HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - SBDV-2029-2018 (163 Serrano Heights)Meeting Date: April 14, 2021
Item Number: 2
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the proposed subdivision of an existing 0.98-acre parcel into three parcels (Parcel
1 – 9,800 square feet, Parcel 2 – 18,200 square feet, Parcel 3 – 14,600 square feet) (SLO 18-0151), with
an exception from the Subdivision Regulations from the minimum street frontage requirement for 0 feet
where 20 feet is normally required, project includes a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental
Impact (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS: 163 Serrano Heights BY: Kyle Bell, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7524
E-mail: kbell@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020 FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) granting final approval of the project, based on findings, and
subject to conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant John Rourke
Zoning R-1, Low Density Residential
General Plan Low Density Residential, and Open
Space
Site Area ~0.98 acres
Environmental
Status
An Initial Study of environmental
impact has been prepared with a
recommendation for a Mitigated
Negative Declaration (IS/MND)
SUMMARY
The applicant has applied for a Tentative Parcel Map (SLO 18-0151) to create three parcels from one
existing parcel (APN 052-061-044) (Attachment 2). The existing property contains an accessory barn
and a storage shed, which are planned for demolition. The project site is located along an existing 60-
foot-wide access road known as Serrano Heights Drive, which connects to Serrano Drive on the northern
side of Cerro San Luis. The property is located within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone, and no
changes to the zoning or land use designation are proposed. The proposed minor subdivision includes
requested exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations for the lot frontage requirements for Parcel 1, 2, &
3, which do not provide any direct access to the street due to the 60-foot easement that is Serrano Heights
Drive; all three parcels would share access through a 20-foot access road that connects to Serrano Heights
Drive.
The subject property was previously approved for a lot line adjustment (SBDV-0621-2019) on December
18, 2019, that resulted in the configuration of the current parcels (Attachment 3, LLA Findings and
Conditions).
Item 2
Packet Page 5
SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
163 Serrano Heights Drive
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
In most cases, a minor subdivision is reviewed by the Subdivision Hearing Officer. However, when
exceptions are requested, the City’s Subdivision Regulations require the Planning Commission to act on
the project (§16.04, Table 1). The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of
consistency with the General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and Subdivision Regulations, and take final
action on the subdivision application and environmental document.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size ~0.98 acres
Present Use & Development Accessory Structure – Barn and Shed
Topography Gentle to moderate slopes
Parcel 1 – 14.1% Average Cross Slope
Parcel 2 – 19.6% Average Cross Slope
Parcel 3 – 18% Average Cross Slope
Access Serrano Heights Drive
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-1 (Single-Family Residences)
South: R-1 (Single-Family Residences)
East: R-1 (Single-Family Residences)
West: C/OS-10 (Open space & County Land: Cerro San Luis)
Project Description
The project includes division of a 0.98-acre low-density residential parcel into three parcels 0.202
acres/9,800 sq. ft. (Parcel 1), 0.418 acres/18,200 sq. ft. (Parcel 2), and 0.335 acres/14,600 sq. ft. (Parcel
3) in size (Attachment 2, Project Plans). Parcel 3 currently contains an existing accessory barn and shed
that is planned for demolition. Although no development is proposed as part of the project, it is assumed
that all three parcels would ultimately be developed into single-family residences with accessory
dwelling units, similar to other adjacent properties.
An exception is requested for all three parcels from the Subdivision Regulations to create three lots that
do not provide direct frontage access, where 20 feet of frontage is required for new parcels in the R-1
zone, as detailed in the table below. However, each parcel will provide access from a shared drive aisle.
Project Statistics
R-1 zone Min. Lot Area
(sq. ft.)
Min. Width
(feet)
Min. Depth
(feet)
Min. Street
Frontage (feet)
Density Based
on Slope
Requirement 6,000 50 90 20 1
Parcel 1 ~9,800 100 100 0 1.41
Parcel 2 ~18,200 90 200 0 1.67
Parcel 3 ~14,600 103 140 0 1.34
3.0 PROJECT EVALUATION
The General Plan Conservation Open Space Element Policy 9.1.1 describes that development should
avoid visually prominent locations such as ridgelines, and slopes exceeding 20 percent. The resulting
parcels provide average cross slopes of less than 20 percent in compliance with the intent of Policy 9.1.1.
Item 2
Packet Page 6
SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
163 Serrano Heights Drive
Page 3
The City’s Subdivision Regulations Section 16.18.130 (Hillside Subdivisions) provides guidance for
subdivision on properties with steep slopes, where each lot is required to be designed with enough area
to provide for at least one density unit, in accordance with density thresholds per Zoning Regulations
Section 17.70.040. Each parcel has been appropriately sized to comply with the minimum density
allowances based on parcel size for sloping lots that exceed an average cross slope of 15 percent (Parcel
1: 14.1%, Parcel 2: 19.6%, Parcel 3: 18%). Furthermore, the City’s Zoning Regulations Section
17.70.090 and Community Design Guidelines Chapter 7.2 provide development provisions for hillside
properties that exceed a 16% average cross slope. Any future development of Parcel 2 and 3 will be
required to comply with all applicable development standards and guidelines for hillside development.
Condition No. 3 has been incorporated into the draft resolution, which designates each of the three
Parcels as “sensitive sites” and requires architectural review for any future development of the sites.
The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular case, to
conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision Regulations Section
16.18.030 Table 3 for lot frontage requirements because the design will result in a more efficient use of
the land. An exception is necessary for each parcel from the 20-foot lot frontage requirement to provide
shared access through a new drive aisle, where strict compliance with the Subdivision Regulations would
inhibit the ability to subdivide the property due to the 60-foot easement that is Serrano Height Drive,
which cannot be considered as frontage because it is not part of the public right of way.
The project site has enough area to divide the property into three parcels in compliance with the strict
application of the Subdivision Regulations; however, strict compliance with the lot frontage
requirements would result in illogical lot patterns that places unnecessary and undesirable constraints on
future development of the site. The project site is within an already developed residential subdivision
representing an infill development opportunity.
The proposed exceptions are minor in nature where access from Serrano Heights Drive can easily be
accomplished through a shared private drive aisle. The resulting parcels will be consistent with the size,
density, and development pattern of the neighborhood and can accommodate the existing and proposed
site improvements without exceptions to the City’s property development standards.
Staff has evaluated the proposed parcel map for conformity with the intent of the required findings for
exceptions for lot frontage dimensions as identified in the City’s Subdivision Regulations (16.23.020.A).
No development is proposed at this time, and the resultant parcels and proposed easements would leave
the three parcels with adequate on-site access for the anticipated future development of single-family
residences. Condition No. 2 has been incorporated into the draft resolution to require the removal of the
existing barn and shed from Parcel 3, or acknowledgement as accessory structures to the adjacent single-
family residence through a lot-tie agreement. As these structures shall be accessory to a primary
residence and are not permitted as a primary use of a property within the R-1 zone.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study (IS) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) is recommended for adoption. Mitigation measures in the areas of Air Quality,
Biological Resources, and Cultural Resources, Noise, Utilities and Service Systems, Tribal Cultural
Resources, and Wildfire are recommended to reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels.
Item 2
Packet Page 7
SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
163 Serrano Heights Drive
Page 4
The Draft IS/MND was released for the required 30-day public review period on March 4, 2021 and the
public review period concluded on April 5, 2021, and no comments were received during the public
review comment period. The IS/MND shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the
project (Attachment 4, Mitigated Negative Declaration – Initial Study).
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY CONCURRENCE
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Utilities, Fire, Building, Office of Sustainability, Natural Resources and the City Arborist.
In addition to the conditions highlighted in this report, the Fire Department has included Condition 24
that requires preparation of a vegetation/fuel management plan due to the proximity of the project site
to the adjacent unmanaged open space. Staff has not identified any other unusual site conditions or
circumstances that would require special conditions. Comments have been incorporated into draft
resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item to a subsequent hearing date (either certain, or uncertain). An action to
continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required.
6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Project Plans
3. LLA Findings and Conditions
4. Mitigated Negative Declaration – Initial Study
Item 2
Packet Page 8
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-2021
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
APPROVING A TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP TO CREATE THREE
PARCELS FROM ONE EXISTING LOT (SLO 18-0151), THE PROJECT
INCLUDES AN EXCEPTION FROM THE LOT FRONTAGE
REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS FOR EACH
OF THE THREE PARCELS WHICH DO NOT PROVIDE ANY DIRECT
ACCESS TO THE STREET BUT SHARE ACCESS THROUGH A
PRIVATE DRIVE, INCLUDING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, AS REPRESENTED
IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED APRIL 14, 2021
(163 SERRANO HEIGHTS, SBDV-2029-2018 AND EID-0100-2020)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on April 14, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-2029-
2018 and EID-0100-2020, John Rourke, applicant; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed tentative parcel map; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby grants final approval to the
project (SBDV-2029-2018; EID 0100-2020), based on the following findings:
1. The design of the tentative parcel map is consistent with the General Plan because the
proposed subdivision is consistent with the development pattern established in the
neighborhood and the resulting parcels allow for residences with sufficient usable outdoor
space.
2. The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the R-1
zone, since the resulting parcels require minimal exceptions to the Subdivision Regulations
and resulting development will be subject to consistency with the development standards
of the Zoning Regulations.
Item 2
Packet Page 9
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 2
3. The design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use
of property within) the proposed subdivision since all parcels will have adequate access
from Serrano Heights through a shared drive aisle.
4. The property to be divided is of such size that it is impractical/undesirable, in this particular
case, to conform to the strict application of the standards codified in the Subdivision
Regulations because the design will result in a more efficient use of the land. An exception
is requested to use a shared access aisle for the new parcels rather than the creation of new
driveways or illogical lot pattern configurations intended to simply conform to the lot
frontage requirements.
5. The cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole
reason for granting the modification, because other findings are made to support approval
of the exceptions related to existing physical conditions of the project site, including the
physical constraint of providing frontage due to the existing private easement along
Serrano Heights Drive.
6. The modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, or be
injurious to other properties in the vicinity since the minor exception will provide for a
shared driveway access rather than several individual driveways, and there are numerous
examples of similar subdivisions and development in the immediate vicinity.
7. Granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of the Subdivision
Regulations and is consistent with the General Plan because the exceptions are consistent
with other properties in the vicinity and the project does not grant special privileges or
modify allowable land uses within the existing R-1 zoning district.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. Based upon all evidence, the Planning Commission
finds that the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) adequately evaluates and
identifies all of the potential environmental impacts of the proposed project and hereby adopts the
following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of the project:
1. The 163 Serrano Heights Parcel Division IS-MND was prepared in accordance with CEQA
and the State CEQA Guidelines, adequately addressing potential environmental impacts
associated with the proposed project; and
2. All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced IS-MND,
subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the
mitigation monitoring program, which would mitigate all identified potentially significant
impacts to less than significant:
AIR QUALITY
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. During all construction activities and use of diesel
vehicles, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
Item 2
Packet Page 10
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 3
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
13 CCR 2485. 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 minutes
at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of
the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation
can be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-
idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. 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:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit
of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust barriers as needed.
Item 2
Packet Page 11
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 4
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month
after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass
seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between
top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code
(CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on
the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that
may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113
and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track out,
designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to
use them. Install and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention
device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at
preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and
a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be
effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out
prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where
feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and
building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose
responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance
and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to
minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s
limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their
duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot).
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
Item 2
Packet Page 12
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 5
SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork,
or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant
shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property,
including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD
requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the
City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic
evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the
applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be
present on-site, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be
conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA,
including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission
Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations
[CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
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 NOA.
➢ Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated onto Final Map and project
grading / 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 SLOAPCD, as necessary.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
BIO-1 Nesting Birds and Raptors. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction
activities including any tree trimming and vegetation removal shall be conducted
outside of the migratory bird nesting season (February 15 through October 31). If such
activities cannot be avoided during this period, a County-approved qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no sooner than 1–4 weeks prior to
tree removal activities and shall verify whether migratory birds are nesting in the site.
If nesting activity is detected, the following measures shall be implemented:
1. 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.
Item 2
Packet Page 13
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 6
2. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nests within the vicinity of project-
related disturbances and determine if construction activities are causing
behavioral changes or affecting nesting activities. Monitoring results shall then
be utilized to develop an appropriate buffer around the next site to minimize
disturbance. Construction activities within the buffer zone shall be prohibited
until the young have fledged the nest and achieved independence.
3. The qualified biologist shall document all active nests and submit a letter report
to the County documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish
and Game Code, and applicable project mitigation measures within 14 days of
survey completion.
BIO-2 Roosting Bats. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction activities
including any tree trimming and/or vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of
the typical bat maternity roosting and pupping season (February 1 to August 31), if
feasible. If site disturbance activities are to occur within this season, the applicant shall
retain a County-qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey within 14 days
prior to commencement of proposed site disturbance activities. If any roosting bats are
found during preconstruction surveys, no work activities shall occur within 100 feet of
active roosts until bats have left the roosts. The County-qualified biologist shall prepare
a report after each survey and a copy of the report shall be provided to the County
within 14 days of completion of each survey. If no bat roosting activities are detected
within the proposed work area, site disturbance and noise-producing construction
activities may proceed, and no further mitigation is required.
