HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 19 - COUNCIL READING FILE_b_Initial Study Negative Declaration
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For: Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update
EID-0150-2021
March 2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ..................................................................... 1
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED ................................................................... 3
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES .............................................................................................................. 3
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE ............................................................................................................... 3
DETERMINATION ......................................................................................................................... 4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ............................................................................... 5
1. Aesthetics ................................................................................................................................................. 6
2. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ......................................................................................................... 7
3. Air Quality................................................................................................................................................. 8
4. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................................... 11
5. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................................. 13
6. Energy ..................................................................................................................................................... 14
7. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................................... 15
8. Greenhouse Gas Emissions .................................................................................................................... 18
9. Hazards and Hazardous Materials .......................................................................................................... 20
10. Hydrology and Water Quality................................................................................................................. 22
11. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................................... 24
12. Mineral Resources .................................................................................................................................. 25
13. Noise ....................................................................................................................................................... 26
14. Population and Housing ......................................................................................................................... 28
15. Public Services ........................................................................................................................................ 29
16. Recreation .............................................................................................................................................. 30
17. Transportation ........................................................................................................................................ 31
18. Tribal Cultural Resources ....................................................................................................................... 33
19. Utilities and Service Systems .................................................................................................................. 34
20. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................................... 36
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance ....................................................................................................... 37
22. Earlier Analyses ...................................................................................................................................... 38
23. Source References .................................................................................................................................. 38
ATTACHMENTS
A: DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN
B: NATIVE AMERICAN CONSULTATION
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ii INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS AND ACRONYMS
AAQS Ambient Air Quality Standards
AB Assembly Bill
ALUP Airport Land Use Plan
AOZ Airport Overlay Zone
BMPs Best Management Practices
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CAP Climate Action Plan
CCRWQCB Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CH4 methane
City City of San Luis Obispo
CO carbon monoxide
CO2 carbon dioxide
CO2e carbon dioxide equivalent
COSE Conservation and Open Space Element
CWPP Community Wildfire Protection Plan
dBA A-weighted decibel(s)
EFZ Earthquake Fault Zone
EIR Environmental Impact Report
EOP Emergency Operations Plan
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
GHGs greenhouse gas emissions
GWP Global Warming Potential
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO iii INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
HFCs hydrofluorocarbons
IS/ND Initial Study/Negative Declaration
LUE Land Use Element
MJHMP Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
MRZs Mineral Resource Zones
N2O nitrous oxide
NO2 nitrogen dioxide
NOA naturally occurring asbestos
NOA ATCM NOA Airborne Toxic Control Measure
NOx nitrogen oxides
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
O3 ozone
P Park
Pb lead
PCR Post Construction Requirements
PF Public Facilities
PFCs perfluorocarbons
PG&E Pacific Gas & Electric Company
PM10 particulate matter less than 10 microns in size
PM2.5 particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size
PRC Public Resources Code
PRE Parks and Recreation Element
PRMP Parks and Recreation Master Plan
PRP Parks and Recreation Plan
REC Recreation
SB Senate Bill
SCCAB South Central Coast Air Basin
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO iv INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
SF6 sulfur hexafluoride
SGMA Sustainable Groundwater Management Act
SLCUSD San Luis Coastal Unified School District
SLOCAPCD San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
SLOMC San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
SMARA Surface Mining and Reclamation Act
SO2 sulfur dioxide
State State of California
SWPPP Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TAC toxic air contaminant
VMT vehicle miles traveled
VOCs volatile organic compounds
WWME Water and Wastewater Management Element
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0150-2021
1. Project Title:
San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update
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:
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
(805) 781-7176
4. Project Location:
Citywide
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Parks and Recreation Department
City of San Luis Obispo
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designations:
Citywide
7. Zoning:
Citywide
8. Description of the Project:
The City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) current Parks and Recreation Master Plan (PRMP) and Parks and Recreation
Element (PRE) was adopted in 2001. The PRMP/PRE needs to be updated to address the City’s changing
population and physical environment and the associated demands for new and/or improved community recreation
facilities and programs. Therefore, in 2018, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) embarked on a process to update its
Parks and Recreation Plan (PRP) and PRE, and the title of this update is Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the
Future: 2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update (Plan Update). The Draft Plan
Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City’s existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for
maintaining and enhancing these facilities, and considers how new parks and facilities should be provided over the
coming years. The combined Draft Plan Update revisits the City’s recreational needs with fresh information about
facility usa ge, program participation, and community priorities and preferences and then establishes goals, policies,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
and implementing actions to serve as a blueprint from which to guide the City in achieving its Parks and Recreation
vision.
