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability.
Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Elem ent, the project site is located within an area
with low landslide potential.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.
Primary causes are ground-water withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the
ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such
as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground-
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 33
surface subsidence. Based on the USGS Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site is not located in an area of
known subsidence (source reference 27).
Soil limiting factors
The project site is underlain by two soil units, as described below based on the San Luis Obispo County Soil Survey (source
reference 28):
162. Los Osos-Diablo complex, 5-9% slopes. These gently rolling soils are moderately deep to deep and well drained.
Permeability of this complex is slow, and surface runoff is medium. The hazard of water erosion is slight to moderate.
This soil has high shrink swell potential. The main limitations for urban development are high shrink-swell potential, low
strength, and slow permeability. The high clay content of the Diablo soil and the Los Osos subsoil makes these soils hard
to pack. These limitations can require special design considerations for urban development and most other engineering
practices. Septic tanks do not function properly because of slow permeability and depth to rock.
198. Salinas silty clay loam, 2-9% slopes. This very deep, well drained, gently sloping and moderately sloping soil has
moderately slow permeability and a surface runoff of slow or medium. Th e hazard of water erosion is slight or moderate.
Building sites and most engineering uses can require special designs. Roads, buildings, and other structures need to be
designed with consideration of the soil’s moderate strength and moderate shrink-swell potential.
a.i) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan and the Department
of Conservation 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 impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii) Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan and the Department
of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project
site. Due to the highly seismic nature of the region, the project would very likely be subject to strong seismic gr ound
shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The proposed development would be required to be designed in full
compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code (CBC) to adequately withstand and
minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected to occur in the project region; therefore,
impacts associated with strong seismic groundshaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is located within an
area with high liquefaction potential. Development of the project within this area may have the potential to result in adverse
effects due to seismic-related ground failure. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of
the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with
the California Building Code Chapter 18, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site
construction techniques, as required by the Code. In addition, the proposed development 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. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to causing
substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) 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 project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with
landslides and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is located within a fully developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal and would
result in less than 50 cubic yards of earthwork. No substantial permanent changes in existing topography or total area of
exposed soil would occur. Therefore, impacts related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil would be less than significant.
c) Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or in areas containing escarpments. 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 34
potential. Based on the County Safety Element and USGS data, the project is not located in an area of historical or current
land subsidence. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City Safety Element, the project site is
located within an area with high liquefaction potential. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon
review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in
accordance with the CBC, any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction
techniques, as required by the Code. The project would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to
address potential seismic-related ground failure including lateral spread and liquefaction. Therefore, potential impacts
related to location on a geologic unit or soil unit that is unstable would be less than significant.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is located in an are a underlain
by soils with moderate to high shrink well potential. The volume changes that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can
stress and damage slabs and foundations. A geotechnical study is required upon review of the building permit, in
accordance with CBC, to evaluate the proposed development activities and provide specific recommendations to
adequately protect future proposed development against soil stability hazards, including expansive soils. In accordance
with CBC the geotechnical study will address typical precautionary measures including premoistening of the underlying
soil in conjunction with placement of nonexpansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced
foundation., potential impacts associated with 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 Holocene-age alluvial gravel and sand of stream channels (source reference 29). Holocene
age units, particularly those younger than 5,000 years old, are generally too young to contain fossilized mater ial. The
project would result in less than 50 total cubic yards of earthwork and would not require deep excavations, as the majority
of the existing foundation and basement of the existing building onsite would remain intact. Therefore, potential impacts
on paleontological resources 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 regulatio ns,
potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures are required.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment? 11, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
12, 14,
24, 25,
26
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Greenhouse gases (GHG) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria
pollutants discussed in Section III, 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 of San
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 35
Luis Obispo 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. In addition, the City is currently developing a plan for achieving
carbon neutrality by 2035. The City of San Luis Obispo 2005 Community Wide GHG emissions inventory showed that 50% of
the city’s GHG emissions came from transportation, 22% came from commercial and industrial uses, 21% came from residential
uses, and 7% from waste (source reference 2 3).
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 California Air Resources
Board (ARB) to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 percent
below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80 percent below 1990 levels by 20 50. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG
emissions include AB 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building codes, and the California Solar Initiative.
Plans, policies, and guidelines have also been established at the regional and local levels to address GHG emissions and climate
change effects within the city. In March 2012, the SLOAPCD approved thresholds for Greenhouse Gas (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 CO2/year (MT CO2e/year) 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 capacity of those uses expected to exceed the GHG Bright Line Threshold of 1,150 Metric
Tons of carbon dioxide per year (MT CO 2/year). Projects that exceed the criteria or are within ten percent 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), b) 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). Demolition activities would also generate
GHG emissions. 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.
GHG emissions associated with operation of the proposed project are primarily attributable to energy expenditures of the building
and vehicle transport to and from the project site. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, each of the project’s proposed uses
were compared to the size of projects expected to exceed SLOAPCD GHG and ozone precursor thre sholds. Based on the
weighted average of each proposed use percentage of the SLOAPCD thresholds, the project would not exceed SLOAPCD’s
Brightline GHG threshold of 1,150 Metric Tons of carbon dioxide emissions per year (MTCO 2e/year) or the 25 pounds per day
threshold for ozone precursors. However, as discussed previously, this threshold is no longer applicable to projects developed
after 2019; therefore, the project has been evaluated for consistency with CARB’s 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a
framework for achieving the 2030 target. A discussion pertaining to the project’s consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan is
provided in Table 3, below.
Table 3. Project Consistency with the 2017 Scoping Plan
Programs and Policies Primary Objective Consistency Analysis
SB 350 Reduce GHG emissions in the
electricity sector through the
implementation of the 50 percent
Renewables Portfolio Standard,
doubling of energy savings, and
Consistent. 100% of the energy
MBCP provides to the City of San
Luis Obispo is from renewable
sources.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 36
other actions as appropriate to
achieve GHG emissions reductions
planning targets in the Integrated
Resource Plan process.
Low Carbon Fuel Standard Transition to cleaner/less-polluting
fuels that have a lower carbon
footprint.
Not Applicable. This Statewide
policy establishes carbon reduction
standards for transportation fuels
and does not directly apply to the
project.
Mobile Source Strategy (Cleaner
Technology and Fuels)
Reduce GHGs and other pollutants
from the transportation sector
through transition to zero-emission
and low-emission vehicles, cleaner
transit systems and reduction of
vehicle miles traveled.