➢ Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on Final Map and all
grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural
Resources Manager shall verify compliance.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical
or archaeological remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated
with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the City 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. These
requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all
improvement/construction plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during
ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order
shall be issued and the City 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 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native
American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
Item 2
Packet Page 14
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 7
(NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map
and all improvement/construction plans.
➢ Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and
construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance,
including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring Plan, and review and approval of
cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required mitigation
measures.
NOISE
N-1 Construction Noise BMPs. For the entire duration of the construction phase of the
project, the following 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 (e.g., mufflers, lagging, 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 (such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration
insulators) installed, 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.).
Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction
noise BMPs on project plans, which shall be reviewed and approved by the City
Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits.
The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry
sites prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout the
construction phase of the project. All construction workers shall be briefed at a
preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where
BMP measures are to be implemented.
➢ Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and project
grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections.
TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
TR-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan
Tribe shall be notified prior to any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site
Item 2
Packet Page 15
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 8
monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork
activities, all ground disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease
and the City shall be notified immediately consistent with the requirements of
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2.
➢ Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all
grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify
compliance through initial and regular inspections.
WILDFIRE
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the
applicant shall provide a vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered
professional forester or certified arborist for each lot. The plan shall identify fuel load
reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase
defensible space around residential structures and driveways/access roads. The plan
shall also identify appropriate standards for installation of new landscaping, such as
requirements for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
➢ Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all
grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify
compliance through initial and regular inspections.
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission does hereby approve
tentative parcel map and associated environmental review applications SBDV-2029-2018 and
EID-0100-2020, allowing a minor subdivision of one lot into three parcels at 163 Serrano Heights
Drive subject to the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Prior to parcel map recordation, all affected parties must record an updated agreement
governing the shared driveway access, to the satisfactory of the Community Development
Director.
2. Prior to parcel map recordation, the existing barn and shed located on Parcel 3 shall be
removed, or the owner of the adjacent single-family residence at 163 Serrano Heights shall
enter into a lot-tie agreement with Parcel 3 to ensure that the barn and shed remain as
accessory to a primary residence, subject to the satisfaction of the Community
Development Director.
3. Plans submitted for parcel map recordation shall label all three Parcels as “sensitive sites”.
This status ensures that future site development will respect existing site constraints,
privacy of occupants and neighbors of the project and be compatible with the scale and
character of the surrounding neighborhood. Prior to submittal of a building permit
Item 2
Packet Page 16
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 9
application, development of the Parcels 1, 2, and 3 shall require architectural review, in
accordance with Municipal Code Section 2.48.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department
4. The subdivision shall be recorded with a parcel map. The map preparation and
monumentation shall be in accordance with the city’s Subdivision Regulations,
Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The parcel map shall use U.S.
Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards.
5. The map exhibits and legal descriptions shall be prepared by a California Licensed Land
Surveyor or Civil Engineer authorized to practice land surveying.
6. Park In-Lieu fees shall be paid for the proposed new dwelling units/lots prior to map
recordation.
7. The parcel map and improvements plans shall show and note compliance with the Lot Line
Adjustment Map and restrictive covenants related to SLO AL 19-0090 per recorded
documents #2020011616 and #2020011617, respectively.
8. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance
of the same shall be shown on the parcel map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to
map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as
blanket easements.
9. An easement agreement shall be provided for any shared facilities needing definition on
the maintenance responsibilities and use of the easement area(s).
10. A separate subdivision improvement or miscellaneous public improvement plan is not
required. The building plan submittal may be used to show some or all of the required
private on-site subdivision improvements. Improvements located within the public right-
of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based
on the fee schedule in effect at the time of permit issuance, if applicable. A separate
subdivision improvement plan review fee and subdivision map check fee will be required
for the Public Works Department review and inspection of the public
subdivision/development improvements and map in accordance with the most current fee
resolution.
11. The site development plan submittal shall show any parking, access, utility, site, and/or
drainage improvements required to support the proposed subdivision. The building plan
submittal shall show all existing public and/or private utilities and improvements shall be
approved to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works
Director prior to recordation of the parcel map. Unless otherwise waived or deferred, the
Item 2
Packet Page 17
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 10
site/utility plan shall include drainage improvements, water, sewer, storm drains, gas,
electricity, telephone, cable TV, and any related utility company meters for each parcel if
applicable. Any utility relocations, demolitions, and/or other on-site work shall be
completed with proper permits and receive final inspection approvals prior to recordation
of the parcel map.
12. The map and improvement plans shall clarify how fire department access will be provided
to all parcels/development limits. The plan shall show the location of existing or proposed
private or public fire hydrants for reference. The hydrant type, location, spacings, fire
department access, and provisions for emergency vehicle access and turn-around shall be
in accordance with adopted City codes and standards and shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the Fire Department and Public Works Department.
13. Gas service may not be required to each parcel if the approved building plans do not
propose mixed fuels and “all electric” residences are proposed. If proposed, a “Notice of
Requirements” may be required for concurrent recordation with the map to identify the
lack of gas service to any parcel(s).
14. The proposed water service lateral(s), meter sizing, and private service laterals shall be
sized in accordance with the approved fire sprinkler plans or a preliminary design and
analysis by the engineer of record.
15. The map may be recorded prior to construction of the required public and/or private
subdivision improvements. If so, the map conditions or code requirements may be satisfied
by the preparation and approval of a subdivision improvement plan. A subdivision
agreement and guarantee will be required for this process.
16. The development of the individual parcels and common driveway may be considered as
part of a common plan. As such, a preliminary drainage report and stormwater control plan
may be required in conjunction with the subdivision improvement plans.
17. An Operation and Maintenance Manual and Private Stormwater Conveyance Agreement
shall be provided in conjunction with the subdivision improvements/development project,
as necessary. The Stormwater Agreement shall be recorded separately or concurrent with
the map recordation.
18. The parcel map shall include reference to the project soils report in accordance with the
subdivision regulations. The report may be included on the cover sheet of the map or could
be included on an “additional map sheet”. The map and subdivision improvement
submittals and any subsequent building/grading permit submittals shall include the report
and/or an update letter.
19. The parcel configurations and development strategies may have changed from the time of
preparation of the preliminary soils report. The report shall be updated to clarify the change
to the proposed homesites. Otherwise, the soils engineer could provide a separate letter
Item 2
Packet Page 18
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 11
amending the report to clarify that the recommendations are applicable to the building sites
where no exploratory trenching had been completed.
20. Tree protection measures shall be implemented to the satisfaction of the City Arborist. The
City Arborist shall review and approve the proposed tree protection measures prior to
commencing with any demolition, grading, or construction. The City Arborist shall
approve any safety pruning, the cutting of substantial roots, or grading within the dripline
of trees. A city-approved arborist shall complete safety pruning. Any required tree
protection measures shall be shown or noted on the subdivision improvement plans and
any subsequent building plans.
Utilities Department
21. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the engineering design standards in
effect during the time a building permit is obtained and shall have reasonable alignments
and clearances needed for maintenance.
22. Trash collection services shall comply with the access requirements and conditions of the
San Luis Garbage Company.
23. A separate water meter shall be provided for each new parcel in an area accessible by the
city, subject to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director.
Fire Department
24. Parcel 1 and Parcel 2 are adjacent to an unmanaged open space. Plans submitted for Parcel
Map recordation shall include a vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered
professional forester or certified arborist for all lots created, to the satisfaction of the City’s
Fire Marshal.
Indemnification
25. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate
in the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
Item 2
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. PC-XXXX-21
163 Serrano Heights, SBDV-2029-2018 & EID-0100-2020
Page 12
ABSENT:
RECUSED:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 14th day of April 2021.
____________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 2
Packet Page 20
N0°00'53"E 100.87'S3°02'24"E 101.03'N89°56'08"W 200.35'S89°56'08"E 121.00'S13°41'28"
E
1
4
4
.
6
1'
S0°01'06"E 85.42'S89°56'08"E 179.22'S0°01'06"E 140.46'EXISTING PARCEL 1LLA-SLOAL-19-0050RECORDED: ________S89°56'08"E 86.82'N82°31'28"W 119.88'S89°56'20"E 94.62'N0°00'53"E 125.00'N89°56'08"W 100.00'20' ACCESSDRIVEWAY(N) 20' PRIVATE DRAINAGEEASEMENT12' DRIVEWAY(E) 60.00' ACCESS EASEMENTPER 605-OR-244(E) CENTERLINE OF POWERPOLE EASEMENT, EXCEPTION #2(E) 10' WIDE UTILITY EASEMENTEXCEPTION #7(E) 5.00' WIDE SEWER EASEMENTEXCEPTION #5 & #6(E) 10.00' WIDE ACCESS EASEMENTEXCEPTION #4FIRETRUCK TURNAROUND(N) 20' WIDE ACCESS ROAD(N) 10'x10' PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT(N) 5'x10' PUBLIC UTILITYEASEMENT(N) 30' WIDE ROADPROJECT INFORMATION:163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DRSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405APN#: 052-061-034EXISTING LOT SIZE: 1.56 ACRESPROPOSED LOTS: SEE PLANZONING: R-1PROJECT TEAM:OWNERS INFORMATIONJOHN ROURKE163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93405805.440.4973PROJECT CIVIL ENGINEER & AGENTABOVE GRADE ENGINEERING245 HIGUERA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.540.1515CITY BENCH MARK:THE BENCH MARK FOR THIS PROJECT IS A FOUND CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO BENCH MARK NUMBER 166A. BEING A LEAD AND TACK INTOP OF CURB AT THE BCR OF THE NORTHEASTERLY CURB OFPALOMAR AND SERRANOELEVATION = 274.26' NAVD 88PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:A PORTION OF THE SOUTHEAST 1 / 4 OF THENORTHWEST 1 / 4 OF SECTION 27 OF TOWNSHIP 30SOUTH, RANGE 12 EAST, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO, COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA.PREPARED BY:SCOTT STOKES, PRESIDENT, PE 58256ABOVE GRADE ENGINEERING245 HIGUERA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.10 202020400TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:PROPERTY LINES & EASEMENTSSURVEY INFORMATION:TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY PERFORMED MARCH, 2018BY MBS LAND SURVEYSBASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS FOR THIS SURVEY ISA GEODETIC NORTH BASED ON A GPSOBESERVATION FROM A 90d SET IN A DIRTFIELD DISTANT S 22° 12' 12" E 138.25 FEETFROM THE FOUND 1" IRON PIPE AT THESOUTHEAST CORNER OF D3.SUPPLEMENTAL SURVEY PERFORMED DECEMBER, 2018BY ABOVE GRADE ENGINEERING, INCBOUNDARY: THE EXTERIOR BOUNDARY SHOWN IS PERRECORD OF SURVEY 17-043.VICINITY MAP: SAN LUIS OBISPOSHEET INDEX:TPM-1 PROPERTY LINES & EASEMENTSTPM-2 SITE FEATURESTPM-3 FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSTPM-4 AVERAGE SLOPE CALCULATIONSDATE:163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DR.SLO18-0151FEBRUARY 11, 2019SHEET NUMBER:TPM-1LEGEND:(N) PRIVATE ACCESS, PRIVATE UTILITY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT(N) ROADWAYSPRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT:EXCEPTIONS LISTED ARE PER THE TITLE REPORTPROVIDED BY FIRST AMERICAN TITLE COMPANY, ORDERNUMBER 4001-5826767, DATED NOVEMBER 19, 2018.APPROXIMATE EARTHWORK INFORMATION:PARCEL 1: 30 CY CUT / 20 CY FILLPARCEL 2: 20 CY CUT / 30 CY FILLPARCEL 3: 25 CY CUT / 25 CY FILLNOTE: THE EARTHWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE FOR BONDING AND ESTIMATING PURPOSESONLY AND ARE CALCULATED FROM APPROXIMATE SUBGRADE TO EXISTING SURFACE.THE QUANTITIES DO NOT TAKE CERTAIN FACTORS INTO ACCOUNT, INCLUDING, BUTNOT LIMITED TO SUBGRADE, AREA OF OVEREXCAVATION AND RECOMPACTION,SHRINKAGE AND EXPANSION OF THE SOIL. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FORCALCULATING EARTHWORK QUANTITIES FOR BIDDING AND CONSTRUCTION PURPOSES.Item 2Packet Page 21