The Draft Plan Update addresses the type, location, and timing of development of City parks and recreation
facilities. Although the update retains similar policies and programs as established in the 2001 PRMP/PRE, there
are also new policies and programs that address these changing conditions. Chapter 4, Goals and Policies, of the
Draft Plan Update, includes over 50 policies to achieve the following five system-wide goals:
Build community and neighborhoods;
Meet the changing needs of the community;
Sustainability;
Optimize resources; and
Safety.
Chapter 5, Implementation, of the Draft Plan Update, describes the need for recreation amenities within the City,
provides a framework for locating these amenities, and identifies near-term, mid-term, and long-term projects. As
a policy document, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize any physical development or improvements; instead,
it is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City. Therefore, consistent
with Section 15168(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, this Draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND)
evaluates program-level actions that describe planned park and recreation facilities and programs and focuses
primarily on the Draft Plan Update’s consistency with adopted City plans, goals, objectives, and standards. Future
proposed physical improvements that are subject to discretionary approval would be subject to separate
environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental
Policy Act (CEQA) and the State CEQA Guidelines. The Draft Plan Update is included as Attachment A to this
IS/ND. Once adopted, the Draft Plan Update will be finalized and become part of the City’s General Plan.
9. Project Entitlements:
The Draft Plan Update would require the following entitlements:
Review/recommendation by the City Parks and Recreation Commission and the City Planning
Commission;
Approval of the Draft Plan Update/adoption of the IS/ND by the City Council.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Policies and goals of the Draft Plan Update apply to the entire City; consequently, the project area or setting
includes the entire City and parks and open space areas located outside the City limits within the City’s planning
area.
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 (AB) 52 and Senate Bill (SB) 18. No tribal representatives requested consultation or
provided specific requests.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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
[City to determine whether a No Effect Determination would be applicable to the project]
☐
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written a 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)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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.
☐
March 23, 2021
Signature Date
Shawna Scott
For Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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? 7, 13,
14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 13,
14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 13,
14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 12, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b), c) The City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2006a; adopted
April 4, 2006, last revised December 9, 2014) identifies scenic features as creek areas, historic resources, and neighboring
hillsides and surrounding mountains such as the Morros, the Santa Lucia Mountains, and the Irish Hills. Scenic corridors as
identified in the General Plan include: U.S. Highway 101, South Higuera Street, Broad Street, Tank Farm Road, Johnson Avenue,
Los Osos Valley Road, and Santa Rosa Street. Goals and policies in the Draft Plan Update support the preservation of scenic
resources within the City, and future physical park and facility improvements envisioned by the Draft Plan Update are anticipated
to enhance the existing visual character of the City through the provision of new and upgraded recreational facilities, including
preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site and, where feasible, to connect with nearby open
spaces, and maintaining and providing “grand trees,” or trees which cast shade and provide long-term value. Furthermore, the
Draft Plan Update policies are consistent with the policies within the City’s General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) (City of San
Luis Obispo 2014d; adopted December 9, 2014), the COSE, and the Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c;
adopted December 9, 2014, amended October 24, 2017), which require the preservation of scenic vistas and roadways.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific aesthetic impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual character or public views. Therefore, adoption
of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to scenic vistas, scenic resources, and visual
character or public views, and no mitigation is required.
d) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would introduce new sources of light to the City that are typical
of parks and recreational facilities (e.g., facility and security lighting). However, future projects contemplated under the Draft
Plan Update would be required to comply with the design standards related to light and glare established in both the City’s
General Plan and the City’s Municipal Code. Specifically, future projects would be required to conform to the Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), which establishes operational standards and requirements for
lighting installations (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Although future development envisioned by the Draft Plan Update would
introduce new sources of light that would contribute to the light visible in the night sky and surrounding area, the City is located
within a highly urbanized area characterized by significant nighttime lighting. As such, any new sources of light associated with
future parks and recreational facilities would be consistent with the existing urbanized character of the City. The Draft Plan
Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements
would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for
site-specific aesthetic impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts from light and glare.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to creation of new sources of
substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 11, 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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))?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Evaluation
a), c), d), e) The City contains lands designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide importance
(farmland). However, the City is primarily urbanized, and limited areas are used for agricultural production. Planned parks and
park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the City’s General Plan LUE regarding the locations for
park and recreation development, and would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC) and
Public (PUB) uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of
future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific farmland and agricultural resource impacts and would include
appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts on farmland and agricultural resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft
Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the conversion of farmland, and no mitigation is required.