Consistent. The project would be
consistent with the Mobile Source
Strategy because it is an infill,
mixed-use project located in an
urban setting with quick access to
alternate modes of transportation,
such as walking, biking, and public
transportation to reduce emissions
associated with automobile use.
Additionally, the project would only
include seven parking spaces,
including 1 accessible van space.
These spaces are intended to be
utilized by car share and short-term
use, including pick-up and drop-off
uses. Several strategies have been
incorporated into the project design
detailed in a Parking Demand
Reduction Plan (source reference
14) to demonstrate compliance with
City Zoning Regulations, including
provision of shower and locker room
facilities for employees who use
alternative modes of transportation,
provision of secure on-site bicycle
parking for all employees and
residents, and provision of up-to-
date public transportation and
rideshare information in office and
employee break rooms and welcome
packets for new employees and
residents.
SB 1383 Approve and Implement Short-
Lived Climate Pollutants strategy to
reduce highly potent GHGs.
Consistent. This policy addresses
methane emissions generated from
landfill disposal of organic waste.
To help reduce the waste stream
generated by this project, consistent
with the City’s Conservation and
Open Space Element policies to
coordinate waste reduction and
recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and
the City’s Development Standards
for Solid Waste Services, recycling
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 37
facilities have been accommodated
into the project site and a solid
waste reduction plan for recycling
discarded construction materials is
a submittal requirement with the
building permit application.
Therefore, the project would be in
compliance with SB 1383.
California Sustainable Freight
Action Plan
Improve freight efficiency,
transition to zero emission
technologies, and increase
competitiveness of California’s
freight system.
Not Applicable. This policy
addresses goods movement
efficiencies that are not affected by
the project.
Post-2020 Cap and Trade Program Reduce GHGs across largest GHG
emissions sources
Not Applicable. This program
involves capping emissions from
electricity generation and industrial
facilities. The project does not
include electricity generation or
industrial land uses.
Source reference 64.
As shown in Table 3 the project would not conflict with the implementation of the 2017 Scoping Plan. Many of the programs
are not applicable at a project level, such as developing low carbon fuel standards and the cap and trade program, however so me
programs are applicable, such as the Mobile Source Strategy and SB 1383. The project is a mixed -use infill development that
would be located in an urban area with quick, easy access to alternate modes of transportation. Operational air pollutant emissions
associated with vehicle trips (mobile source emissions) would be notably minimized through the mixed-use design of the project,
location of the project as urban infill development, provision of bicycle amenities, and location near public transit stops. Lastly,
through compliance with the California Building Code, LEED Silver certification, and the Clean Energy Choice Program, the
project’s operational air pollution emissions associated with these building components would be reduced significantly .
Therefore, the project impacts related to generation of greenhouse gas emissions and consistency with applicable plans and
policies intended to reduce GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Impacts would be less than significant; however, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 would further
reduce GHG emissions generated by the project.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize greenhouse gas emissions and would not result in a conflict with an
applicable plan or policy adopted for reducing greenhouse gas emissions. No potentially significant impacts associated with
greenhouse gas emissions have been identified and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 38
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
33, 34,
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use pla n 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?
36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 planning document 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. Government Code section 65962.5 requires the California EPA to develop at least annually an updated Cortese List.
Various state and local government agencies are required to track and document hazardous material release information for the
Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s (DTSC’s) 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’s (SWRCB’s) 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 meetin g
the “Cortese List” requirements can be located on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the State Water Resources Control Board’s (SWRCB) Geotracker database and the California Department
of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStor database, there are no active hazardous waste cleanup sites within the project site o r
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 39
immediately surrounding areas. The closest cleanup site is located approximately 630 feet east of the project site, and this site is
closed and has been remediated to the satisfaction of regulatory agency staff.
The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Land Use Planning Area or noise contours (ALUP;
source reference 35).
a) The project does not propose the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous substances. Any commonly used hazardous
substances within the project site (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used
according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the 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 substances, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc.
The project includes demolition of existing structure on the property that is over 50 years old that could contain asbestos
and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing an d 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 mater ials 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
asbestos 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 bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and b ones. 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 the presence of asbestos. If such hazards
are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the
project sponsor would be required to retain a state certified ACBM removal 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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 40
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 of San Luis Obispo 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 an d debris management, fire safety, and removal
and disposal of demolition materials. Construction contractors would be required to comply with 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 measure
AQ-5 has 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 would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project site is located approximately 340 feet (0.06 mile) from the nearest school facility, which is the Learn. Connect.
Play. Preschool located at the First Presbyterian church on Marsh Street. The project site is also located within 0.25 mile
of the Mission College Preparatory Catholic High School located on Palm Street. Construction activities such as
excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and installation of new components would result in temporary
construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may have the potential to affect nearby school attendees. Mitigation
measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce sensitive receptors’ exposure to adverse construction vehicle
emissions and fugitive dust through implementation of equipment best management practices and dust control measures.
Upon implementation of these measures, potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions within 0.25 mile of school
facilities would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Based on a search of the California Department of Toxic Substance Control’s EnviroStar database, the State Water
Resources Control Board’s Geotracker database, and CalEPA’s Cortese List website, there are no hazardous waste cleanup
sites within the project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) The project site is located within 2 miles of the San Luis Obispo County Region al Airport. Based on the Airport Land Use
Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, the project is not located within the Airport Land Use
Planning Area or noise contours. Therefore, potential impacts associated with safety hazards or ex cessive noise from
aircraft would be less than significant.
f) The project would result in periodic temporary road closures along Marsh Street during the three -year construction phase.
Due to the project site location, there are multiple detours available within 500 feet of proposed road closures. 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 would 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
Implement measures AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-5.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of hazardous substances. It is not located wit hin
proximity to any known contaminated sites and potential impacts associated with hazardous emissions in close proximity to
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 41
school facilities would be reduced to less than significant through implementation of mitigation measures AQ -1 and AQ-2.
Project implementation would not subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would n ot
impair implementation or interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Upon implementation of measures
AQ-1, AQ-2, and AQ-5, 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:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
1, 18 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
1, 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, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
1, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 38,
42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 38, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
1, 42,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The San 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 (source reference 36).
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 Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 42
Construction Stormwater Management requirements 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 that require approvals and/or permits issued.