EXISTING PARCEL 1LLA-SLOAL-19-0050RECORDED: ________11111111122222555555557889910111111111082NOTES:1 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE2 PROPOSED PARCEL PROPERTY LINE3 EXISTING RETAINING WALL TO REMAIN4 EXISTING RESIDENCE TO REMAIN5 EXISTING FENCE LINE6 EXISTING ASPHALT PAVED ROAD7 EXISTING DRAINAGE INLET TO REMAIN8 EXISTING STORM DRAIN LINE TO REMAIN9 EXISTING ELECTRICAL POLE TO REMAIN10 EXISTING SHED/BARN TO REMAIN11 EXISTING OVERHEAD LINES#( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.10 202020400TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:SITE FEATURESDATE:163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DR.SLO18-0151FEBRUARY 11, 2019SHEET NUMBER:TPM-2Item 2Packet Page 22
EXISTING PARCEL 1LLA-SLOAL-19-0050RECORDED: ________WWWWWWWWWWSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS216% MAX16% MAX33379101010888899929R30.00'R40.00'R40.00'R40.00'3.5%111111111112810SLOPE 111071010121314215152161617NOTES:1 EDGE OF FUTURE PAVED ROAD2 TREE TO BE IMPACTED/REMOVED3 EXISTING SEWER LINE TO BE PROTECTED-IN-PLACE4 NOT USED.5 NOT USED.6 NOT USED.7 INSTALL WATER METER8 INSTALL SEWER SERVICE AND CLEANOUTS9 INSTALL GAS LINE SERVICE10 INSTALL WATER SERVICE LINE11 EDGE OF FUTURE PAVED ROAD WITH AN AC DIKE12 INSTALL CATCH BASIN WITH AC DIKE PERIMETER13 INSTALL STORM DRAIN LINE14 INSTALL UNDERGROUND CHAMBER SYSTEM15INSTALL FIRE HYDRANT THAT CAN PROVIDE 1000 GPM AT 20 PSI RESIDUALPRESSURE16EDGE OF 300 FOOT FIRE HYDRANT COVERAGE17 EXISTING 30'-0" WIDE PAVED ROAD TO BE MAINTAINED#( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.10 202020400TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP:FUTURE IMPROVEMENTSDATE:163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DR.SLO18-0151FEBRUARY 11, 2019SHEET NUMBER:TPM-312" SHOULDER20' WIDE ACCESS ROAD12" SHOULDER2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAXASPHALT DRIVEWAY SECTION TO BEPER SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONSBASED ON T.I. OF 4.5 AND IN THE FIELDR-VALUESTYPICAL PRIVATE ROAD CROSS-SECTIONSCLE: NONEAC DIKE3.0%NOTE:xPOST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR DRAINAGE SHALL BE ADDRESSEDWITH EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT DURING THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE. THEPROPOSED DRIVEWAY WILL BE TREATED VIA THE PROPOSED CHAMBER SYSTEM.xWIRE SERVICES TO BE INSTALLED WITHIN JOINT TRENCH WITH THE GAS SERVICELINES UNDERGROUND. FURTHER DETAILS SHALL BE PROVIDED DURING THECONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PHASE.10' LANE12" SHOULDER2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAX2:1 MAXASPHALT ROADWAY SECTION TO BEPER SOILS REPORT RECOMMENDATIONSBASED ON T.I. OF 5.5 AND IN THE FIELDR-VALUESTYPICAL SERRANO HEIGHTS CROSS-SECTIONSCLE: NONE1.5%12" SHOULDER10' LANE1.5%STORMWATER FOR ACCESS ROAD:xIMPERVIOUS AREA: 5,560 SQFTx85TH PERCENTILE STORM DEPTH: 1.2 INCHxRUNOFF COEFFICIENT OF PAVEMENT: 0.90xREQUIRED TREATMENT VOLUME: 5560 x 1.2 x 0.9 x (1 / 12) = 500 CUBIC FEETxPROPOSED CHAMBER SYSTEM: (2) MC-4500 CHAMBERS, (2) END CAPS ANDSURROUNDING ROCK LAYER FOR A TOTAL VOLUME OF 613 CUBIC FEET.Item 2Packet Page 23
ABLAB =155.7' EAB =28' SAB =18.0%WITH AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF 18.0% IN A R-1ZONE, THEN DENSITY = ACREAGE x 4DU/ACRE0.335 ACRES x (4DU/ACRE) = 1.34 DWELLING UNITSWITH AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF 19.6% IN A R-1ZONE, THEN DENSITY = ACREAGE x 4DU/ACRE0.418 ACRES x (4DU/ACRE) = 1.67 DWELLING UNITSSAVG = [(0.065 x 35.2) + (0.195 x 22.1) + (0.045 x 26.8) + (0.113 x 3.5)] / 0.418SAVG = [(2.288) + (4.309) + (1.206) + (0.396)] / 0.418SAVG = [8.199] / 0.418SAVG = 19.6%WITH AN AVERAGE SLOPE OF 14.1% IN A R-1ZONE, THEN DENSITY = ACREAGE x 7DU/ACRE0.202 ACRES x (7DU/ACRE) = 1.41 DWELLING UNITSSAVG = [(0.021 x 5.5) + (0.181 x 15.1)] / 0.202SAVG = [(0.116) + (2.733)] / 0.202SAVG = [2.849] / 0.202SAVG = 14.1%AREA "A3" WILL BE EXCLUDED SINCE IT IS A STREET RIGHT-OF-WAY( IN FEET )1 INCH = FT.15303030600TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP: AVERAGESLOPE CALCULATIONSDATE:163 SERRANO HEIGHTS DR.SLO18-0151FEBRUARY 11, 2019SHEET NUMBER:TPM-4Item 2Packet Page 24
Item 2
Packet Page 25
Item 2
Packet Page 26
Item 2
Packet Page 27
Item 2Packet Page 28
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0100-2020
1. Project Title:
163 Serrano Heights Drive Tentative Parcel Map
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:
163 Serrano Heights Drive (APN 052-061-043 and 052-061-044), San Luis Obispo, CA (project site)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
John Rourke
163 Serrano Heights Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
6. General Plan Designations:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1 (Low Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The project is a request for a Tentative Parcel Map (SLO18-0151) for the subdivision of one existing parcel
(Assessor’s Parcel Number [APN] 052-061-044) totaling 0.978 acre into three individual parcels meant to facilitate
residential development on land in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone. The new parcels would range in size
from 0.225 acre to 0.418 acre, and would be located at 163 Serrano Heights Drive, at the western edge of the city
limits (Table 1). Access improvements would include a proposed 20-foot-wide access road across Proposed Parcel
1 and Proposed Parcel 2, a 12-foot-wide driveway across a portion of Proposed Parcel 2 for access to Proposed
Parcel 3, and improvements to Serrano Heights Drive located in an existing 60-foot-wide access easement. An
asphalt-concrete (AC) dike would be installed along the north side of the proposed access road beginning at
Proposed Parcel 2 and terminating at a new catch basin on Proposed Parcel 1. Water, gas, and sewer lines would
be installed under the proposed access road to serve the new parcels, and new water meters would be installed on
an existing adjacent parcel (Existing Parcel 1) and Proposed Parcel 1. Two new fire hydrants would be installed as
part of the improvements, one in the 60-foot-wide access easement near the southeastern property corner of Existing
Parcel 1 (APN 052-061-043) and one along the eastern property line of Proposed Parcel 2 (refer to Attachment 2).
Item 2
Packet Page 29
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Parcel Characteristics
Parcel Size* Slope Improvements/Easements
Proposed Parcel 1 0.225 acres
(9,801 sf)
14.1% • 10-foot-wide public utility easement
along the eastern property boundary
• 20-foot-wide wide access road along the
southern property boundary with gas,
sewer, and water lines below and an AC
dike along the north side only to a catch
basin at the property line
• Installation of a 613-cubic-foot
underground stormwater chamber
system and catch basin connected with
an underground storm drain line
• Installation of a new water meter to
serve Proposed Parcel 1
• Installation of a new fire hydrant that
can provide 1,000 gallons per minute
(GPM) at 20 pounds per square inch
(PSI) residual pressure
• Removal of one 18-inch-diameter coast
live oak tree.
Proposed Parcel 2 0.418 acres
(18,208 sf)
19.6% • 20-foot-wide access road along a
portion of the southern property
boundary with gas, sewer, and water
lines below and an AC dike along the
north side only to Proposed Parcel 1
• Fire truck turnaround
• 12-foot-wide driveway for access to
Proposed Parcel 3 along a portion of the
southern property boundary
• 20-foot-wide private drainage easement
• Existing power pole easement
• Existing storm drain and drainage inlet
to remain
Proposed Parcel 3 0.335 acres
(14,592 sf)
18% • 12-foot-wide driveway accessed from
Proposed Parcel 2
• Existing 10-foot-wide utility easement
• Removal of one 40-inch-diameter
eucalyptus tree
• Existing 320-square-foot storage barn
and 70-square-foot storage shed
Existing Parcel 1 0.582 acres
(25,352 sf)
• Existing 10-foot-wide access easement
• Existing 5-foot-wide sewer easement
• Existing 2,986-square-foot single-
family residence
Item 2
Packet Page 30
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
• Installation of two new water meters to
serve Proposed Parcel 2 and Proposed
Parcel 3
• Removal of one 32-inch-diameter oak
tree
Offsite • Installation of a new fire hydrant that
can provide 1,000 GPM at 20-PSI
residual pressure
• Water and gas line extensions to
property boundaries
• Improvements to Serrano Heights Drive
for 20-foot-wide paved road
* sf = square feet
The project site is generally surrounded by one- and two-story residences with public open space within
unincorporated San Luis Obispo county to the west. The Cerro San Luis Serrano Heights Trailhead is located
approximately 250 feet to the south.
An unnamed intermittent creek (i.e., water is flowing for 3 to 9 months during a typical year or water is flowing
less than 3 months during a typical year and the stream supports riparian vegetation) flows approximately 120 feet
west of the western property line northeast to Old Garden Creek. The City of San Luis Obispo (City) interactive
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Parcel Viewer has identified the unnamed intermittent creek as having an
open channel with good riparian corridor.
To accommodate the on-site improvements, three trees would be removed. Access improvements would result in
150 cubic yards of earthwork and 5,560 square feet of site disturbance and impervious surface area.
No residential development on the new parcels is proposed at this time, but it is anticipated that each new parcel
could accommodate a single-family residence, an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and a junior ADU (JADU), for
a total of nine new potential units. Construction of future residences, ADUs, and JADUs would result in additional
tree removal, earthwork, and impervious surface area, the specifics of which are not known at this time.
9. Project Entitlements:
Development Review
Tree Removal Permit
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below:
• North: one- and two-story single-family residences
• East: one- and two-story single-family residences
• South: one- and two-story single-family residences, Cerro San Luis and public open space beyond
• West: Cerro San Luis and public open space, one- and two-story single-family residences beyond
11. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area
requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21080.3.1? If so, is there a plan for
consultation that includes, for example, the determination of significance of impacts to tribal cultural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations including, but
not limited to, Assembly Bill 52. A representative from the Salinan tribe requested to be notified in the event of
Item 2
Packet Page 31
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
unanticipated discoveries, and this measure has been included as a mitigation requirement (refer to Section 18.
Tribal Cultural Resources and Section 5. Cultural Resources).
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
N/A
Item 2
Packet Page 32
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☐ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☐ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☐ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☒ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☐ The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or
habitat (see attached determination).
☒ The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and 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 Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 2
Packet Page 33
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared. ☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a
significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project
proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. ☒
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required. ☐
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless
mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier
document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it
must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed
☐
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially
significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant
to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing
further is required.
☐
February 22, 2021
Signature Date
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
Item 2
Packet Page 34
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such
effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent
to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Item 2
Packet Page 35
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 4, 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, 4, 7,
41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 7 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan 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 creation 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 preserving natural and agricultural
landscapes. The COSE and City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element assign scenic value ratings of “moderate”
and “high” to several roadways in the city, based on the availability of views of scenic resources from these public viewpoints.
According to the Circulation Element, the segment of U.S. Route 101 (US 101) through the city of San Luis Obispo is identified
as having moderate and high scenic value. The COSE also identifies Foothill Boulevard as having moderate scenic value;
however, neither Broad Street in the vicinity of the project nor Serrano Drive have any scenic designation. The COSE does not
identify any “cones of view” or other important scenic vistas in the project site vicinity.
The project is located on land that is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) near the western city limit. The surrounding land uses
include one- and two-story residences to the north, east, and south, and Cerro San Luis and the public open space area to the
west. The Cerro San Luis Serrano Heights Trailhead is located approximately 250 feet to the south. The project site is not located
in the C/OS (Conservation/Open Space) zoning designation. The existing parcel supports a 2,986-square-foot single family
residence with ancillary development and a 10-foot-wide access easement and a 5-foot-wide sewer easement. The project site
includes an unnamed intermittent stream that flows approximately 120 feet west of the western property line northeast to Old
Garden Creek and is characterized by gentle to moderate slopes, multiple trees, and one rock outcropping.
While no specific development proposal has been identified for the site, based on the underlying zoning and proposed parcel
sizes, this analysis assumes that future development would consist of residential development. Such development would be
subject to development standards identified in Chapter 17.16 Medium-Density Residential (R-2) Development Standards,
Section 17.70.090 Hillside Development Standards, and the City’s Community Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide
for infill projects of high architectural quality that are compatible with existing development.