b) Although there are no existing Williamson Act contracts within the City, several undeveloped hillside parcels to the east of
the City and several parcels outside the Airport Area Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a) are under Williamson Act
contracts (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). However, these nearby parcels under Williamson Act contracts are not planned for
park and recreation development within the Draft Plan Update. Additionally, planned parks and park improvements as described
in the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB)
uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts related to agricultural zoning and Williamson Act contracts
and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address such impacts. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update
would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with existing zoning for agricultural use or conflicts with a
Williamson Act contract, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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? 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
25, 26,
27, 28 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
25, 26,
27, 28,
29
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo is within the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD). The
SLOCAPCD is part of the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which includes San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara and Ventura
counties. As the local air quality management agency, SLOCAPCD is required to monitor air pollutant levels to ensure that State
and federal air quality standards are met and, if they are not met, to develop strategies to meet the standards. Both the State of
California (State) and the federal government have established health-based Ambient Air Quality Standards (AAQS) for six
criteria air pollutants: carbon monoxide (CO), ozone (O3), nitrogen dioxide (NO2), sulfur dioxide (SO2), lead (Pb), and suspended
particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM10, [particulate matter less than 2.5 microns in size, and particulate matter less than 10 microns
in size, respectively]). The SLOCAPCD is under State non-attainment status for ozone and PM10 standards. The SLOCAPCD is
classified as non-attainment for the federal ozone 8-hour standard (eastern San Luis Obispo County only).
In March 2002, SLOCAPCD adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (SLOCAPCD 2001). In July 2005, SLOCAPCD adopted a
Particulate Matter Report (SLOCAPCD 2005), in order to update the jurisdiction’s control measures for particulate matter, as
required by SB 656. In 2015, SLOCAPCD adopted an Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment in order to identify and
analyze its historic and current air monitoring sites. The most current Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment
(SLOCAPCD 2020a) was performed in June 2020. In addition, in January 2020, SLOCAPCD adopted an Ozone Emergency
Episode Plan (SLOCAPCD 2020b), in compliance with the Federal Clean Air Act, in order to provide the basis for taking action
when ambient ozone concentrations reach a level that could endanger public health in San Luis Obispo County.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) is identified by the California Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant (TAC). NOA
is commonly found in ultramafic rock, including serpentine, near fault zones, and is released into the air when it is broken or
crushed. This can occur when land is graded for building purposes, or at quarrying operations. Work in serpentine areas requires
a pre-approved dust control plan by the SLOCAPCD, and may include asbestos air monitoring. In addition, projects located
within the green “buffer” areas as designated by the SLOCAPCD NOA map would be required to comply with the provisions of
the California Air Resources Board’s Air Toxic Control Measure (NOA ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (SLOCAPCD 2021).
a) An air quality plan describes air pollution control strategies to be implemented by a city, county, or region classified as a non-
attainment area. The main purpose of the air quality plan is to bring the area into compliance with the requirements of the federal
and State air quality standards. As identified above, to bring San Luis Obispo County into attainment, the SLOCAPCD adopted
the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The 2001 Clean Air Plan calls for building compact communities to limit urban sprawl, mix
complementary land uses, such as commercial services with higher-density housing, increasing residential and commercial
densities along transit corridors, and increase pedestrian-friendly and interconnected streetscapes, helping to make alternative
means of transportation more convenient. Consistency with the 2001 Clean Air Plan would be achieved if a project is consistent
with the land use, transportation control measures, and strategies outlined in the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Planned parks and park
improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the City’s General Plan LUE regarding the locations for park
and recreation development, and would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and
Public (PUB) uses. In addition, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize development or changes to land use and zoning. Thus,
implementation of the Draft Plan Update would not result in construction or operational impacts. In addition, the five goals of
the Draft Plan Update (i.e., building community and neighborhoods, meeting changing needs of the community, sustainability,
optimizing resources, and safety) seek to provide a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increase trees and shade
structures, implement water efficient initiatives, modify existing parks and design new parks and facilities to support and advance
the City’s Climate Action Plan goal for carbon neutrality, and promote non-motorized access to the City’s open spaces. Because
these goals are consistent with the intent of the 2001 Clean Air Plan strategies, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with
the 2001 Clean Air Plan. Further, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of
future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts in regard to conflicts with an applicable air quality plan. For the reasons stated above, adoption of
the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of an applicable air
quality plan, and no mitigation is required.
b) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, including but not limited to planned improvements for the
Ludwick Community Center, construction of a new multi-generational community center, and the construction of new parks and
recreation amenities and facilities, would include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, and could thereby
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
result in the generation of short-term construction emissions. Short-term construction emissions may include the release of
particulate matter emissions (i.e., fugitive dust) generated by excavating, paving, and building activities. Short-term construction
emissions from construction equipment may also include CO, nitrogen oxides (NOX), volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
directly-emitted particulate matter (PM2.5 and PM 10), and TACs such as diesel exhaust particulate matter. The SLOAPCD CEQA
Handbook identifies standard mitigation such as dust control, Best Available Control Technologies, limitations on diesel
equipment idling, and other measures proven to reduce air emissions during construction. These measures would be applied to
any project with the potential to exceed quantified air emissions thresholds identified by the SLOAPCD, and/or when
construction would occur proximate to sensitive receptors.