The 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. Based on the pertinent Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM), the project site is located
within a 100-year flood zone. The City’s Floodplain Management Regulations (FPMR) along with the Drainage Design Manual
(DDM) of the Waterways Management Plan, include provisions for development and re-development projects within the
Downtown. The FPMR and FEMA model codes allow for the “dry” floodproofing of commercial and mixed -use buildings. As
such, these code requirements will provide protections for both the structure, appurtenant building service equipment, and the
occupants. The DDM and corresponding flood analysis has already taken into account full general plan build -out within the
Downtown. The build-out assumptions have considered that the creek corridors, public streets, and alleys alone will be available
to carry floodwaters.
a) The project is located within a developed infill site and does not include substantial vegetation removal and would result
in approximately 50 cubic yards of earthwork. The project site is not located in proximity to any mapped creek or surface
water bodies that could be adversely affected by project construction or operation. The project site does not contain Waters
of the U.S. or the State. Because the project would be located within a currently fully developed area comprised almost
entirely of impermeable surfaces and would include gutters and downspouts to capture and retain stormwater flows similar
to existing conditions, implementation of the project would not substantially change the volume or velocity of runoff
leaving any point.
The City’s Public Works, Utilities, and Community Development Departments 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 the 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 amoun t of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting
materials, and/or not exposing potential pollutants to rainwater or other runoff. Development is required to be undertaken
in strict accordance with conditions and requiremen ts 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 groundwater quality. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
b) The project would be serviced by the City 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 of San Luis Obispo no longer draws groundwat er 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, erosion, or runoff.
The project site is currently developed with 0.36-acre of the existing built structure and 0.02-acre of flatwork with street
trees. The proposed mixed-use development building would include rooftop gutters and downspouts to capture surface
runoff and direct it to the planters located on the outdoor patio areas on the fourth floor. The planters located on the fourth
floor would contain bio-media layers that would filter the water through a gravel layer before draining to an underdra in.
The underdrains would then direct filtered stormwater flows to the existing storm drain pipe beneath Chorro Street. Surface
runoff at the ground-level flatwork would drain into a proposed trench drain system that would connect to a proposed
stormwater storage system. The proposed trench drain system has been designed to accommodate the volume of an 85th
percentile 24-hour storm (1.2 inches of rainfall), which would be 275 cubic feet (2,057.14 gallons), before draining to the
existing City stormwater drain beneath Chorro Street.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 43
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 up to 275 cubic feet (2,057 gallons) before draining to an existing City
stormwater drainpipe. 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 opera tion. The project includes
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, t he 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 City Flood Preparedness Map, the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone. Section 3.5 of the City
of San Luis Obispo Waterways Management Plan encourages infill development in the 100-year floodplain within the
Urban Reserve Boundary as a method to reduce sprawl development. The Waterways Management Plan recognizes that
the floodplain has already been substantially modified within the urban infill areas , and significant additional off-site
impacts are less likely to occur in these areas. The City has determined that there are no significant impacts for floodwater
surface elevation rise for projects that meet the design criteria described in Section 3.5.1 of the Waterways Management
Plan, Volume III, which include, but are not limited to, mandating all finish floor elevations for new buildings be at least
1 foot above the defined FEMA 100-year flood elevation or flood-proofing of the proposed structure, and creek setbacks.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant.
d) Based on the FIRM, the project site is located within a 100-year flood zone. The project would establish commercial retail
uses on the ground level and would not include storage or use of hazardous materials beyond standard cleaning products,
which would be securely stored in a fully enclosed area per FEMA Flood Plain Management Criteria for Flood Prone
Areas. In addition, current code requirements include designing floor elevations to be at least 1 foot above the defined
FEMA 100-year flood elevation and/or that “dry” flood-proofing of the proposed structure will be provided to a
comparable height, which would reduce risk from flood flows inundating the project site. Based on the San Luis Obispo
County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with potential for inundation by a tsuna mi. 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’s potential impacts associated with release pollutants due to project inundation would be less than
significant.
e) As discussed in the threshold analysis above, the project would not deplete groundwater supplies, or interfere substantially
with groundwater recharge. The project includes stormwater treatment and storage facilities and would not conflict with
the Central Coastal Basin Plan, or other water quality control plans. The project would not conflict with SGMA, or other
local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
With implementation of the standard code requirements and documentation noted above and standard BMPs, PPMs, and City
Engineering Standards, the project would not impede or redirect flood flows, substantially alter drainage patterns, or degrade
surface water quality. The project would not substantially increase impervious surfaces and does not propose alterations to
existing water courses. Therefore, potential impacts related to hydrology a nd water quality are considered to be less than
significant.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 44
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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, 3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The project is located in the Downtown Commercial (C-D) zone, and is generally surrounded by retail commercial and mixed -
use developments, as summarized below:
• Northeast – One-story restaurant, Downtown Centre plaza including restaurants, bookstore, and movie theater
• Northwest – one- to three-story commercial and mixed uses including restaurants on the first level and studio apartments
on the upper levels
• Southwest – One-story restaurant, one-story non-profit office, a one-story commercial printing and shipping office
• South – Chase bank parking lot
• Southeast – four-level parking structure and shoe store, three-story mixed-use building with commercial retail on the
first floor and studio apartments on the upper floors
a) The proposed infill development would not result in a physical division between an established community. The project
would be downtown infill development 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 is consistent with existing surrounding
developments’ uses and is not located within a site containing sensitive environmental resources; therefore, the project would
not conflict with policies or regulations adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating environmental effects. The project
would include the addition of the Planned Development Overlay Zone over the proposed project site and surrounding parcels
(Figure 3) to allow the residential density units of the Downtown Centre to be completely utilized within the new building
at 1144 Chorro Street.
The project would be consistent with existing land uses and designations for the proposed site and, therefore, would not
conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
environmental effects. No impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
No potentially significant impacts associated with land use would result from the proposed p roject; therefore, no mitigation
measures are necessary.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 45
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
3 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the City Conservation and Open Space Element, 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 unlikely
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.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
6, 45,
46 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels?
1, 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?
36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 46
The project is located in a relatively traffic noise-dominated area. The City’s General Plan Noise Element establishes standards
for maximum acceptable noise levels associated with station ary and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation
noise sources are required to be mitigated to not exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 4, below.
Table 4. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Outdoor Activity
Areas1 Indoor Spaces
Noise-Sensitive Use Ldn or CNEL, in dB
Ldn or
CNEL, in
dB
Leg 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 -- -- --
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 City Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, rail road,
and airport expansion projects, which states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in
Table 4 (above) for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.