A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can
be seen from public viewpoints. 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. Some scenic vistas are
officially or informally designated by public agencies or other organizations. 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. Based on the location of the project site, the project would not result in
Item 2
Packet Page 36
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
blocking views of the Santa Lucia foothills or other scenic vistas. Therefore, the project is not located within a scenic
vista and potential impacts would be less than significant.
The State of California and the City have designated highways that offer scenic views as Scenic Highways. The section
of US 101 that extends through the city of San Luis Obispo is classified as an eligible State Scenic Highway but is not
officially designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). The City has identified US 101 from
the southern city limit to Marsh Street as a highway with high scenic value, and between Marsh Street and Broad Street
and north of California Street as a highway with moderate scenic value. Due to the distance between US 101 and the
project site (0.72 miles), intervening topography, and the existing urban development, there are no available views of
the project site from US 101. The project is not located from the viewpoint of a Scenic Highway and therefore no impact
would occur.
The project backs up to Cerro San Luis, a public open space, and may be viewed by the public from trails in the area.
Site access to the property is from Serrano Heights Drive, which turns into Serrano Drive and eventually intersects with
North Broad Street. The project would be visible from Serrano Heights Drive, but not from Serrano Drive or North
Broad Street.
There is no planned development for the parcels. It can be assumed that each parcel can support a single-family
residence, an ADU, and a JADU, for a potential of nine new units. Construction of future residences, ADUs, and JADUs
would result in additional tree removal, earthwork, and impervious surface area, the specifics of which are not known
at this time. Future residential development on these parcels would need to comply with City ordinances for R-1
development outlined in Sections 17.16 and 17.70 of the City Municipal Code and with the COSE, which outlines view
guidelines regarding urban development (Policy 9.1.2). The COSE states that urban development should reflect its
architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices that
acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible with
historical and architectural resources.
Project improvements would require the cutting of five trees and the possible removal of a rock outcropping. The COSE
states that scenic and unique landforms, including significant trees or outcroppings, should be preserved. Two coast live
oak trees (quercus agrifolia) are proposed to be cut down during construction of proposed improvements and more
would likely be removed or impacted for future site development. Proposed tree removal would be consistent with the
City’s Tree Ordinance, which establishes requirements for compensatory planting and preservation requirements for
retaining trees with historic or unusual value. The rock outcropping is located on Proposed Parcel 3 and depending on
final construction plans would likely be removed. The outcropping is neither scenic or unique (such as those of the
Morros) and any impacts or removal of it as a result of the project would be insignificant and not in conflict with policies
of the COSE.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with applicable zoning and the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and
impacts would be considered less than significant.
The project is not currently proposing the development of outdoor lighting sources that could create a new source of
light or glare. Future development plans have not been specified; however, if new light sources are proposed they must
adhere to the COSE (Policy 9.2.3), which states outdoor lighting shall avoid operating at unnecessary locations, levels,
and times; spillage into areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare; and frequencies that interfere with astronomical
viewing. Outdoor lighting standards include, but are not limited to, outdoor light sources should be shielded and directed
away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, minimum levels of lighting consistent with public safety
standards, and limits to hours of lighting operation. Future residential development would be required to comply with
the Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.70.100). The project would also be subject to review
and approval by the City Community Development Director 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
No mitigation is required.
Item 2
Packet Page 37
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Conclusion
The project site is not located within a scenic vista and cannot be seen from a Scenic Highway, and the project does not propose
any design features that are inconsistent with the current zoning regulations or other applicable regulations. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
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 California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t 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?
2, 8 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 2, 9 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 2 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
2, 8, 9 ☐ ☐
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP.
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 agricultural uses. Based on Figure 6 in the COSE, the project site is not located
within or immediately adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act contract.
Item 2
Packet Page 38
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or 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
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 is not located on land designated as Farmland by the FMMP. Therefore, the project would not result in
the conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use and no impacts would occur.
The project site is not located within or adjacent to 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 agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract and no impacts would occur.
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 forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production and no impacts
would occur.
The project site contains more than 10% of native tree cover resulting from coast live oaks located primarily along the
northern and eastern property lines. While these trees provide an aesthetic benefit to the project site, they are not present
in such a quantity to provide for significant management of forest resources. Subdivision improvements would require
the removal of native trees, and pursuant to the City’s Tree Regulations (City Municipal Code Chapter 12.24), the
project would be required to compensate for removed trees at a minimum 2:1 ratio. Therefore, the project’s impact
related to loss or conversion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production would be less than
significant.
The project site is surrounded low-density residential uses. The nearest agricultural uses are approximately 0.75 mile
west and southeast of the project site. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding uses and consistent
with existing zoning for this site and would not adversely affect agricultural water supplies or other agricultural support
facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment that could result in
conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use and impacts would be less
than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or forest
land 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?
4, 10,
11, 12,
14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 39
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
10, 11,
12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1, 11,
13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
The city 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 (CARB), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD). The SLOAPCD monitors air pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met,
develops strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as
being in “attainment” or as “nonattainment.”
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the state standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in
eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ground-level ozone (O3), and
nonattainment for the state standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The COSE identifies goals
and policies to achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit th e city.
These goals and policies include meeting federal and state air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-
powered motor vehicles, and encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use.
The major sources of PM10 in the SCCAB are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust produced by high winds.
Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust; mineral extraction and production; combustion products from
industry and motor vehicles; smoke from open burning; paved and unpaved roads; condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid
or solid particles; and wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction, agricultural operations, off-road
vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ozone levels are dependent on the amount of
these precursors. In the SCCAB, the major sources of ROGs are motor vehicles, organic solvents, petroleum production, and
pesticides. The major sources of NOx are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various
industrial sources.
The SLOAPCD has developed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated
with a November 2017 Clarification Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant
impacts could result from a project. To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to
reach acceptable air quality levels, the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP) was adopted by the SLOAPCD.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the
activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups that 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 nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located adjacent to the
north (5 feet), south (100 feet), and east (50 feet) of the project site.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance or
demolition of existing structures in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB
Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The
SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur.
In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County CAP, a project must be consistent with the
land use planning and transportation control measures (TCMs) and strategies outlined in the CAP. The proposed project
is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The proposed development’s
location, uses, and intensity are generally consistent with planning envisioned in the 2014 City of San Luis Obispo
Item 2
Packet Page 40
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update and with the CAP’s land use planning strategies. The
project is located within the City’s urban reserve line and would not designate more land for urban use, would be in
close proximity to public transportation, and supports compact communities’ strategies. Increases in housing units
would help to offset projected imbalances between jobs and housing units, as noted in the 2019 Regional Housing Needs
Assessment prepared by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). Improvements in a jobs-to-housing
imbalance would help support and promote local and regional improvements related to increased transportation mobility
and potential reductions in VMT. The proposed project does not include commercial or industrial land uses that would
result in increases in employment.
The proposed project would be consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Construction of the subdivision improvements would disturb approximately 0.12 acre of land and result in emissions of
ROGs, NOx, and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). The parcel subdivision would facilitate future residential growth of up
to nine new residential units that would result in emissions of pollutants during construction activity. During operation,
the project would result in emissions of ozone precursor pollutants associated with mobile source emissions and other
uses.
Construction Emissions
Proposed subdivision improvements would disturb approximately 0.12 acre of land and require approximately 150 cubic
yards of earthwork; however, specific future development plans are currently unknown and have the potential to result
in additional ground disturbance causing the production of more pollutants. Construction of subdivision improvements
and future residential structures have the potential to cause a short-term increase in dust and vehicle emissions, including
diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NOx, and particulate matter. As shown in Table 2, construction emissions from
proposed subdivision improvements would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s applicable screening thresholds for ROG, NOx,
DPM, or PM10. Therefore, potential construction-related emissions of these pollutants would be less than significant
and would not be cumulatively considerable.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Total Project
Emissions
SLOAPCD
Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 17.07 pounds 137 pounds/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.73 pounds 7 pounds/day No
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 0.09 tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
It is anticipated that the subdivision improvements and construction of up to nine dwelling units would occur
sequentially. Exact grading volumes are unknown at this time but could include up to 0.978 acres of site disturbance
and likely less than 1,200 cubic yards of earthwork per day, which would not result in exceedances of the SLOAPCD
thresholds. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Emissions
The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides operational screening criteria to identify projects with the
potential to exceed SLOAPCD operational significance thresholds (see Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook).
Based on Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project does not propose development that would have the
potential to result in operational emissions that would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds (76 residences). Based on the
relatively low volume of trips associated with the project and the type of activities proposed, operational impacts
associated with the project would be minimal. The project would not generate substantial new long-term traffic trips or
vehicle emissions and does not propose construction of substantial new direct (source) emissions. Therefore, potential
operational emissions would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 41
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including single-family residential units to
the north, east, and south of the project site. The development of three new single-family residences and up to six
JADUs/ADUs on-site would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect
surrounding sensitive receptors. The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as
proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce
diesel idling (DPM) and fugitive dust. Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas (less than 1,000
feet), standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive dust are required. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would
reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Project development activities, such as building construction, utility trenching, and installation, would generate odors
associated with equipment exhaust and fumes. The proposed activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short term in nature limited to the
construction phase of the proposed project and would be less than significant.
The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for
NOA to occur. The project includes excavation for road construction and trenching and installation of new water,
wastewater, and stormwater service pipelines to the proposed new parcels. The project may also include demolition of
an existing barn and shed, which have the potential to disturb asbestos, demolition can have potential negative air quality
impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM).
Future development of the parcels would also likely include excavation for foundations and trenching for utilities.
Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (17 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 93105), the applicant is required to conduct a geologic
evaluation prior to any ground-disturbing activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present.
Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation
and follow all applicable protocols and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. Based on compliance
with identified mitigation and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. 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 13 CCR 2485. 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 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit.
The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
Item 2
Packet Page 42
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. 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:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute
period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour
(mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall
be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor
vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in
CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track out, designate
access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-
out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track
out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate
devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-
out prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive
dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures
as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of
20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated
on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-
781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full
compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Item 2
Packet Page 43
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community
Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have
the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed
earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory
jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
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 NOA.
Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than
significant.
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?
2, 4 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
2, 4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
2, 4,
16 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
7, 15 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Item 2
Packet Page 44
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Evaluation
The project site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is surrounded by developed one- and two-story single-family
residences. The Cerro San Luis Trailhead is located approximately 250 feet south of the project area and public open space is
located to the west. An unnamed intermittent creek (i.e., water is flowing for 3 to 9 months during a typical year or water is
flowing less than 3 months during a typical year and the stream supports riparian vegetation) flows approximately 120 feet west
of the western property line. The City’s interactive GIS Parcel Viewer indicates that the creek has an open channel with a good
riparian corridor. The properties are characterized by many trees (coast live oak and eucalyptus [Eucalyptus spp.]) and gentle to
moderate slopes.
The city is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses that support a variety of
natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow local wildlife to move
between habitats and open space areas. The COSE identifies various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural
communities within the City’s 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 significant trees, and maintaining
development setbacks from creeks.
According to the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), there are documented occurrences of six special-status plant
species and five special-status wildlife species within 1 mile of the project site. A field survey by SWCA Environmental
Consultants (SWCA) in July 2020 was conducted on the property and mainly ruderal vegetation and a few coast live oaks were
observed. Existing Parcel 1 supports well-maintained vegetation and does not support any native vegetation. There is existing
evidence of previously removed coast live oaks and standing coast live oaks on the property. Proposed Parcel 1 contains mowed
ruderal vegetation, oleanders, and several coast live oak trees along the northern fence line/property line. Proposed Parcel 2
supports native and ruderal vegetation that includes Jersey cudweed (Pseudognaphalium luteoalbum), California sage (Artemisia
californica), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), and holly-leaved cherry (Rhamnus illicifolia), wild oats (Avena sp.) (dead and
mowed), rip gut brome (Bromus diandrus), orchard grass (Dactylis glomeratum), and periwinkle (Vinca major). Proposed Parcel
3 supports eucalyptus trees, which prohibit the growth of other vegetation in the area. Proposed Parcel 3 supports some rock
outcropping that at one time could have harbored native plants but were not observed during the field survey. The fence line
between the eastern boundary of Proposed Parcel 3 and the western boundary of Existing Parcel 1 had some oak trees and
saplings, escaped landscape plants, and nonnative plants.
Special-status plant species were not observed during a field survey conducted for the proposed project site and the
project site did not show evidence of supporting habitat for special-status plant species. Due to existing site conditions,
including mowed vegetation, compacted soils, existing topsoil excavation, and eucalyptus duff, special-status plant
species are not expected to occur, and the proposed project would have a less than significant impact.
Five special-status wildlife species are known to occur within 1 mile of the project site, including Atascadero June
beetle (Polyphylla nubila), California red-legged frog (rana draytonii), Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa), monarch
butterfly overwintering population (Danaus plexippus pop.1), and western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus).