Long-term operational emissions are associated with any change in permanent use of a project site by on-site stationary and off-
site mobile sources that substantially increase emissions. Stationary-source emissions include emissions associated with
electricity consumption and natural gas usage. Mobile-source emissions typically result from vehicle trips associated with a
project. Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update is anticipated to aid in reducing long-term operational
emissions within the City, as the Draft Plan Update establishes a policy for the evaluation of the current energy usage of existing
parks and facilities and the establishment of energy management and sustainability features, where feasible (e.g., on-site
renewable energy or battery storage). In addition, new parks and facilities envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be
designed to support and advance the City’s Climate Action Plan goal for carbon neutrality, reduce vehicle miles traveled, and
promote non-motorized access to the City’s open spaces.
The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard
to a considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than
significant impact related to criteria pollutant emissions, and no mitigation is required.
c) As described above, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would include a variety of grading,
construction, and demolition activities, which would generate air pollutants. Depending on the specific location, sensitive
receptors may be exposed to air pollutants; as noted above, SLOAPCD standard mitigation would be required for applicable
projects, such as restrictions on diesel-equipment idling to minimize exposure to diesel particulates. Further, the Draft Plan
Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City
and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements
would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for
site-specific air quality impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to exposure
of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less
than significant impact related to exposure of sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations, and no mitigation is
required.
d) The Draft Plan Update would not result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors) adversely affecting a substantial
number of people because it does not establish new land uses that would have the potential to generate significant odors.
Individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with the City’s odor ordinance
(SLOMC Chapter 8.22) and SLOCAPCD’s Rule 402, Nuisance. Further, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and
is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any
physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate
environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific air quality impacts
and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts in regard to other emissions (such as those leading to
odors). Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to other emissions
(such as those leading to odors), and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
7, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
7, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
7, 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b), c), d) The City is primarily urbanized, and includes a mix of community parks, neighborhood parks, mini parks, and open
space, in addition to a permanent open space greenbelt around the perimeter of the City. The City’s General Plan LUE and COSE
provide a guide for the preservation of biological resources within the City’s planning area. The City’s planning area includes
areas within the City’s sphere of influence beyond City limits. These biological resources include creeks and adjacent riparian
corridors, vernal pools, marshes, special-status species, hillsides, open space and park areas, and Laguna Lake. One of the goals
of the LUE is to include resource protection within the City’s planning program. Resource Protection is addressed in Section 6
of the LUE. In particular, the LUE includes Policy 6.6.1 to provide recreational opportunities which are compatible with fish and
wildlife habitat and Policy 6.6.2 to include lakes, creeks, and wetlands as part of a citywide and regional network of open space
and parks to foster the understanding, enjoyment, and protection of the natural landscape and wildlife. The COSE’s goals of
maintaining sustainable natural populations of plants, fish and wildlife that inhabit the City’s natural communities and in
particular COSE Policies 7.3.1 and 7.3.2, which establish the protection of listed species and species of special concern,
respectively, and Policy 7.3.3, which provides for the protection and preservation of wildlife habitat and wildlife corridors.
The Draft Plan Update’s goal of sustainability is consistent with and supports both the City’s existing LUE and COSE because
it includes policies that (1) seek to integrate creeks into the parks and recreation s ystem by providing trails along the City’s creeks
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
while also addressing natural resource preservation, (2) focus on natural features by preserving and incorporating existing
vegetation and natural features on site and, where feasible, by designing and connecting these features with larger open space
systems, and (3) consider habitat value and natural influences as key factors in selecting trees at park locations. Furthermore, the
Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific biological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to protect those resources
from both direct and indirect impacts. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact
related to federally or State protected species, special-status or candidate species, riparian habitat or other natural communities,
State or federally protected wetlands, or the movements of fish and wildlife species, and no mitigation is required.