In addition, per the City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construct ion 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 Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states
that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maxim um
noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 dBA at single -family residences, 80 dBA at multi-family residences, and
85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City Municipal Code, operating any device that creates vibration
which is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public sp ace or
right-of-way is prohibited (9.12.050.B.7).
a) The project includes demolition of the majority of the existing structure onsite and construction of the proposed
development. 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 for demolition and
construction projects are shown in Table 5, below.
Table 5. 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
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 47
Crane, Mobile 83
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Jackhammer 85
Man Lift 85
Paver 85
Scraper 85
The project site is located approximately 40 feet from the nearest sensitive receptor, residential units, which are located in
the upper levels of the mixed-use Wineman building on Chorro Street, and less than 25 feet from commercial uses such as
restaurants Eureka and Sweetie Cup Tea House. 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. Due
to the close proximity of nearby residential uses, the proposed demolition and construction project activities have the
potential to periodically exceed the City’s Municipal Code standard for conducting construction activities in such a manner
that prevents noise levels above 85 dBa from reaching mixed-use residential and commercial uses, when technically and
economically feasible. Mitigation measures N-1 through N-5 have been identified to reduce the potential for exceedances
to occur and minimize potential temporary construction noise impacts to surrounding residential and commercial uses .
b) Upon completion of construction activities, the project includes the installation and use of heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) systems that would have the potential to contribute additional noise to the existing noise environment.
While the project site is located within the 60-dB noise contour, as designated by the City Noise Element (1990) and
buildout maps, the additional noise generated by these systems would have the potential to result in a permanent increase
in ambient noise levels for surrounding residential units above the outdoor activity area threshold of 65 dBA. Mitigation
measure N-6 has been identified to require all proposed rooftop HVAC systems to be directed away from adjacent
residential uses or shielded with appropriate noise barriers.
Advancements in construction methods, coupled with energy conservation practices, have had a vast performance impact
on the way buildings are constructed today. Interior noise levels are substantially reduced through compliance with existing
building code requirements. At the most conservative level, a typical structure covered with siding will have a Sound
Transmission Class (STC) rating of 39 dBa based on current methods. Basic dual-pane vinyl windows will achieve an STC
rating of 28 dBa. Averaged out, this comes to a combined STC rating of about 33, meaning a typical exterior wall assembly
will reduce 33dB of sound transfer. These numbers are based off of a 2x4 wall cavity with insulation and the rating improves
with increased wall thickness and/ or stucco or other sidi ng materials. In using the example of the previous Noise Element
and Noise Guidebook standards from the 1990s, compliance with current required conventional building standards would
double, or even triple, the noise reduction requirements. Therefore, impacts related to the generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The project does not propose pile driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne noise
or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration ;
these activities would have the potential to generate intermittent periods of vibration that may have the potential to affect
surrounding historical buildings and occupants of surrounding buildings.
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
Source reference 45
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 48
ppv for transient events. Groundborne vibration levels associated with representative construction equipment are
summarized in Table 6 below.
Table 6. 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
Source references 47 and 48.
While some construction activities may result in perceptible vibration, t he 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.
d) The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Land Use Planning Area or associated aircraft
noise contours. Therefore, impacts associated with project worker or occupant exposure to excessive noise levels from
aircraft would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the fo llowing 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), and 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 80 dBA
for multi-family residential and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial uses, restaurants, and meeting places.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 49
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.
• 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 compliant 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.
N-6 All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be
installed away from existing noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind adequate noise barriers.
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for mixed-
use residential and commercial development. Upon implementation of measures N -1 through N-6, potential impacts associated
with temporary and/or long-term exceedances of local established standards would be less than significant. No other potentially
significant impacts associated with noise were identified, and no further mitigation measures are necessary.
14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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)?
1, 49,
50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of 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 General Plan 2018 Annual Report . The City’s housing tenure is
approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced by Cal Poly University and Cuesta
College enrollment. Many segments of the City’s population have difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 50
their economic, physical or sociological circumstances. San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the County,
and during workdays, the City’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons (source reference 47).
The City’s Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of the City’s housing need s,
opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include safety, affordability, conservation of existing
housing, accommodation 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,
maximization of affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the City, and develop ing housing on suitable
sites.
a) The project would establish a total of 46 new studio and one-bedroom apartment units and 3 two-bedroom apartments, which
would result in approximately 104 new residents (assuming 2 people per bedroom). Twenty-five percent of the proposed
residential units would be reserved for tenants with moderate incomes. The project has been designed to be consistent with
goals and policies established in the City Housing Element associated with provision of new housing, sustainable housing
design, and provision of affordable housing opportunities. According to the City 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 Plan Report, the city’s to tal buildout population would be 57,200 people. The project
would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo and City 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 be consistent with the city’s projected population growth and City H ousing Element goals and policies. No
potentially significant impacts would occur and no mitigation measures are necessary.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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 object ives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1, 49,
51, 63 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 1, 49,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 51
Evaluation
The project site is located within the existing service area of the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department and would likely 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 station is staffed by a Battalion Chief and a 4 -person paramedic truck company.
The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city which consists of 85.5
employees, 59 of which are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station which is located at 1042
Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) a nd U.S. Highway 101.The project is located within the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City of
San Luis Obispo Department of Parks and Recreation.
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 and equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project would be served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, the closest station of which
is Station 1, located at 2160 Santa Barbara Avenue. The project proposes uses generally consistent with the surrounding
downtown areas and the proposed level of development would be fairly similar to surrounding commercial and mixed -use
developments. While the project would not directly result in the need for construction of new fire service facilities, p roject
development of new residential and commercial uses would result in a marginal cumulative increase of demand on City
services, including fire protection. The project would be required to participate in the City’s system of required developer
impact fees and dedications established to address direct demand for n ew facilities associated with new development.
Potential increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of the new residential units, businesses, and other
revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new residential
and commercial uses. Based on correspondence with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, the City Fire
Department currently has one fire apparatus with the capabilities to reach a six-story building, and this apparatus is
currently kept at Fire Station 1. Therefore, the implementation of the project would not require the purchase of a new fire
apparatus. Therefore, impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered Fire Department facilities would
be less than significant.
Police protection: The project would be served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. Project development
of new residential and commercial uses would result in an increase of demand on City services, including police protection.