Atascadero June beetle prefers sand dunes located in Atascadero and San Luis Obispo. The project site is comprised
entirely of Los Osos loam (15 to 30 percent slopes), which is not considered a sandy soil type. Therefore, Atascadero
June beetle is not expected to occur on-site. California red-legged frog requires habitat in lowlands or foothills near
deep water sources and dense riparian vegetation. Based on the site conditions at the time of the site survey, the site
lacks upland refugia and therefore California red-legged frog are unlikely to be present. Coast Range newt requires
habitat with streams, ponds, or lakes and vegetation. The unnamed intermittent creek does not contain water year round,
and therefore it is unlikely for Coast Range newt to be present.
Project development would result in the removal of mature trees, several of which are larger than 12 inches in diameter
at standard height (DSH) and would, therefore, require a tree removal permit under the City’s Tree Ordinance. Bird
species protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may have the potential to pass through the area and nest
in trees on the project site. While in a suburban environment, mature trees have the potential to support nesting habitat
for birds. If project construction activities are conducted between February and September, they could result in direct
and indirect impacts to nesting birds, if present. The removal of trees and construction activity proximate to nests may
Item 2
Packet Page 45
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
result in abandonment of eggs and potential avian harm or mortality, resulting in a potentially significant impact.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds during construction.
Likewise, the project area provides suitable roosting and foraging habitat for roosting bats. The project proposes removal
of several oak trees on-site; therefore, the project would result in direct loss of roosting habitat. The project would also
result in temporary noise and dust disturbance associated with construction and the loss of foraging habitat for these
species within the project development area. Mitigation Measure BIO-2 has been identified to avoid impacts to roosting
bats if found roosting within or adjacent to the project site, therefore; impacts would be less than significant with
mitigation.
With implementation of BIO-1 and BIO-2, the project would not interfere with any candidate, sensitive, or special-
status species, and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
An unnamed intermittent creek flows approximately 120 feet west of the western property line northeast to Old Garden
Creek. Future development would be located at least 120 feet from the off-site creek, exceeding the 35-foot creek
setback standard identified in the Municipal Code. No riparian vegetation is located on the project site and the project
does not propose any offsite improvements that would impact riparian habitat. No sensitive natural communities have
been identified on or adjacent to the project site. Therefore, based on the location of the project, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
The project site does not support nor is it located near any federally or state-protected wetlands. Therefore, no impact
would occur.
The project is located adjacent to an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. The proposed property
subdivision and utility connections and subsequent future development of new residences would not introduce a
substantial new barrier to wildlife passing through the area because they would be located outside of the designated
wildlife corridor and at least 120 feet from the drainage channel that would facilitation wildlife movement.
Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly restrict the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species, established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or the use of native wildlife
nursery sites.. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
Proposed tree removal would be conducted in compliance with the City’s Tree Ordinance standards for tre e removal
with a development permit, which requires submittal of site plans showing the location and species of trees to be
removed, information to support the reason for removal, and other pertinent information required. This application
would be subject to review by the Tree Committee with a recommendation to the Community Development Director.
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 Tree Ordinance would also require compensatory planting to replace
the removed trees. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources and impacts would be less than significant.
The project is not located within an area governed by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved state, regional, or local habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Nesting Birds and Raptors. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction activities including any tree
trimming and vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the migratory bird nesting season (February 15
through October 31). If such activities cannot be avoided during this period, a City-approved qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no sooner than 1–4 weeks prior to tree removal activities and
shall verify whether migratory birds are nesting in the site. If nesting activity is detected, the following measures
shall be implemented:
Item 2
Packet Page 46
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
1. 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.
2. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nests within the vicinity of project-related disturbances and
determine if construction activities are causing behavioral changes or affecting nesting activities.
Monitoring results shall then be utilized to develop an appropriate buffer around the nest site to minimize
disturbance. Construction activities within the buffer zone shall be prohibited until the young have fledged
the nest and achieved independence.
3. The qualified biologist shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to the City documenting
project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, and applicable project mitigation
measures within 14 days of survey completion.
BIO-2 Roosting Bats. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction activities including any tree trimming and/or
vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the typical bat maternity roosting and pupping season (February 1
to August 31), if feasible. If site disturbance activities are to occur within this season, the applicant shall retain a
City-qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey within 14 days prior to commencement of proposed
site disturbance activities. If any roosting bats are found during preconstruction surveys, no work activities shall
occur within 100 feet of active roosts until bats have left the roosts. The City-qualified biologist shall prepare a
report after each survey and a copy of the report shall be provided to the City within 14 days of completion of each
survey. If no bat roosting activities are detected within the proposed work area, site disturbance and noise-producing
construction activities may proceed, and no further mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site supports native and ruderal plant species but does not support special-status plant species that could be impacted
by project construction. Tree removal associated with the project would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s Tree
Ordinance but could result in impact to nesting birds and roosting bats. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure
impacts to riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. With implementation of the
mitigation measures identified above, project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
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? 18, 19 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 4 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 4 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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 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 not located within a Burial
Sensitivity Area as identified in COSE Figure 1: Cultural Resources.
Item 2
Packet Page 47
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Historic Setting
The 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:
1. Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources;
2. Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove
a threat to health and safety;
3. Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing , and materials of nearby
historic structures; and
4. Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is not located within the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone, nor does it contain any built structures that
may be considered potentially eligible historic resources.
The project does not propose the removal of any structures or buildings and would therefore not remove a building or
structure of historical significance. The project site does not currently contain, nor is it located near, any historic
resources identified in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR). The project site is not identified on the City’s Historic Properties map; therefore, the project would not result
in a substantial adverse change in the significance of, or any other adverse impact to, a historical resource and impacts
would be less than significant.
A Phase 1 Archaeological Survey was conducted by SWCA in July 2020. The survey included review of archival
records and archaeological site records, a records search at the California Historical Resources Information System
(CHRIS) Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), and an intensive survey of the project site. The records search
identified no cultural resources recorded within the project site. The field investigation and survey identified no
archaeological resources within the project site. No further archaeological study was recommended. Mitigation Measure
CR-1 has been identified to identify the proper procedures and contact in the event an inadvertent discovery of an
archaeological or historical resource is made. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a substantial adverse change
in the significance of an archaeological resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project site is not located within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis Obispo Creek identified in
COSE Figure 1: Cultural Resources. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however, the
discovery of unknown human remains is a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Protocol for properly
responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in State of California Health and Safety Code
Section 7050.5 and is detailed in Mitigation Measure CR-2. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2,
potential impacts to human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical or archaeological remains
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall
be issued and the City 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. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map
and all improvement/construction plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during ground-disturbing activities
associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the City 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 PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are
determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission
Item 2
Packet Page 48
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
(NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all
improvement/construction plans.
Conclusion
Based on the records search conducted through the CCIC, no known historical or archaeological resources are present on-site.
Mitigation measures have been identified above to require appropriate protocol for inadvertent resource discovery and discovery
of human remains. With implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, potential impacts to cultural resources
would be reduced to less than significant.
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?
21, 22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
7, 21,
22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018,
the City Council committed to joining the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and, beginning in January 2020, MBCP
became the City’s primary electricity provider. In September 2020, MBCP became Central Coast Community Energy (3CE).
3CE will provide 100% carbon-free electricity to utility customers within the city by 2030.
The City recently adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean, efficient, and cost-
effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code. When paired with
cost-comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from CCCE, all-electric new buildings are operationally
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions free, cost effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals. Unlike other cities
that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost-effective
all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy Code, and implementation of the
Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient 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.
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 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.
Item 2
Packet Page 49
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery also identifies strategies and policies to increase use
of cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies
include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and
existing developments, and increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs. The Climate Action Plan was
updated in August 2020.
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. Current federal and state regulations require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and
prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy use
would be less than significant.
The project would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips and
electricity and natural gas usage by project occupants. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC
and the City’s adopted amendments (Title 15 of the Municipal Code), including applicable green building standards,
ensuring a high standard for energy efficiency in building design, materials, light fixtures, and appliances. The project
would rely on the local electricity service provider, 3CE, to supply project electricity needs. 3CE will provide 100%
carbon-free electricity to the city by 2030. Compliance with existing building codes would ensure the project would not
result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of
energy resources. Through use of 100% GHG-free electricity resources, project energy use would not result in a
significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC and the City’s adopted amendments (Title 15 of the
Municipal 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. The project would be
consistent with other goals and policies set forth in the Climate Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy
efficiency, including the provision of compact, high-density housing. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict
with, or obstruction of, a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project has been located and designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards 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:
Item 2
Packet Page 50
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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.
2, 3,
23, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 2, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 2, 3,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 2, 3,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
a) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 2, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) 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?
2, 3,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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?
2, 3,
27 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) 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?
2, 3, 7,
22 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
2, 3,
18, 19 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred
faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to 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 offshore 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 deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains.
These soils are typically found in valleys.
Faults capable of producing strong ground-shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the CDOC Fault Activity Map and
the Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or within the immediate vicinity
of an active fault zone.
As discussed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), San Luis Obispo lies within the southern
Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and
extends from Oregon to northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex and comprised of
sub-parallel northwest–southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic rock, metavolcanic rock, and a mixture of serpentinite
and greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic-aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary-age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene-aged Monterey Formation are
also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary-aged
Item 2
Packet Page 51
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes), known as the Nine Sisters or the Morros, that extend from the city of San Luis Obispo
northwesterly to the city of Morro Bay. Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all
comprised of these volcanic plugs.
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 more 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 so il’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating
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 ground. The
likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide
Hazards Map in the Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area of high liquefaction potential. The SER further
determined the potential for seismic liquefaction of the soils at the project site to be low based on the consistency and relative
density of onsite soils.
Slope Instability and Landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Caus es
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 Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with
moderate 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 groundwater 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-
surface subsidence. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site
is not located in an area of known subsidence.
Soil-Limiting Factors
The project site is underlain by Los Osos loam (15–30 percent slopes) soil unit. This moderately deep, well-drained, moderately
steep soil has slow permeability and rapid surface runoff. The hazard of water erosion is high, and this soil has high shrink-swell
potential in the subsoil and is subject to slippage when wet. Foundations and footings should be designed to offset the moderately
steep slopes, the high shrink-swell potential, and the low strength of the clay subsoil. These soil characteristics can require that
the subgrade be removed and replaced with a more suitable material or that a high degree of compaction and moisture control be
maintained. Septic absorption fields do not function properly because of the slope, slow subsoil permeability, and depth to
bedrock.
a.i) The project site is located approximately 2 miles west from a potentially capable fault. San Luis Obispo is located in a
seismically active region and has adopted building standards to protect structures and individuals. Future development
of the proposed parcels would be designed to comply with the CBC (including Title 15 amendments) and other
applicable guidelines. 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-iii) San Luis Obispo is located in a seismically active region where there is always the potential for ground shaking.
According to Section 1613 of the 2016 CBC, all structures and portions of structures are required to be designed to resist
the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions. Future one- and two-story single-family residences
developed on the soils would comply with the CBC and other applicable regulations for earthquake hazards. According
to a Soils Engineering Report (SER) prepared for the project, the soils found at the project site have a low potential for
liquefaction risk. Assuming that any and all future development of the project site implements the recommendations
Item 2
Packet Page 52
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
from the SER, the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking and ground-related
failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) According to the City’s Ground Shaking & Landslide Hazards Map, the project site is located in an area that has a
moderate risk for landslides. The nearest area of high landslide potential is approximately 1,200 feet west of the project
site, near the terminus of Luneta Drive. Slopes surrounding the project site are generally gradual in nature. Future
developments would comply with the CBC, which requires, at a minimum, a soils report for new residential
development, and other applicable regulations to reduce the potential for the project to result in substantial adverse
effects involving landslides to less than significant.
b) Project development would result in the removal of mature trees, several of which are larger than 12 inches in diameter
at standard height (DSH) and would, therefore, require a tree removal permit under the City’s Tree Ordinance. The
project would require surface grading and deeper cuts for foundation and utility installation. Grading permits are
required for projects, excavations, or fills exceeding 50 cubic yards in volume and require implementation of standard
BMPs to ensure substantial erosion, siltation, and/or sedimentation are avoided. The project’s future development would
also be required to comply with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements set
forth in their Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast
region. Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage
within the City’s watershed. Therefore, compliance with existing regulation and BMPs would reduce potential impacts
related to soil erosion and loss of topsoil to less than significant.
c) The SER prepared for the project site identified little or no potential for landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse. Project construction would follow the recommendations of the SER and would be required to
be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure. Construction would also be required to comply with CBC seismic requirements to
address potential seismic-related ground failure. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) The SER prepared for the project determined that the soils at the project site are expansive with poor infiltration
properties and are best characterized as Soil Group D. Soil Group D conditions consist of less than favorable for
infiltration of stormwater and runoff due to low infiltration rates (high runoff potential), clays with high shrink -swell
potential, and soils that are shallow over nearly impervious material. The volume changes that soils undergo in this
cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. Review of a soils report prepared by a qualified engineer
is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in accordance with CBC
Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as
required by the CBC, and/or through compliance with the recommendations of the SER. Typical precautionary measures
would likely include premoistening the underlying soil in conjunction with placement of non-expansive material beneath
slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced foundation. In addition, the project would be required to be designed
in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with ground failure,
including from expansive soils. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to expansive
soils would be less than significant.
e) The project would include a new connection to the City sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
treatment systems are proposed onsite. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by Franciscan Assemblage composed of a mélange of claystone, graywacke, and blocks of
other Franciscan rocks of the Mesozoic era. The Franciscan Assemblage consists of various types of rocks that formed
along the Pacific Oceanic and North American Plates; these rocks were subsequently deformed and metamorphosed
during subduction of the Pacific Oceanic Plate. Various authors have reported the presence of marine invertebrates in
the Franciscan Assemblage throughout California (e.g., Bailey et al. 1964); however, marine invertebrate fossil
specimens are generally common, well developed, and well documented. They would generally not be considered a
unique paleontological resource. Because of the nature of this rock assemblage (e.g., vertebrate fossils in the original
parent material generally would have been destroyed during the subduction and metamorphosis process) and the general
lack of previously recorded vertebrate fossil localities, this formation is considered to have a low paleontological
sensitivity.