e) As described within COSE Policy 7.5.1, significant trees that make substantial contributions to natural habitat or to the urban
landscape due to their species, size, or rarity shall be protected and their removal will be subject to specific criteria and mitigation
requirements. The Draft Plan Update’s goal to develop sustainable parks and facilities seeks to preserve and incorporate existing
vegetation, including trees. Additionally, future park and recreation projects that would result in tree removals would be required
to comply with Chapter 12.24, Tree Regulations, of the City’s Municipal Code, which includes requirements for tree protection
measures and compensatory plantings (minimum 1:1 replacement ratio for trees replanted on site, minimum 2:1 replacement
ratio for trees planted off-site). Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide
development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or
improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a
project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual
projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific biological resources and would include
appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological
resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less
than significant impact related to conflicts with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as trees, and
no mitigation is required.
f) The COSE and City’s Municipal Code establish land designated for habitat conservation and specify goals and policies to
preserve these conservation areas. The City has eight Open Space Conservation Plans that guide protection, access, and
restoration efforts within the City’s greenbelt: the Agricultural Master Plan for Calle Joaquin Reserve, the Bishop Peak Natural
Reserve Conservation Plan, the Cerro San Luis Conservation Plan, the Irish Hills Conservation Plan, the Johnson Ranch
Conservation Plan, the South Hills Conservation Plan, the Stenner Springs Natural Reserve Draft Conservation Plan, and the
Reservoir Canyon Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Adoption of the Draft Plan Update
would promote the preservation of land designated for habitat within the City. For example, three of the goals of the Draft Plan
Update, in particular, would support the City’s desire to promote and preserve land designated for habitat conservation and open
space by focusing parks, facilities and recreation activities within the City’s urban areas: build community and neighborhoods,
sustainability, and optimize resources. These goals include improving existing parks, creating new parks in existing
neighborhoods and specific plan areas, maintaining the City’s Joint Use Agreement with the San Luis Coastal Unified School
District, and coordinating with other organizations’ recreation offerings to match needs and facilities/programs while not
replicating services. Prioritizing the use and expansion of existing developed areas and services provided by others in order to
meet the demand for new park facilities and amenities will help the City provide new and improved parks and recreation facilities
within a limited footprint, which will allow for the conservation of natural areas and open space. Integrating creekside trails into
the City’s park system and incorporating natural features within designated parks and facilities that connect with larger open
space will generate an appreciation for the City’s natural areas and open space while protecting the resources by directing human
activities to maintained areas. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide
development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or
improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a
project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual
projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific biological resources and would include
appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City’s adopted conservation plans or other
approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plans. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less
than significant impact related to conflicts with the City’s adopted conservation plans or other approved local, regional, or State
habitat conservation plans, and no mitigation is required.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
7, 10,
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 7, 9 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 9 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) The City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance (Municipal Code Chapter 14.01) and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines
(City of San Luis Obispo 2010) specify regulations for special treatment of historic resources and establish local guidance for
the identification and preservation of such resources. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, such as
improvements to the SLO Senior Center, a historic property located at 1445 Santa Rosa Street, would be required to be consistent
with the guidelines related to historic resources established under the City’s Historic Preservation Ordinance, the Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and the General Plan. Specifically, as described in Section 3.4.2 of the Historic Preservation
Program Guidelines, projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, which propose alterations to historically-listed buildings,
would be required to retain at least 75 percent of the original building framework, roof, and exterior bearing walls and cladding,
in total, and reuse original materials as feasible. Proposed alterations of greater than 25 percent of the original building
framework, roof, and exterior walls will be subject to the review process for demolitions, including evaluation of potential
impacts to a historic property pursuant to CEQA. Alterations do not include ordinary repair or maintenance activities that are
determined to be exempt from a building permit or are consistent with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment
of Historic Resources. Sections 3.3 and 3.5 of the COSE also specify policies to protect significant historical and architectural
resources within the City. In addition, future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with
Policy 3.5.12, which requires developments to preserve archaeological or historical resources through easements or dedications
when located on parkland. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development
of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific historic resources, and would include compliance with the City
Historic Preservation Ordinance and Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and appropriate mitigation as necessary to
address impacts related to historic resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant
impact in regard to historic resources, and no mitigation is required.
b) The City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2009) provide a guide for
the identification, evaluation, and preservation of archaeological and other cultural resources within the City. These guidelines
support Policy 3.5.1 of the COSE, which requires the City to protect known and potential archaeological resources. Furthermore,
the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific archaeological resources pursuant to the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts to archaeological resources. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to archaeological resources, and no
mitigation is required.
c) As stated in Response 5 (b), above, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development
of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific cultural resources and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts to human remains. Further, any future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would
follow the standard procedures as outlined in Section 4.40.3.3 of the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines in the event human remains are discovered during construction or excavation activities. Therefore, adoption of the
Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to impacts to human remains, and no mitigation is
required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
7, 15,
21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
7, 15,
21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (City of San Luis Obispo 2006a; adopted April 4, 2006,
last revised December 9, 2014) 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.