The project proposes uses generally consistent with the surrounding downtown areas and the proposed level of
development would be fairly similar to surrounding commercial and mixed -use developments. While the project would
result in an overall increase in residents within the city, the project would be consistent with the projected population
growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The City has a system of required developer impact fees and dedications established
to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Potential increases in property tax revenue
associated with valuation of the new residential units, businesses, and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would also help offset
the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services to new residential and commercial uses. 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 San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) and would be
subject to payment of SLCUSD developer fees to offset the potential marginal increase in student attendance in the
district’s schools as a result of the project. These fees would be directed towards maintaining 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: Project development of new residential uses would result in an increase of demand on local parks and recreational
facilities in the area. The project would result in a marginal increase in residents that would lead to an incremental increase
in local park usership. While the project would result in an overall increase in residents within the city, th e project would
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 52
be consistent with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Obispo. The project would be subject to park
development impact fees, which would offset the project’s contribution to increased demand on park and 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 marginal 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, potential project
impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, no mitigation measures are necessary.
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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?
1, 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?
1, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Existing City recreation 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 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, healthful, or enriching activities which
enhance the quality of life in the community.
As demand for recreation facilities and activities grow and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following ar eas:
continued development of athletic fields and support facilities, providing parks in underserved neighborhoods, providin g a multi-
use community center and therapy pool, expanding paths and trails for recreational use, link recreation facilities, and meeti ng
the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and senior citizens (source reference 49). Parks and Recreation Element
Policy 3.13.1 establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000
residents, 5 of which acres shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
a-b) The project would increase the demand on public parkland and neighborhood parks from an increased residential
population. While the project would result in an overall increase in residents within the city, the project would be consistent
with the projected population growth for the city of San Luis Ob ispo. The project would be subject to Park Land 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 pe r 1,000 residents. These fees would be used in
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 53
the future to contribute funding for the establishment of new park/recreation facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
however, these actions would not be directly triggered by or required as a result o f implementation of the project. Through
participation in this fee program, potential project impacts associated with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities
or construction of new park facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
None necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be subject to payment of 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 pot entially significant
impacts to parks or recreation facilities would occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
13, 14,
53, 54 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 1, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways and identifies transportation go als
and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future conditions. Goals included in
the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo
while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles, reducing use of cars by supporting and promoting
alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and using car pools, promotion of the safe operation of all modes of
transportation, and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause
no significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating conditions of a n 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 degradation of the level of service below this standard shall be determined
significant under CEQA.
The City 2013 Bicycle Transportation Plan outlines the City’s official policies for the design and development of bikeways
within the city and in adjoining territory under County jurisdiction but within the city’s Urban Reserve and includes specifi c
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 54
objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other modes. This plan identifies existing Class II bike path(s) within the
vicinity of project site along Marsh Street. Class II Bikeways are located along major streets and provide direct access to
important destinations.
In 2013, Senate Bill 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion managemen t
with statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and re duction 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 Resource s
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of Senate Bill 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.
The project site would be accessed by Marsh Street and Chorro Street. Chorro Street is a north-south, two-way, two-lane arterial
road in the study area. Chorro Street terminates at Highland Drive near Cal Poly and at Broad Street south of downtown San
Luis Obispo. Chorro Street is designated as a Class III bike route near the study area. There is on-street parking on the west side
of the roadway as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the roadway between Higuera Street and Marsh Street.
Marsh Street is an east-west, one-way eastbound, three-lane arterial road in the study area. Marsh Street terminates at US
Highway 101 and at California Boulevard near San Luis Obispo High School. Marsh Street has a designated Class II bike lane
on the south side of the road. There is on-street parking as well as curb, gutter, and sidewalk on both sides of the roadway between
Chorro Street and Morro Street.
SLO Transit operates transit service in 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. Four transit routes travel on Marsh Street adjacent
to the proposed project: SLO Transit Route 1A, SLO Transit Route 2A, SLO Transit Route 2B, and SLORTA Route 10. The bus
stop for SLO Transit Routes 1A, 2A, and 2B is located on the south side of Marsh Street east of Chorro Street across from the
project entrance. An awning-protected bench and signage is provided. The bus stop for SLORTA Route 10 is located on Marsh
Street west of Broad Street less than 1,000 feet from the project site. The Downtown Transit Center, located approximately one
third of a mile from the project site near the intersection of Palm Street and Osos Street, is served by most SLO Transit and
SLORTA routes. The bus stop across from the project entrance is additionally served by SLO Transit’s Old SLO Trolley which
loops between the downtown area and upper Monterey Street to the east.
a) The project would be urban infill located in the downtown historic district of the city of San Luis Obispo. The project site
would be accessed by Marsh Street and Chorro Street. The project would be generally consistent with the goals and policies
outlined in the City Circulation Element regarding traffic congestion reduction through compliance with City Zoning
Regulations requiring provision of secure bicycle storage, showers, and locker and changing room facilities to encourage
project employees to use alternative modes of transportation. The project would maintain the existing sidewalk areas onsite
in compliance with the City Downtown Pedestrian Plan and Circulation Element policies regarding maintaining continuous
sidewalks and pedestrian paths within major activity centers. The project site is not located in or adjacent to an area with
proposed/needed bicycle infrastructure establishment or improvements as identified in the City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle
Transportation Plan.
Based on the Traffic Impact Study prepared for the project, surrounding intersections Higuera Street/Chorro Street,
Higuera Street/Morro Street, Marsh Street/Chorro Street, and Marsh Street/Morro Street are all currently operating at a
vehicle LOS B. Based on the project’s projected vehicle trips generated, the project would not result in a change in any of
the surrounding intersections’ vehicle LOS. Current LOS for pedestrian or bicycle facilities at these intersections would
also not be altered by implementation of the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with a program,
plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system and impacts would be less than significant.
b) Based on CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b), projects located within one-half 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 urban infill and located within 0.5 mile of the San Luis Obispo Downtown
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 55
Transit Center and approximately 10 public transit stops. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the standards set
forth in CEQA Guidelines Section15064.3 subdivision (b) and impacts would be less than significant.