Item 2
Packet Page 53
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
There are no known paleontological resources on the project site and there are no unique geologic features on the
property. Grading and excavation is proposed for subdivision improvements (i.e. road improvements and utility
trenching), and future residential foundations will likely remove expansive soils. Based on the low sensitivity of the
underlying geologic unit and the lack of proposed activities that would result in significant cuts into bedrock, the project
would not have the potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature, and
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations
and recommendations of the required SER prepared for the project, 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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
10, 12,
21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in
Section 3, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City established a Climate Action Plan
(CAP) that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990
emission levels by 2020. The City’s CAP was recently updated and outlines a plan for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035. The
City’s 2016 Community Wide GHG emissions inventory showed that 63% of the city’s GHG emissions came from
transportation, 13% came from commercial and industrial uses, 11% came from residential uses, and 13% from waste.
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the state’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources
of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include AB 32, SB 375, and SB 97, as
well as the Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, CBC, and California Solar Initiative.
The City recently updated its CAP. The plan establishes a community-wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2035, adopts sector
specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving those goals. Appendix C of the CAP
Update includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of GHG emissions analysis under CEQA for project within the City.
To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality goal, plans and projects within the City that
undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the CAP, a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction
Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. According to the adopted SLOAPCD guidance if a project is consistent
with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the City’s CAP, the project would not result in a significant impact.
In October of 2018, the City Council committed to joining Monterey Bay Community Power, now Central Coast Community
Energy (3CE). 3CE is an existing community choice energy program that serves the counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and
Item 2
Packet Page 54
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Monterey and will provide 100 percent carbon free electricity to the city by 2030. Additionally, the City recently adopted the
Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean, efficient, and cost effective all-electric new buildings
through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code. When paired with cost comparable modern electric
appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings are operationally greenhouse gas emissions-free, cost
effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals.
a), b) Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker trips and hauling trips to and from
the project site, as well as off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). 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. Operational-related activities that would generate GHG
emission include residential trips, solid waste disposal, and energy consumption.
The project would be consistent with the goals and policies identified in the City’s CAP. Future residential development
would likely utilize GHG-free energy through participation in the C3E and with compliance with the City’s Clean
Energy Choice Program for New Buildings. Based on the City’s Residential VMT Screening Map, the project is located
in an area of the City that would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a
project in this area would result in reduced VMT. The project site is located within a 1-mile radius of five bus stops that
would facilitate future residential transit use, and the project is within close walking or biking distance to nearby retail
and services, including grocery stores, restaurants, and medical services. Therefore, the project would not generate
substantial GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that would have a significant impact on the environment and
would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG
emissions. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize GHG emissions and would not result in a conflict with an applicable
plan or policy adopted for reducing GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the City’s CAP, a qualified GHG
reduction strategy. No potentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions have been identified, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
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, 2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Item 2
Packet Page 55
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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?
30, 31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
2, 41,
42 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
1, 2,
22, 24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California EPA (CalEPA) 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 (DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks
DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known
contamination, such as federal superfund sites, state response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school
investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database
contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites
that meet the Cortese List requirements are included on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
The project does not propose the long-term transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Short-term
construction materials may be transported during development of the proposed improvements to the property and during
future development of one- and two-story single-family residences. Hazardous materials would be properly handled to
according to federal and state regulations, including response and clean-up requirements for any minor spills. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
The long-term use of the project would be single-family residences that would not use hazardous materials other than
commonly used hazardous substances within the project site (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.). Construction of
the proposed project is anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazardous substances, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable
federal and state environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including response
and clean-up requirements for any minor spills. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located approximately 0.44 mile south of Pacheco Elementary School. Therefore, the project site
would not emit or handle hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of an existing school and no impact would occur.
The project site is not located on the Cortese List and therefore no impact would occur.
The nearest airport is the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, located approximately 5 miles south of the project
site. The project is not located within the boundaries of the airport land use plan and project development would not
adversely impact airport operations. Similarly, airport operations would not result in a substantial safety hazard.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Item 2
Packet Page 56
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
The City has identified goals regarding emergency response plans in the Safety Element. The proposed site
improvements for future development includes the creation of fire safety measures, including a fire truck roundabout,
improved access roads, and the installment of fire hydrants to comply with fire hazard regulations. Project development
would not substantially alter traffic patterns, circulation, or emergency access. The fire hydrants, improved access roads,
and fire truck roundabout would support future residential development, and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
Cerro San Luis and the public open space area are located south and west of the project site and are characterized as a
moderate to extreme fire hazard severity zone according to the City’s Wildland Fire Hazards Map. The project site itself
is classified as a low fire hazard severity zone. The nearest fire station is San Luis Obispo City Fire Station 2, located
0.5 mile away from the project site, and fire response time to the project site is 0–5 minutes. Although the project would
facilitate development on the City’s fringe, adjacent to open space wildland areas, the project would be infill
development within an existing neighborhood and would not substantially increase wildfire risks. The project proposes
the development of improvements for fire hazard safety that include widening of access roads, a 1,000-gallon-per-
minute (GPM) at 20 pounds per square inch (PSI) fire hydrant, a fire truck roundabout, and the removal and trimming
of trees to provide defensible space. The future development of residential structures would follow CBC and other
design regulations for fire hazards. Therefore, people and/or structures would not be exposed to significant risk and the
impact would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project would not result in the routine transportation or storage of hazardous materials. The project is not located on a known
hazardous waste site and is not within close proximity to a school or airport. Potential impacts related to hazards, including
emergency access and wildfire, would be less than significant.
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?
34, 40 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
36, 37,
38 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, 34 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
1, 34 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 57
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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, 34 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 35 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 2, 35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
34, 36,
38, 40 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic
Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal
Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the Monterey County
line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low-lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo
Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek, Prefumo
Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also present flood
hazards. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are relatively small,
but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast-moving flood events in the city. There is an unnamed intermittent
creek that flows approximately 120 feet west of the western property line and eventually to Old Garden Creek approximately
1,400 feet northeast of the project site. According the City’s interactive Parcel Viewer, the creek has an open channel with a
good riparian corridor.
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit NPDES permit program governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the
City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-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.
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 City’s interactive Parcel Viewer, the project site is not located within a 100-
year flood zone.
a) The project site does not directly support any waterbodies. There is an intermittent creek that is located approximately
120 feet west of the western property line that flows northeast to Old Garden Creek. Future development would be
located at least 120 feet from the creek, exceeding the 35-foot creek setback standard. The project’s future development
would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction
Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement
of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management
Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed.
Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to violation of water quality standards 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’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has allowed the
City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water available for the
City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 acre-feet per year (AFY), which
Item 2
Packet Page 58
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
included 215 AFY of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the
City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of
this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 AF. Therefore, the project would not deplete groundwater
resources, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i) Construction of the proposed project would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and
amount of surface water runoff to increase. Physical improvement of the project site would be required to comply with
the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring
water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact
Development (LID) stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-development site
drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. In addition, the project would be required to comply
with the City’s engineering standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post-Construction Stormwater
Requirements, and adopted building and grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. Compliance with these
requirements will ensure impacts are less than significant.
c.ii) The project site is not located within a flood zone. The project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious
surface area or the rate and volume of surface runoff in a manner that could result in flooding on- or off-site. Based on
the nature and size of the project, changes in surface hydrology would be negligible. Therefore, potential impacts related
to increased surface runoff resulting in flooding would be less than significant.
c.iii) The project would not substantially increase the amount of impervious surface area or the rate and volume of surface
runoff in a manner that could exceed the capacity of existing stormwater or drainage systems. Based on the nature and
size of the project, changes in surface hydrology would be negligible. Therefore, potential impacts related to increased
surface runoff exceeding stormwater capacity would be less than significant.
c.iv) The project site is not located within a 100-year flood zone. The project would be conditioned to comply with
requirements for flood hazards, drainage, sedimentation, and erosion control for construction. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
d) The project site is not located within a flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone; therefore, no impact would occur.
e) The proposed project and any future development would be conditioned to comply with the COSE water quality and
groundwater management standards (Section 10). Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The proposed project would be subject to City requirements regarding water quality and stormwater runoff. Future residential
structures would be required to comply with the water quality and conservation standards stated in the COSE. The project is not
located within a 100-year flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, project impacts on hydrology and water quality would
be less than significant.
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? 41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 59
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
a) 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?
4, 41 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project is zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential) and located in the western portion of the city. The surrounding land uses
include one- and two-story single-family residences to the north and east and Cerro San Luis and the public open space area to
the south and west.
The proposed project is an infill project and would not have the potential to divide an established community on adjacent
parcels or in the vicinity of the project site. The project is designed to be consistent with existing and developing/planned
surrounding commercial infill development and would not physically divide an established community. Impacts would
be less than significant.
The project site is located within the city of San Luis Obispo and follows the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan.
The project is zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential) and future plans would be consistent with the zoning and required
to follow design regulations for the zoning requirement (City Ordinances 17.16 and 17.70). Future development plans
would be consistent with the COSE, and therefore project impacts would be less that significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not divide an established community and would be consistent with applicable land use plans.
Therefore, no mitigation is necessary, and impacts to land use and planning would be less than significant.
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?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits according to the COSE.
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 and current restrictions on resource extraction within city limits; therefore, no
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Item 2
Packet Page 60
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Conclusion
According to the COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits. The project site is located within the city, and there
would be no impact on mineral resources.
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?
7, 42,
43 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? 44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) 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?
41 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
As analyzed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise-sensitive land uses are present within the city, including
various types of residential development, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and tran sient
lodging, and places of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the city, major sources of
noise include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights.
Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction on weekdays between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public service utilities
or by exception issued by the City Community Development Department. The City Municipal Code also states that construction
activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum noise levels at
affected properties will not exceed 85 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City
Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an
individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited.
The nearest noise sensitive receivers to the project site include existing single-family residences located adjacent to the site on
the north, east, and south.
Land uses surrounding the project site include public open space and single-family residences. Following the proposed
subdivision, potential future development of a single-family residence or other R-1 uses would result in construction
noise that may result in a temporary increase in noise. The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive
receptors, including single-family residential units to the north, east, and south of the project site, several of which are
located within 50 feet of the anticipated future development site. Future development of a new single-family residence
would likely include grading, site preparation, and construction activities that would require use of equipment that
would generate noise levels of 80 to 85 dBA at 50 feet, which reflect the relative loudness as perceived by the human
ear, as shown in Table 3 below.
Table 3. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Item 2
Packet Page 61
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 feet From Source
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Paver 85
Scraper 85
Based on the equipment to be used and proximity to surrounding single-family residences, construction activities
associated with future development of the site have the potential to exceed the construction noise limit of 75 dBA at
single-family residences established in the City Municipal Code. Mitigation Measure N-1 has been identified to require
that all construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed, such as
mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational. In addition, all construction
activities would be limited to daytime hours between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and would be
prohibited on Sundays and federal and state holidays, in accordance with the City Municipal Code Noise Control
standards.
Upon completion of construction activities, vehicle noise and other on-site residential noise generated from the new
single-family residence would be consistent with the surrounding noise levels and would not result in a substantial
increase in ambient noise levels. Therefore, upon implementation of measure N-1, impacts associated with 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 would be less than significant with mitigation.
Future development of the additional residential lots would require the use of heavy equipment that would generate
groundborne noise and vibration, but these activities would be limited in duration and consistent with other standard
construction activities and would not be substantial enough to be detected by occupants of surrounding land uses. The
development of a single-family residence would not require pile driving or other high impact activities that would
generate substantial groundborne noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Therefore, potential impacts
would be less than significant.