Consistent with the City’s goals and policies, in October 2018, the City Council committed to joining Central Coast Community
Energy (formerly Monterey Bay Community Power), whereas up until that time, Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) was
the primary electricity provider for the City. Since January 2020, Central Coast Community Energy has been the City’s primary
electricity provider and strives to provide 100 percent carbon-free electricity to the City by 2023 (City of San Luis Obispo
2021b). In September 2019, the City adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages new
buildings to be clean, efficient, and cost effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the
California Energy Code (City of San Luis Obispo 2021b).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
The City’s Climate Action Plan (CAP) (City of San Luis Obispo 2020a) also identifies strategies and policies to increase use of
cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve the City’s greenhouse gas emissions reduction target. These strategies
include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and
existing developments, and increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs.
a), b) Typical construction activities require the use of energy (e.g., electricity and fuel) for various purposes such as the operation
of construction equipment and tools, as well as excavation, grading, demolition, and construction vehicle travel. Operational
energy demand is typically associated with lighting, routine maintenance activities, landscaping, turf, and vehicle travel. The
Draft Plan Update does not authorize any direct physical changes and would, therefore, not generate new daily vehicle trips,
electricity consumption, or natural gas usage. Furthermore, the goals of the Draft Plan Update, which seek to build community
and neighborhoods and increase sustainability, include policies directed at providing a park within walking distance of every
neighborhood, increasing trees and shade structures, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, and instituting water-
efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and
gray and recycled water systems. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes a specific policy to design and maintain parks and
facilities for carbon neutrality by strategically phasing out fossil fuel use and pursuing energy management and sustainability
features where feasible such as onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and public electric vehicle chargers. New buildings and
facilities shall not include fossil fuels and shall be designed to support electric or alternative fueled fleet vehicles and maintenance
equipment. Therefore, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update is not anticipated to result in increased energy
demand.
As discussed above, the Draft Plan Update includes goals and policies that seek to improve the sustainability of parks and
facilities, and is consistent with the strategies and policies of the City’s CAP. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a
programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to energy resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to energy resources.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to wasteful, inefficient, or
unnecessary consumption of energy resources and would not conflict with or obstruct implementation of a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
6, 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 8, 12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
6, 8 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or
indirect risks to life or property?
12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
12 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature? 9 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a. i) As described in the City’s General Plan Safety Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2000; adopted: July 5, 2000, last revised
December 9, 2014), the City is located within a geologically complex and seismically active region. The Los Osos Fault is located
adjacent to the City, and is classified as an active Earthquake Fault Zone (EFZ) under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault
Zoning Act. Other potentially active faults within the vicinity of the City include the West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna Faults,
which present moderate fault rupture hazards (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Since the Draft Plan Update is a policy document
and does not directly authorize any physical improvements, its adoption would not result in impacts related to the rupture of a
known earthquake fault as depicted on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map. Further, future individual
projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in the Safety
Element, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a
programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the rupture
of a known earthquake fault. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated
with the risk of loss, injury or death involving the rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-
Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map, and no mitigation is required.
a. ii) Several faults, including the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and
San Andreas faults are capable of producing strong ground motion in the City. The San Andreas Fault and the offshore Hosgri
Fault present the most likely source of ground shaking in the City (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). As with most areas within
the region, damage to development and infrastructure could be expected as a result of ground shaking. However, future individual
projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in the Safety
Element, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a
programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to strong
seismic ground shaking. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated
with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking, and no mitigation is required.
a. iii) The soils within the City most susceptible to ground shaking and that contain shallow groundwater are most likely to have
a potential for settlement and for liquefaction (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Similarly to Responses 7 (a)(i) and (a)(ii), future
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
individual projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City policies established in
the Safety Element and City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b), which include policies to prevent
development within areas susceptible to natural hazards, and would include compliance with current building codes.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, adoption
of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving
strong seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction, and no mitigation is required.
a. iv) Landslides are most common where slopes are steep, soils are weak, and groundwater is present. The City contains
extensive hillsides, several of which are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope
instability. However, most of the City’s steep hillside areas are designated as Open Space per the City’s General Plan. Because
future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P),
Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) uses, landslides in these areas are unlikely to occur. In addition, future individual projects
envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to be consistent with City requirements established in the Safety
Element and the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b), which includes policies to prevent
development within areas susceptible to natural hazards, and would be required to be compliant with current building codes.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to landslides. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a
less than significant impact associated with the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides, and no mitigation is required.