During the construction phase, the project would result in the periodic closure of one lane on Marsh Street. Proposed lane
closures and use and transport of construction vehicles and equipment within an area that experiences a substantial amount
of vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic would have the potential to result in safety hazards. Mitigation measure T -1 has
been identified to require the preparation and approval of a transportation management plan to require the implementation
of traffic control measures, notification procedures, and other measures to significantly reduce the safety risks in and
around the project site during construction activities. Therefore, project impacts associated with increased hazards during
construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project, as proposed, would result in the removal of one of the two existing commercial loading spaces on the north
side of Marsh Street and establish a new project driveway at this location. Street features including trees, trash cans, fire
hydrants, light poles, signs, news receptacles, and parked cars can limit sight distance in urban areas. In general, a clear
line of sight exiting the proposed driveway is available to Marsh Street. However, when vehicles are parked in the on-
street loading zones on the north side of Marsh Street between Chorro Street and the proposed project driveway, the sight
distance is restricted. When vehicles are parked in the loading zone adjacent to the project driveway, vehicles would need
to “creep” into the parking lane to see oncoming traffic prior to making a turning movement.
The California Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD) recommends a minimum of 6 feet of red curb be
placed adjacent to driveways. To provide the recommended red curb, the remaining commercial loading zone adjacent to
the project would need to be modified or removed pursuant to existing City Engineering Standards. The City’s Engineering
Standards Section 7410 requires that new driveway connections to streets be designed to provide sight distance for street
parking spacing to further ensure pedestrian safety, and project driveway exits shall provide a minimum of ten feet clear
visibility to the back of sidewalk on both sides of the exit, unobstructed by building corners, columns, or any other visual
impediments. The proposed loading spaces and any associated street parking shall comply with the City’s Engineering
Standards Chapter 1010 Section 3.1.7. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, the operation of the
project would not result in any significant or increased hazards due to a geometric design feature.
c) The project has been designed to comply with the City and State Fire Code, and the property frontage facing Chorro Street
would remain marked with a red curb for emergency vehicle access only. In addition, t he project would be subject to
review by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided . Therefore, potential impacts
related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
TR-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet
with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent
feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this
project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the Public
Works department. The plan shall include at least the following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major t ruck trips and deliveries to
avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure
procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles.
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes
so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and correcte d by the project
applicant.
• Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
• Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 56
• A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.
• Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the
trucks can be identified and corrected.
• It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be d eveloped in the context of the City
Municipal Code Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations and the City of San Luis Obispo 2013
Construction & Fire Codes, which address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on
noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items.
Conclusion
The project would not result in a reduction in level of service on surrounding intersections and would be consistent with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.3 subdivision (b) regarding vehicle miles traveled. The project would be required to meet City Public
Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency access. Mitigation measure TR-1 has been identified to
evaluate traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traf fic congestion and the effects of parking
demand by construction workers during construction of the project. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation
would be less than significant with mitigation.
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: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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)?
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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.
3, 22 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, Assembly Bill 52 (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 California Register of Historical Resources; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California Public Resources
Code Section 5020.1.
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 subdivision (c) of California Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. 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.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 57
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
alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but not limited to,
Assembly Bill 52 and Senate Bill 18. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council inquired about a record search for the property,
upon further discussion with staff regarding the proposed mitigation measures CR -3 and CR-4 and providing additional
information on the limited amount of grading necessary for the project, The Northern Chumash Tribal Council confirmed that
they had no additional comments. No further comments or requests for information have been received.
a.i-ii) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 and
received one response for more information. Upon receiving additional information about the project site and proposed
mitigation measures, no further correspondence has been received. T he project site does not contain any known tribal
cultural resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resource s,
or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1. Mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4
have been identified to require cultural resource awareness training, archaeological monitoring, 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
No additional measures beyond CR-1 through CR-4.
Conclusion
With the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures CR-1 through CR-4, the project would have a less than
significant impact to tribal cultural resources.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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?
55 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
41, 62 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 58
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?
2, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
57, 58,
59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste?
3, 58,
59 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled wa ter
to the community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City Wate r Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all of the wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the County airport. The facility 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, landscape and other appropriate uses are
being implemented under the City’s Water Reuse Program.
a) The project would include the installation of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure 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-4, GEO-1,
N-1, and N-2 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting 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 result in the water demand of approximately 845,690 gallons per year for the interior uses and an
additional 5,324 gallons per year for landscape watering, for a total annual water use of 851,014 gallons (2.61 acre -feet).
It is expected that a portion of the water demand for landscaping will be met through the capture and redirection of
stormwater onsite, as further described in Section 10 – Hydrology and Water Quality.
The project would be serviced by the City 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 of San Luis Obispo no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. The
project is not within the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan Area and therefore recycled water is not available for irrigation
use. As of February 2020, both the Salinas Reservoir and Whale Rock Reservoir are above 82% storage capacity, and
Nacimiento is at 52% storage capacity.
c) Per the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City uses multiple water sources
to meet its water supply needs. The City has four primary water supply sources including Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water. Groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source, which was
suspended by the City from potable uses in April 2015. During water year 2019, the City’s total water demand was 4,762
acre-feet, and the total water availability for 2019 was 10,136-acre feet. Therefore, the City maintains a robust water supply
portfolio with greater than five years of water available.
At the time of submittal of development plans and application for a building permit, the applicant would be required to
pay a Water Impact fee to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s water resources. Therefore, based on the City’s
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 59
current surplus of water supplies and payment of Water Impact Fees to offset use, potential impacts associated with having
sufficient water supplies during normal, dry, and multiple dry years would be less than significant.
d) The project would be served by the City’s sewer system and would include the installation of a new sewer lateral to connect
to existing City sewer infrastructure. The p roject would result in an incremental increase in wastewater demand on the
City’s wastewater treatment plant, the Water Resource Recovery Facility (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 wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than
significant.
e) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recov ery (CalRecycle), the project would result in the
generation of approximately 932.5 pounds of solid waste per day (see Table 7 below).
Table 7. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation Rate Project Pounds Solid Waste Per
Day
Commercial Retail 0.046 lb/sf/day 11,049 sf 508.3
Office 0.006 lb/sf/day 26,442 sf 158.7
Multifamily Residential 5.31 lb/unit/day 50 units 265.5
Total 932.5
The proposed development includes a 612-square-foot room with space to accommodate three 4-cubic-yard garbage
receptacles, three 4-cubic-yard recycling receptacles, and several 32-gallon green waste receptacles that would be serviced
three times per week by San Luis Garbage company , which has provided a will-serve letter indicating their service can
accommodate the project’s solid waste needs. Project demolition and other construction solid waste materials would likely
be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. The Cold Canyon Landfill has approximately 1 4,500,000 cubic yards of
remaining capacity as of January of 2015 and is expected to reach capacity in 2040. Therefore, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
f) Background research for the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) shows tha t Californians 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. To help reduce the waste stream generated by this project, consistent with the City’s
Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and the
City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, recycling facilities have been accommodated into the project site
and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building
permit application. 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, CR-1 through CR-4, N-1, and N-2.