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan; therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 Construction Noise BMPs. Prior to issuance of grading permits for any future development on the project site, the
applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement
methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational, and
all construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence
of noise-control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and operational noise standards for single-
family residential uses. With implementation of the mitigation measure identified above, potential impacts associated with
Item 2
Packet Page 62
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
temporary exceedances of local established standards would be less than significant. No other potentially significant impacts
associated with noise were identified, and no additional 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)?
45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 46,802 in 2019, according to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report 2019. The City’s
housing tenure is approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced by California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College enrollment. Many segments of the City’s
population have difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to 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.
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an
assessment of the housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include ensuring safety
and affordability, conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and
tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable
housing and neighborhood design, maximizing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the city, and
developing housing on suitable sites. The project site is zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential).
The project proposes a subdivision of one existing parcel into three different parcels, which would have the potential to
support up to three new residential units on each (i.e., primary, ADU, and JADU). Proposed parcel improvements would
not create structures that would cause population growth. However, future development may support up to nine new
residential units. The proposed construction is consistent with the General Plan zoning, would improve the City’s jobs-
housing balance, and would not create substantial unplanned population growth. Therefore, impacts to significant
population growth would be considered less than significant.
The project does not propose the demolition or displacement of any residential structures; therefore, the project would
not displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, and no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The proposed parcel improvements and future development would not substantially increase population growth in the area nor
would it displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. Future residential developmen t would be consistent with
City zoning, and potential impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 63
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 2, 46,
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 2, 46,
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 2, 46,
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 2, 46,
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 2, 46,
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project is located in the western portion of the city, 1.5 miles from the city’s downtown. The City of San Luis Obispo Police
Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city and is comprised 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) and US 101. The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides emergency response
services for the city, including fire and medical, and is comprised of 57 full time employees. The SLOFD operates out of four
fire stations in the city, with the nearest station to the project located at Fire Station #2, 126 North Chorro Street, near the
intersection with Foothill Boulevard. The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD)
and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City 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 City 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.
Fire protection: The project is located within a moderate fire severity zone and is under local fire jurisdiction. Fire
response times to the project site are 0–5 minutes and the nearest fire station is San Luis Obispo City Fire Station 2,
located 0.5 mile away. The project would not result in a substantial increase in the number of units or population in the
city and would not result in the need for construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities. In addition, the
project would be subject to development fees for fire protection, which would offset the project’s contribution to
increased demand on fire protection services. Project site improvements would include improvements to access
roadways, the installation of a new 1,000-GPM at 20-PSI fire hydrant, a fire truck turnaround, and vegetation
trimming/removal that would accommodate emergency fire services, and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
Police protection: The SLOPD is located 1.1 miles south of the project site. The project proposes uses generally
consistent with the surrounding area, and the proposed level of development would be similar to surrounding residential
development. The project proposes limited residential infill development and would not result in a substantial increase
in demand on police protection services. The project would result in a negligible increase in residents within the city
and would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. The project would not result in a substantial
increase in the number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for construction of new or
Item 2
Packet Page 64
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
expanded police protection facilities. The project would be required to pay developer impact fees established to address
direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Therefore, the project impacts on police protection
would be less than significant.
Schools: The project site is located within the 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. The nearest school is Pacheco Elementary School located less than 1 mile north of the project site. Laguna
Middle School is located 2.5 miles away and San Luis Obispo High School is located 1.8 miles away. Local schools
have the capacity to support additional students that may cumulate from future residential development plans. Therefore,
the project impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks: The Cerro San Luis Serrano Heights Trailhead is less than 200 feet south of the project site, and public open
space is west of the project site. Throop Park is 0.4 mile north and Santa Rosa Park is 0.8 mile east of the project site.
Future development plans for the project site have the potential to facilitate population growth and slightly increase
demand on local parks. The General Plan outlines the importance of public recreation. The project does not currently
propose the development of public parks; however, future population growth induced by future residential development
would be supported by current facilities. The project would be subject to required developer impact fees established to
address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Therefore, project impacts on parks would
be less than significant.
Other public facilities: The project would not induce substantial population growth and would result in a negligible
effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to the City’s
standard development fees, which would offset the project’s marginal contribution to increased use of City facilities.
Therefore, potential project impacts on public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site has the potential to induce future population growth of a maximum of nine residential units. There would not be
substantial population growth and City development fees would offset the increased demand on any necessary public services.
Therefore, project impacts on public services would be less than significant.
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?
47, 48 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
47 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, 10 designated natural resources and open space
areas, and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element identifies goals, policies,
Item 2
Packet Page 65
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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 that 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 areas:
continuing development of athletic fields and support facilities, providing parks in underserved neighborhoods, providing a
multi-use community center and therapy pool, expanding paths and trails for recreational use, linking recreation facilities, and
meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at-risk youth, and senior citizens. Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1
establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, 5 acres
of which shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
The Cerro San Luis Serrano Heights Trailhead is less than 200 feet south from the project site, and public open space
is west of the project site. Throop Park is 0.4 mile north and Santa Rosa Park is 0.8 mile east of the project site. Future
plans for the project site have the potential to facilitate population growth and slightly increase demand on local parks.
As discussed above, the project would be subject to required developer impact fees established to address direct demand
for new facilities associated with new development. Therefore, project impacts on parks would be less than significant.
The project does not propose the development of recreational facilities, and possible future development includes up to
nine residential units, which would not require the construction or expansion of existing recreational facilities.
Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site has the potential to induce future population growth of a maximum of nine residential units. There would not be
substantial population growth and City development fees would offset the increased demand on any necessary recreational
facilities. Therefore, project impacts on recreation would be less than significant.
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?
1, 14,
20, 49 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1, 57,
58 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays on public roadways,
as well as transportation goals 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
Item 2
Packet Page 66
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting the safe operation
of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects
would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
On February 2, 2021, the San Luis Obispo City Council adopted the City’s first Active Transportation Plan, a comprehensive
collection of policies, programs and infrastructure recommendations that aim to increase the number of people bicycling and
walking. By improving sustainable transportation such as walking and bicycling, the City can reduce vehicle use and related
greenhouse gas emissions. This in turn will place the City on a stronger path to meeting its goal of achieving climate neutra lity
by 2035.
State Senate Bill 743, codified in Public Resources Code section 21099, required changes to the CEQA Guidelines regarding the
analysis of transportation impacts. Pursuant to Section 21099, the criteria for determining the significance of transportation
impacts must “promote the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions, the development of multimodal transportation networks, and
a diversity of land uses.” (Id., subd. (b)(1); see generally, adopted CEQA Guidelines, §15064.3, subd. (b) [Criteria for Analyzing
Transportation Impacts].) To that end, in developing the criteria, Office of Planning and Research (OPR) has proposed, and the
California Natural Resources Agency (Agency) has certified and adopted, changes to the CEQA Guidelines that identify vehicle
miles traveled (VMT) as the most appropriate metric to evaluate a project’s transportation impacts. The OPR Technical Advisory
on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA (December 2018) recommends screening criteria to identify types,
characteristics, or locations of projects that would not result in significant impacts to VMT. Of land use projects, residential,
office, and retail projects tend to have the greatest influence on VMT. For that reason, OPR recommends quantified thresholds
for these land uses for purposes of analysis and mitigation. Lead agencies, using more location-specific information, may develop
their own more specific thresholds, which may include other land use types. In June 2020, the San Luis Obispo City Council
adopted local VMT thresholds to be applied in analyzing transportation impacts of land use and transportation projects under
CEQA.
SLO Transit operates transit service within the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas. The project site is located off Serrano
Heights Drive and can be accessed from Serrano Drive to the northeast. The project site is approximately 0.3 mile west of Broad
Street between Foothill Boulevard and Lincoln Street. The nearest bus stop is located 0.4 mile away at Ramona Drive and
Palomar Avenue, and five other bus stops are located within a 1-mile radius.
Serrano Heights Drive and Serrano Drive are characterized as local residential streets and would support a maximum
of 1,500 average daily trips (ADT) under an acceptable LOS. Serrano Heights Drive contains a trailhead to Cerro San
Luis, which may attract additional vehicle trips to Serrano Heights Drive. Otherwise, vehicular trips are generated by
residents, and the potential future residential development would not create a significant increase in traffic to local
residential streets. The project would be required to improve Serrano Heights Drive, beginning near the property’s
northern boundary and extending to Existing Parcel 1. Additionally, a fire truck turnaround would be installed on
Proposed Parcel 2 to aid in emergency response access.
Broad Street between Foothill Boulevard and Lincoln Street is characterized as LOS C according to the Circulation
Element. Project development has the potential to create a short-term increase in the number of daily trips to and from
the project site during construction. The parcel subdivision would support up to nine new residential units and would
create daily trips to and from the properties. The daily trips would not result in a significant increase and could be
supported by existing infrastructure. The project site is in close proximity to several bus stops, and the project area
promotes walking, biking, and other carbon-cutting means of transportation for future residents to engage in, including
close proximity of retail and services. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial
evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day
generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. According to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, a single-family residential unit generates
9.44 ADT. Therefore, future potential development of the project would be expected to generate fewer than 110 trips
per day. The City Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, Screening Criteria for Land Use Projects
Exempt from VMT Analysis states: Where proposed projects that generate < 100 peak hour trips are located within
Item 2
Packet Page 67
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
areas of the map with existing VMT at least 10% below adopted thresholds, and are generally similar to existing uses
within that area (i.e. density, mix of uses, access to multimodal transportation), these projects can be assumed to cause
a less than significant transportation impacts. The proposed project would generate less than 100 peak hour trips and
is located in an area of the city with existing VMT 15% below adopted thresholds (Appendix A Residential VMT
Screening Map), therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project proposes the development of improvements that include a 20-foot-wide access road along the southern
portion of the project site and 12-foot access driveways to Proposed Parcels 2 and 3 to allow for safe access into the
project site. The implementation of the accesses would not contain any hazardous geometric design features and there
are no hazardous geometric design features located near the project site. A fire truck turnaround is proposed for Proposed
Parcel 2 for compliance with safety guidelines. These potential improvements would be designed and constructed in
compliance with City Department of Public Works standards to provide adequate vehicle and emergency vehicle access
to all proposed parcels. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
As mentioned above, the project proposes the implementation of a fire truck turnaround for adequate emergency service.
The fire truck turnaround is proposed as an improvement to Proposed Parcel 2 as part of the parcel subdivision and
would be completed prior to any potential residential development. Therefore, there would be adequate access and space
for emergency services and project impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
Potential future infill development of residential uses at the project site would not result in a reduction in LOS on surrounding
intersections and would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) regarding VMT. Any future development
at the project site would be required to meet City Department of Public Works safety design standards and would maintain
adequate emergency access. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts related to transportation would occur, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is: 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)?
16, 17,
18 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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.
16, 17,
18 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Item 2
Packet Page 68
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California PRC 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 PRC 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.
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.
a-b.) The City has provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52. A
representative from the Salinan tribe requested that all ground disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a
cultural resource specialist from the Salinan tribe. Mitigation Measure TR-1 has been identified to address the potential
for impacts to previously unidentified tribal cultural resources.
Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-2 have been identified to address the potential for inadvertent discovery of
cultural resources and require cultural resource awareness training and cessation of work area if a discovery is made
until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse
change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-2.
TR-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan Tribe shall be notified prior
to any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered during
subsurface earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities shall cease and the City Community Development
Director shall be notified immediately consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2.
Conclusion
With implementation of the mitigation measures identified above, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 69
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
a) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) 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?
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) 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?
52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 52 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the community,
and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility
(WRRF) treats all wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the County airport, which includes approximately 4 million gallons
of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established by the SWRCB to
remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater. A portion of the treated water is
recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
The City utilizes San Luis Garbage as a licensed waste hauler for residential and commercial solid waste removal. Solid waste
collected from the city is taken to Cold Canyon Landfill, which is a modern municipal solid waste disposal facility that is
permitted by CalRecycle and meets state and local rules and regulations. The landfill disposes of non-hazardous solid waste.
The project proposes the development of utility improvements that include a 613-cubic-foot underground stormwater
chamber system and catch basin connected with an underground storm drain line and new water meter to Proposed
Parcel 1, new gas sewer and water lines to Proposed Parcel 1, and two new water meters to serve Proposed Parcels 2
and 3. The project is not within the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan Area and therefore recycled water is not available
for irrigation use. These new utility components would have the potential to result in noise and dust emissions in
proximity to sensitive receptor locations, such as single-family residences. There would also be the potential for
discovery of subsurface cultural resources during proposed utility work. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4,
CR--1 through CR-2, TCR-1, and N-1 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from
installation and establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, cultural resources, and noise,
respectively, to less than significant. Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction or
extension of existing utilities would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 project is not within the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan Area and therefore
recycled water is not available for irrigation use.
Item 2
Packet Page 70
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Based on the City Utilities Department website, the City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades
has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water
available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 acre-feet per year
(AFY), which included 215 AFY of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and
updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for
the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 AF.
The project would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s
water resources. Future residential development will be conditioned to comply with City standards, and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
The City treats approximately 4 million gallons of wastewater per day according to standards set forth by the SWRCB.