b) As further discussed in Responses 10 (a), (c), and (i-v), future projects which require the preparation of a Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would implement Erosion and Sediment Control Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize
impacts related to erosion and runoff. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide
development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or
improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a
project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual
projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to geological resources and
would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to erosion and loss of topsoil, and no
mitigation is required.
c), d) Refer to Responses 7 (a)(iv) and 7 (b) above. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required
to be consistent with the City Safety Element and the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2006b),
which include policies to prevent development within areas susceptible to natural hazards. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update
is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and
does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements
would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for
site-specific impacts to geological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to
unstable soils that could result in landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansion. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to unstable soils that could result in
landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, collapse, or expansion, and no mitigation is required.
e) As stated in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Land Use and Circulation Elements Update (LUCE) (City
of San Luis Obispo 2014b), with implementation of existing Water and Wastewater Element policies and completion of the
City’s ongoing expansion of the Water Resource Recovery Facility, the City would have adequate wastewater treatment capacity
to serve projected demand in addition to existing commitments, which include existing parks and recreational facility needs.
Future development within the City, including projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, would be connected to the
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
municipal waste disposal system. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact associated with soils
incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems, and no mitigation is
required.
f) The City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (City of San Luis Obispo 2009) specify criteria to
address the discovery of unique resources or paleontological resources during construction excavation. The Draft Plan Update is
a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to paleontological resources and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to
paleontological resources. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to
unique paleontological resources or sites or unique geologic features, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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? 15, 16 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 15, 16 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs) are present in the atmosphere naturally, and are released by natural sources, or are formed
from secondary reactions taking place in the atmosphere. However, over the last 200 years, human activities have caused
substantial quantities of GHGs to be released into the atmosphere. These extra emissions are increasing GHG concentrations in
the atmosphere, and enhancing the natural greenhouse effect, which is believed to be causing global climate change. The gases
that are widely seen as the principal contributors to human-induced global climate change are: carbon dioxide (CO2); methane
(CH4); nitrous oxide (N2O); hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs); perfluorocarbons (PFCs); and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Certain gases, such as water vapor, are short-lived in the atmosphere. Others remain in the atmosphere for significant periods of
time, contributing to climate change in the long term. Water vapor is excluded from the list of GHGs above because it is short-
lived in the atmosphere and its atmospheric concentrations are largely determined by natural processes, such as oceanic
evaporation. These gases vary considerably in terms of Global Warming Potential (GWP), which is a concept developed to
compare the ability of each GHG to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. GWP is based on several factors, including
the relative effectiveness of a gas to absorb infrared radiation and the length of time that the gas remains in the atmosphere
(“atmospheric lifetime”). The GWP of each gas is measured relative to CO2, the most abundant GHG; the definition of GWP for
a particular GHG is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the GHG to the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of CO2
over a specified time period. GHG emissions are typically measured in terms of pounds or tons of “CO2 equivalents” (CO2e).
In 2012, the City established a CAP that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG
reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020, the City adopted the 2020 CAP and established a goal of carbon
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
neutrality by 2035. The City’s CAP is consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5, which states that if a project is
consistent with an adopted qualified GHG Reduction Strategy that meets the standards, it can be presumed that the project would
not have significant GHG emission impacts. Therefore, a project’s GHG emissions would not be considered a significant impact
if the project is consistent with the City’s CAP. The City of San Luis Obispo has also adopted its California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance (City of San Luis Obispo 2020b), which
establishes GHG emissions targets and analysis methodologies that are enforced during CEQA review with the intention of
reducing GHG emissions associated with construction and operation of future projects and plans in the City.
a), b) Future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update, including but not limited to the planned improvements for
the Ludwick Community Center, construction of a new multi-generational community center, and the construction of new parks
and recreation amenities and facilities, would include a variety of grading, construction, and demolition activities, and could
thereby result in the generation of short-term construction GHG emissions. GHGs could be emitted through the operation of
construction equipment and from worker and builder supply vendor vehicles, each of which typically use fossil-based fuels to
operate. The combustion of fossil-based fuels creates GHGs such as CO2, CH4, and N2O. The SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook
identifies standard mitigation such as Best Available Control Technologies and other measures proven to reduce GHG emissions
during construction..