Conclusion
With implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, th e project’s potential impacts associated with the installation
of new water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure would be less than
significant.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 60
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 1, 60 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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, 6,
26, 61 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project 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 are access, availabl e
water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters. Based on the City 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 one mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone which indicates significant risk to
wildland fire.
The City Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, included approvin g
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of Wildland fire hazard
severity zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard
severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
a) 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. No breaks in utility service would occur as a result of project
implementation. Proposed construction-related detours resulting from periodic closures of Marsh Street would be within
0.25 mile of the closure and would include proper signage and notification a nd would be short-term and limited in nature
and duration. Mitigation measure T-1 has been identified to require the preparation and approval of a transportation
management plan to require the implementation of traffic control measures, notification proced ures, and other measures
to significantly reduce the safety risks in and around the project site during construction activities and/or emergency event s.
During operation, the project would result in an increase in the number of residents within the downtow n area and therefore
would result in an increase in the number of evacuees traveling on evacuation routes such as U.S. Highway 101 and/or
U.S. Highway 1. This increase would be considered marginal and would not result in substantial impairment of the
applicable evacuation plans and/or routes; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project is located within a developed site located within an urban area in the City of San Luis Obispo. The project
would not substantially change the existing topography of the project site. Based on the City Municipal Code, the project
is located within the Commercial Fire Zone and is therefore required to construct all interior walls, floors, ceilings, and
partitions with 5/8 “Type X” gypsum wallboard or install an automatic fire sprinkler system throughout the building to
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 61
increase the structure’s overall fire resistance. A Fire Sprinkler Pre-Design Evaluation was conducted for the project by
Alpha Fire Unlimited and provided recommended design components for the proposed automatic fire sprinkler system.
The project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention within the California Building Code and
California Fire Code. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire , and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
c) The project would include the installation of new water, emergency water, wastewater, stormwater, and natural gas
infrastructure and connections to City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within
existing developed land and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire
Code regulations; therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk from installation of new
infrastructure would be less than significant.
d) The project site is generally flat and would not be 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 to 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
Implement mitigation measure T-1.
Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or e xacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development
of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Mitigation measure T-1 has been identified to require
the preparation and approval of a transportation management pla n to require the implementation of traffic control measures,
notification procedures, and other measures to significantly reduce the safety risks in and around the project site during
construction activities and/or emergency events. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire would be less than
significant with mitigation.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Based on the location, nature, and scale of proposed development, the project does not have the potential to substantially degrade
the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife popula tion 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 h istory or
prehistory. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
# EID-0475-2019
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 62
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project includes the proposed application of a PD Overlay Zone to the property located at the project parcel (1144 Chorro
Street; APN 022-427-012), the existing Downtown Centre property (APN 002-427-016, -014, and -015), two parcels located on
the east side of Morro Street (APN 022-432-011 and -012), and one parcel on the north side of Higuera Street (APN 022 -425-
011). This PD overlay zone would allow for the potential future development on the parcels on Morro and Higuera Streets to
accommodate 51.26 additional density units that were allowed but not utilized in the other four parcels. Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 65915, the project applicant may also negotiate a density bonus in exchange for provision of housing
affordable to households with low or moderate income, as defined in the Government Code, and as stipulated in Chapter 17.90
of the City Zoning Regulations.
The proposed PD Overlay Zone would result in the redistribution of unutilized density units within the proposed PD Overlay
Zone to provide for potential future residential development on the Morro Street and Higuera Street parcels. The potential future
development of additional dwelling units on these parcels would be subject to all applicable City architectural review and de sign
standards, as well as environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act. The proposed PD Overlay Zone
would also align directly with Policy 6.8 of the City Housing Element, which states, “consistent with the City’s goal to stimulate
higher density infill where appropriate in the Downtown Core (C-D Zone), the City shall consider changes to the Zoning
Regulations that would allow for the development of smaller apartments and efficiency units.”
When project impacts are considered 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 potential future development of surrounding parcels being subject to
discretionary review, and implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures, the cumulative effects of the
proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
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 , biological resources, cultural resources,
hazards and hazardous materials, noise, transportation, tribal cultural resources, and utilities and service systems that could result
in substantial 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 containing materials, and implementation of best management controls for construction noise. With
incorporation of mitigation identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not direct ly or
indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2019 63
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. Marsh & Chorro Development at Downtown Center Entitlements Package, October 29, 2019
2. Waste and Water Usage – Marsh and Chorro, August 2019
3. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651>.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104>.
5.
California Scenic Highways, February 2017. Available at:
<https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a
>.
6. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019. Available at: <https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code>.
7. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2016 . Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/>.
8. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015 . Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=3e0adee3aabd4805bd13f0d4705a4193 >.
9. California Air Resources Board Area Designatio n Maps / State and National, December 2018. Available at:
<https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm>.
10.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, 2017. Available
at:
<https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.3649868053 637
56%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10>.
11.
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012 . Available at:
<https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pd
f>.
12. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, December 2001. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf>.
13. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=3785>.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 64
14. 1144 Chorro Street Mixed Use Parking Demand Reduction and Management Plan, July 2019
15.
Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air
Quality Handbook, November 2017. Available at: <https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf >.
16. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations,
California Air Resources Board, 2015. Available at: < https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm>.
17. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019. Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Solutions/s2.html?appid=74e2e5bf9e534eaabf95b0917da8bbc7 >.
18. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html>.
19. Architectural Evaluation for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, 20 20
20. Historic Preservation Report for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2018
21. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861>.
22. County of San Luis Obispo cultural resource maps, 2019 .
23.
City of San Luis Obispo Website Community Choice Energy; Accessed November 18, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice-
energy>.
24. Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) website, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.usgbc.org/leed>.
25. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2398>.
26. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: < https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018>.
27. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010 . Available at:
<https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/>.
28. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645>.
29. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed September 2019. Available at:
<https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html>.
30. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019. Available at: <https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx >.
31. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004 . Available at: <
https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm >.