The addition of up to nine new residential units that the proposed project would facilitate would be supported by the
City’s wastewater treatment system. The project would result in an incremental increase in wastewater demand on the
City’s WRRF. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to accommodate the project’s
contribution to the City’s WRRF capacity. Future residential development will be conditioned to comply with City
standards. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Future residential development would include provision of solid waste and recycling receptacles that would be serviced
by San Luis Garbage and brought to Cold Canyon Landfill, which has approximately 13,100,000 cubic yards of
remaining capacity as of February 2020 and is expected to reach capacity in 2040. Therefore, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
Solid waste is disposed of at Cold Canyon Landfill, which follows state and local rules and regulations regarding solid
waste. The potential future residential development would be required to adhere to the standards set forth in the City’s
Development Standards for Solid Waste Services for trash, green waste, and recycling. Therefore, the impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4, CR-1 through CR-2, TCR-1, and N-1.
Conclusion
With implementation of mitigation measures identified above, potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less
than significant.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
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?
53, 54,
55 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, 53,
54, 55,
56 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Item 2
Packet Page 71
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
1, 7,
54, 55,
56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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, 22,
53, 54,
55, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
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, available 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 1 mile of a designated high or very high fire hazard severity
zone, which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.
The Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, including approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland fire hazard
severity zones as prescribed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (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.
The project proposes infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. 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 or road closures would occur as a result of project
implementation; therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation
plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The Safety Element describes Cerro San Luis as an extreme fire hazard severity zone and the surrounding open space
as a moderate fire hazard severity zone. The project site itself is in a low fire hazard severity zone but is adjacent to
these zones. Fire response times are 0–5 minutes for this project location. The General Plan states that development
shall only be approved when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available or will be made concurrent
with development. The project proposes the development of improvements for fire safety elements, including widening
of access roads, the implementation of a 1,000-GPM at 20-PSI fire hydrant, a fire truck turnaround, and the removal
and trimming of trees and vegetation in the area. Proposed improvements would allow emergency fire access to the
project site for future residential development.
San Luis Obispo has an average wind speed of approximately 7 mph. The project site is located on land that is
characterized as moderately sloping. Parcel improvements propose to remove multiple trees and vegetation from the
project site that would reduce wildfire hazard. Residential structures built on the parcels would be conditioned to comply
with building and fire code regulations.
In order to manage wildfire risk associated with placing residents in close proximity to moderate and high fire hazard
severity areas, a Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan is required in order to reduce the fuel load near residential structures.
Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure WF-1, impacts would be considered less than significant with
mitigation.
The proposed improvements to the project site include the widening of access roads, the implementation of a
1,000-GPM at 20-PSI fire hydrant, a fire truck turnaround, and the cutting of trees and vegetation for emergency fire
access to future residential developments. Future residential developments would also be required to comply with CBC
regulations for fire safety to reduce fire risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project area is not located within an area with substantial risk for flooding or landslides. Improvements made to the
project site for the proposed subdivision and future development of residential structures will be required to comply
Item 2
Packet Page 72
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
with CBC regulations for fire safety and slope stability. 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
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the applicant shall provide a
vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered professional forester or certified arborist for each lot. The plan shall
identify fuel load reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase defensible space around
residential structures and driveways/access roads. The plan shall also identify appropriate standards for installation of new
landscaping, such as requirements for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
Conclusion
The project would expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development of
new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire
would be less than significant 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 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project would allow for the future development of up to nine new residential units within the project site and would result
in the removal of up to five trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is included to minimize potential impacts to nesting migratory birds
during tree removal and construction. Mitigation Measures CR-1 through CR-2 have been included to require awareness training
be conducted for all construction crew members so that cultural resources can be recognized if unearthed during site disturbance
activities and to require work be halted in the event of an unanticipated discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the
significance of the find and identify the appropriate protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery. Furthermore,
a Native American monitor would be present during ground disturbance (TCR-1). With implementation of the recommended
mitigation measures, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☒
When project impacts are considered along with, or in combination with, other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s
potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project-
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and
Item 2
Packet Page 73
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
the relatively limited number and extent of potential impacts, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 and noise that could result in substantial
adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-4 and N-1 have been identified to reduce these
potential impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures,
preparation of a geologic investigation for asbestos, and implementation of noise control measures. With implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly
result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 74
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
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. 1 Project Plans, Parcel Map, February 2020
2. 2 City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015
3. GeoSolutions Inc., Soils Engineering Report for 163 Serrano Heights Drive, November 2018.
4. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006.
5. Caltrans, California Scenic Highways, February 2017
6. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
7. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019
8. California Department of Conservation Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018
9. California Department of Conservation Land Conservation Act of 1965: San Luis Obispo County, 2006
10. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District, County Attainment Status, 2019
11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012 (revised
November 2017)
12. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District Clean Air Plan, December 2001
13. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool, 2020
14. City of San Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan, 2013
15. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019
16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019
17. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map 2019
18. Historic Properties in San Luis Obispo, California (A SLO Story Map), accessed August 2020
19. San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010
20. San Luis Obispo Transit 2019-20120 User Guide, June 17, 2019
21. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2020
22. California Building Code, 2019
23. California Department of Conservation Fault Activity Map of California, 2010
24. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014
Item 2
Packet Page 75
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
25. Areas of Land Subsidence in California, USGS, Accessed March 10, 2020
26. NRCS Web Soil Survey, 2019
27. Department of Conservation, Soil Web Survey 2020
28. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004
29. California Department of Toxic Substances Control, Envirostor Accessed August 2020
30. State Water Resources Control Board, Geotracker Accessed August 2020
31. California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List Data Resources Accessed August 2020
32. San Luis Obispo 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 2019
33. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014
34. SLO Stormwater Website 2020
35. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, accessed August 2020
36. SGMA Groundwater Management, California Department of Water Resources Webpage, 2019
37. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, County of San Luis Obispo Webpage, 2019
38. Water Sources, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Webpage, Accessed November 2019
39. Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle,
2009
40. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019
41. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element 2014
42. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
43. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway
Administration, September 2017
44. 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>.
45. City of San Luis Obispo 2014-2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
46. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2019
47. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018
48. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, 2001
49. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017
50. 2020 Water Resources Status Report, January 2021
51. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019
52. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery,
Accessed August, 2020
53. San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006
54. San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element 2014
55. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, San Luis Obispo County,
March 2009
56. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 15.04. Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations. 2019
57. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research, SB 743 Technical Advisory, April 2018
58. City of San Luis Obispo Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, June 2020
Attachments
1. Project Location Map
2. Proposed Project Plans
Item 2
Packet Page 76
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. 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 13 CCR 2485. 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 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit.
The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. 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:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving
the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-
minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil
binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Item 2
Packet Page 77
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least
2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of
motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as
described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track
out, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install
and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
streets. The track-out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective
at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble
strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-
out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any
fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s
limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could
be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to
the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact
Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full
compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community
Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have
the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be present on-site, proposed
earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various
regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos).
These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
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 NOA.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated onto Final Map and project grading / 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 SLOAPCD, as necessary.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Nesting Birds and Raptors. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction activities including any tree
trimming and vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the migratory bird nesting season (February 15
Item 2
Packet Page 78
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
through October 31). If such activities cannot be avoided during this period, a County-approved qualified biologist
shall conduct a preconstruction nesting bird survey no sooner than 1–4 weeks prior to tree removal activities and
shall verify whether migratory birds are nesting in the site. If nesting activity is detected, the following measures
shall be implemented:
1. 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.
2. The qualified biologist shall monitor the nests within the vicinity of project-related disturbances and
determine if construction activities are causing behavioral changes or affecting nesting activities.
Monitoring results shall then be utilized to develop an appropriate buffer around the next site to minimize
disturbance. Construction activities within the buffer zone shall be prohibited until the young have
fledged the nest and achieved independence.
3. The qualified biologist shall document all active nests and submit a letter report to the County
documenting project compliance with the MBTA, California Fish and Game Code, and applicable
project mitigation measures within 14 days of survey completion.
BIO-2 Roosting Bats. Site preparation, ground disturbance, and construction activities including any tree trimming
and/or vegetation removal shall be conducted outside of the typical bat maternity roosting and pupping season
(February 1 to August 31), if feasible. If site disturbance activities are to occur within this season, the applicant
shall retain a County-qualified biologist to conduct a preconstruction survey within 14 days prior to
commencement of proposed site disturbance activities. If any roosting bats are found during preconstruction
surveys, no work activities shall occur within 100 feet of active roosts until bats have left the roosts. The County-
qualified biologist shall prepare a report after each survey and a copy of the report shall be provided to the County
within 14 days of completion of each survey. If no bat roosting activities are detected within the proposed work
area, site disturbance and noise-producing construction activities may proceed, and no further mitigation is
required.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and construction plans.
The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical or archaeological remains
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall
be issued and the City 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. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final
map and all improvement/construction plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during ground-disturbing activities
associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued and the City 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 PRC Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all
improvement/construction plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and construction plans. The City
Community Development Department shall verify compliance, including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring
Plan, and review and approval of cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required mitigation
measures.
Item 2
Packet Page 79
ER # EID-0100-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2020
Noise
N-1 Construction Noise BMPs. Prior to issuance of grading permits for any future development on the project site,
the applicant shall ensure that all construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise
abatement methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and
operational, and all construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper
maintenance and presence of noise-control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and 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.
TR-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan Tribe shall be notified prior
to any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered during
subsurface earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities shall cease and the City Community Development
Director shall be notified immediately consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-
2.
Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all grading and construction plans.
The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance through initial and regular inspections.
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the applicant shall provide a
vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered professional forester or certified arborist for each lot.
The plan shall identify fuel load reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase
defensible space around residential structures and driveways/access roads. The plan shall also identify appropriate
standards for installation of new landscaping, such as requirements for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all grading and construction plans.
The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance through initial and regular inspections.
Item 2
Packet Page 80
163 Serrano Heights Drive
SBDV-2029-2018
Minor Subdivision
Review of the proposed subdivision of an existing 0.98 -acre
parcel into three parcels, with an exception from the Subdivision
Regulations from the minimum street frontage requirement for 0
feet where 20 feet is normally required (SLO 18-0151).
April 14, 2021
Applicant: John Rourke
Recommendation
2
Adopt the Draft Resolution which grants final approval to
the subdivision, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
Existing Site Photos
Project Description
4
◼The existing property contains an accessory barn and a
storage shed, which are planned for demolition or
removal.
◼An exception is requested for the lot frontage
requirements for Parcel 1, 2, & 3, which do not provide
any direct access to the street due to the 60 -foot
easement that is Serrano Heights Drive.
Project Statistics
7
Min. Lot
Area
(sq. ft.)
Min.
Width
(feet)
Min.
Depth
(feet)
Min. Street
Frontage (feet)
Density
Based on
Slope
Requirements
(R-1 zone)6,000 50 90 20 1
Parcel 1 9,800 100 100 0 1.41
Parcel 2 18,200 90 200 0 1.67
Parcel 3 14,600 103 140 0 134
Evaluation
8
◼The project site is located within an already developed
residential subdivision representing an infill development
opportunity.
◼The exceptions are minor in nature where access from Serrano
Heights can easily be accomplished through a shared private
drive aisle that satisfies the intent of the frontage requirement.
◼The proposed parcel map conforms with the intent of the
required findings for exceptions for lot frontage dimensions as
identified in the draft resolution.
Environmental Review
9
The IS-MND identifies that the project would potentially affect
the following environmental factors unless mitigated:
•Air Quality
•Biological Resources
•Cultural Resources
•Noise
•Tribal Cultural Resources
•Utilities and Service Systems
•Wildfire
Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these
potential impacts to less than significant.
Recommendation
10
Adopt the Draft Resolution which grants final approval to
the subdivision, based on findings, and subject to
conditions.
Updated Conditions
11
◼Condition #3: Plans submitted for parcel map recordation
shall label all three Parcels as “sensitive sites,” with building
site selection to minimize site disturbance and avoid
disturbance and removal of oak trees that are greater than 4
inches in diameter in breast height.This status ensures that
future site development will respect existing site constraints,
privacy of occupants and neighbors of the project and be
compatible with the scale and character of the surrounding
neighborhood. Prior to submittal of a building permit
application, development of the Parcels 1, 2, and 3 shall
require architectural review, in accordance with Municipal
Code Section 2.48. The Architectural review shall confirm
that building site selection shall minimize site disturbance and
avoid disturbance and removal of oak trees, that are greater
than 4-inches in diameter at breast height.
Required Findings
12
1)There are circumstances of the site, such as size, shape or
topography, distinct from land in the same zoning; or compliance
would be completely infeasible because of the location or site design.
2)The required property improvement standards would decrease the
size or number of units within the project resulting in a significant loss
of entitlement.
3)The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege; an
entitlement inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in
the vicinity with the same zoning; and
4)No feasible alternative to authorizing the exception would satisfy the
intent of the city policies and regulations.