32. Paleontological Resource Assessment for the California Flats Solar Project, Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties, California, 2013. Available at: <https://www.co.monterey.ca.us/home/showdocument?id=48222>.
33. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/>.
34. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/>.
35. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed August 21, 2019 . Available at:
<https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/>
36. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005. Available at: <https://www.sloairport.com/wp-
content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf>.
37. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014. Available at:
<http://slowatershedproject.org/watersheds/san-luis-obispo-creek/>.
38. City of San Luis Obispo Flood Preparedness Map, 2019 . Available at:
<http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0 >.
39. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019 . Available at:
<https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management>.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 65
40.
San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Lu is Obispo Webpage, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-
Management-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx>.
41. Water Sources, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Webpage, Accessed November 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/water/water-sources>.
42. Preliminary Project Drainage Report for Marsh & Chorro Mixed Use, 2019
43. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle,
2009. Available at: <https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo>.
44.
Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/dr aft_resol_
attch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf >.
45. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643>.
46.
Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway
Administration, September 2017. Available at:
<https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm >.
47.
Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. United States Department of Transportation, 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 General Plan Annual Report, 2018. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=22768>.
50. City of San Luis Obispo 2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5204>.
51. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198>.
52. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element, 20 01. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6647>.
53. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017 . Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412>
54. 1144 Chorro Mixed-Use Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, March 2019
55. Marsh and Chorro Mixed Use Project Utility Plan, 2019
56.
Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Webpage, Accessed November 2019 .
Available at: <https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment>.
57. San Luis Obispo Garbage Company 1144 Chorro Street Will-Serve Letter, 2019
58.
SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Accessed September 16th, 2019. Available at: <https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA-
0004/Detail/>.
59.
Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019. Available at:
<https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/WasteCharacterization/General/Rates>.
60. Diablo Canyon Emergency Planning Zone Map, accessed November 2019 . Available at:
<https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1203/ML120380327.pdf >.
61. Fire Sprinkler Pre-design Evaluation, April 2019.
62. 2019 Water Resources Status Report, City of San Luis Obispo Water Division, 2019. Available at:
<https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=25195>.
63. Personal Communication with the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, Fire Inspector’s Office, February 7,
2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 66
64. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November 2017.
https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
Attachments
1. Proposed Project Plans
2. Architectural Evaluation for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, Cal ifornia
3. Historic Preservation Report for 1144 Chorro Street, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 67
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.
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.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of t he 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:
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and
cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be
used in all construction and dust-control work.
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 activit ies.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as po ssible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders or soil binders are
used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 68
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads.
k. 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 shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. 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 holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. 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 .
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction activities, the applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a
geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance
with California Air Resources Board Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. 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 asbestos containing materials (ACM), the applicant must file an Asbestos
ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 If asbestos containing materials (ACM) are determined to be present onsite, proposed earthwork, demolition, and
construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding ACM,
including the ARB Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – Asbestos; NESHAP). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the
following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and,
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified ACM.
AQ-5 Prior to initiation of demolition/construction 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 structure
onsite:
a. Demolition of the on-site structure 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 structure, paint is separated from the const ruction 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 to the City Community Development Department upon
completion. The applicant shall submit proof of written notification to SLOAPCD as desc ribed in measures AQ-4 and AQ-5
to the City Community Development Department.
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 69
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Site preparation, ground-disturbing, and construction activities should be conducted outside of the migratory bird
breeding season when feasible. If such activities are required during this period, a qualified biologist shall conduct a
nesting bird survey and verify that migratory birds are not nesting in the impact zone. If nesting activity is detected,
the following measures shall be implemented:
a. The project shall be modified via the use of protective buffers, delaying construction activities, or other methods
designated by the qualified biologist to avoid direct take of identified nests, eggs, and/or young protected under
the MBTA and/or California Fish and Game Code;
b. The Environmental Monitor shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to City Planning staff and
the City’s Sustainability Officer documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game
Code, and applicable project mitigation measures.
Monitoring Program: Compliance with mitigation measures will be reviewed with plans as part of the improvement plans
and construction drawings. Compliance will be verified by the Natural Resources Manager in consu ltation with the Community
Development Director, who shall confirm the conclusion and recommendations of the preconstruction nesting bird surveys and
provide site inspections as necessary to ensure implementation.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Prior to construction activities, a qualified archaeologist shall conduct 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 h uman
burials and burial-associated artifacts.
CR-2 A qualified archaeologist monitor shall be present during all project related construction activities that result in
disturbance of native soil that may contain archaeological resources.
CR-3 In the event that historical or archaeological remains are discovered during earth disturbing activities associated with
the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the Community Development Director shall be notified.
A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if
necessary. After the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. A Chumash representative
shall monitor any mitigation excavation associated with Na tive American materials. The conditions for treatment of
discoveries shall be printed on all building and grading plans. The City shall review and approve the selected
archaeologist, if needed, to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification sta ndards, consistent with the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
CR-4 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 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.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and
approve the selected archaeologist monitor, to ensure they meet appropriate professional qualification standards, consistent
with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 70
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 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 abatemen t 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), and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to i ssuance 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 ex ceed 80
dBA for multi-family residential and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial uses, restaurants, and meeting places.
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.
• 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 compliant 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.
N-6 All noise-generating rooftop building equipment, such as air conditioners and kitchen ventilation systems, shall be
installed away from existing noise-sensitive receptors (i.e., residences) or be placed behind adequate noise barriers.
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.
Transportation
ER # EID-0475-2019
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO I IN INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020 71
TR-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the construction contractor shall meet
with the Public Works department to determine traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent
feasible, traffic congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during construction of this
project. The construction contractor will develop a construction management plan for review and approval by the
Public Works department. The plan shall include at least th e following items and requirements:
• A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to
avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure
procedures, signs, cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
• Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major
deliveries, detours, and lane closures will occur.
• Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles.
• Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular
and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety; and provision for monitoring surface stree ts used for haul routes
so that any damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and corrected by the project
applicant.
• Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site.
• Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
• A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction activity.
• Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to
the trucks can be identified and corrected.
• It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be developed in the context of the
City Municipal Code Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations and the City of San Luis Obispo 2013
Construction & Fire Codes, which address other issues such as hours of construction onsite, limitations on
noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items.
Monitoring Program: Prior to building permit issuance the Construction Management Plan shall be submitted to the City
Community Development Department and Public Works Department for review.