Long-term GHG emissions are typically generated from mobile, area, waste, and water sources as well as indirect emissions
from sources associated with energy consumption. Mobile-source GHG emissions could include project-generated trips to and
from a project site. Area-source emissions would be associated with activities such as landscaping and maintenance on a project
site and operation of recreational facilities. Energy source emissions are typically generated at off-site utility providers. Waste
source emissions include energy generated by land filling and other methods of disposal related to transporting and managing
project-generated waste. In addition, water source emissions are generated by the pumping of water, water distribution, and
wastewater treatment. Regardless, the five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., building community and neighborhoods, meeting
changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety) would be consistent with and further the
implementation of the City’s GHG reduction strategies. For example, the policies outlined in the Draft Plan Update seek to
provide a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increase trees and shade structures, make park locations accessible
by foot and bicycle, implement water-efficient initiatives, low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water
systems. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes a specific policy to design and maintain parks and facilities for carbon
neutrality by strategically phasing out fossil fuel use and pursuing energy management and sustainability features where feasible
such as onsite renewable energy, battery storage, and public electric vehicle chargers. New buildings and facilities shall not
include fossil fuels and shall be designed to support electric or alternative fueled fleet vehicles and maintenance equipment.
Because these goals are consistent with the strategies and policies of the City’s CAP, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent
with the City CAP. Further, future development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for consistency with
the City’s CAP and its CEQA Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions Thresholds and Guidance (City of San Luis Obispo 2020b).
The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with GHG emissions and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to
address impacts related to GHG emissions or conflicts with the City’s Climate Action Plan. As such, adoption of the Draft Plan
Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with generation of GHGs that would have a significant impact
on the environment or conflict with applicable plans, policies, or regulations adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions,
and no mitigation would be required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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?
6, 14,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
6, 14,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
6, 14,
24 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
11, 20,
22 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
20, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires? 6, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b), c) The City’s General Plan LUE (City of San Luis Obispo 2014d; adopted December 9, 2014) and Safety Element (City
of San Luis Obispo, 2000; adopted July 5, 2000, last revised December 9, 2014) are the primary documents that address potential
hazards and hazardous materials within the City. Specifically, Policy 5.3 of the Safety Element requires avoidance of hazardous
materials to the greatest extent practical when conducting City operations, and requires health and safety practices to be followed
when hazardous materials are used. In addition, the San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan
(MJHMP) (San Luis Obispo County 2019) identifies hazards and risks related to natural disasters and hazardous materials
incidents, and includes mitigation strategies to reduce impacts associated with these risks. The Draft Plan Update is consistent
with the policies within the LUE, the Safety Element, and the San Luis Obispo County MJHMP. For example, one of the goals
of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes replacing chemical herbicides, pesticides, and fertilizers with non-toxic
alternatives such as the use of Integrated Pest Management, which focuses on pest prevention through biological controls and
the use of non-toxic cleaning products.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials and would
include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the routine transport, use, disposal, accidental release,
or emissions associated with hazardous materials. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
significant impact related to the creation of a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,
use, disposal, accidental release, or emissions associated with hazardous materials, and no mitigation is required.
d) The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation
projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park
and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update
would be evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to hazardous materials listed on sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to known
hazardous materials listed on sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5, and no mitigation is required.
e) The San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is located adjacent to the southern perimeter of the City. The Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (County of San Luis Obispo 2005) identifies policies to
evaluate the compatibility of land uses and proposed local actions with the airport. The City’s adopted Specific Plans, including
but not limited to the Airport Area Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, Orcutt Area Specific Plan, San Luis Ranch
Specific Plan, and Froom Ranch Specific Plan, were all determined to be consistent with the effective ALUP prior to adoption
by the City. Areas with the City that are located outside of Sp ecific Plan areas are subject to Chapter 17.64 of the City’s Municipal
Code, which establishes an Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) and identifies specific regulations for land uses within the AOZ. Future
development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update may be located within the AOZ or located within two miles of the San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport, and could introduce new sources of lighting or other potential hazards that could interfere with
overflight safety requirements, or exposure park and facility staff and users to aircraft noise as established in the ALUP. However,
the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with the project’s proximity to an airport and would include appropriate mitigation
as necessary to address impacts related to safety hazards or excessive noise for people residing or working in a project area.
Additionally, the Draft Plan Update is consistent with the goals of the Airport Area Specific Plan (City of San Luis Obispo
2014a), as one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update, building community and neighborhoods, includes guiding the completion
of parks planned as part of adopted Specific Plans, including Avila Ranch within the Airport Area Specific Plan. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to a site’s proximity to an airport facility
or any airport land use plan, and no mitigation is required.
f) The San Luis Obispo County Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) (San Luis Obispo County 2016) addresses the planned
response to extraordinary emergency situations associated with natural disasters, technological incidents, and national security
emergencies within or affecting the County. Individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the EOP, City Municipal
Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and other adopted emergency response and evacuation plans.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts associated with the impairment or interference with an adopted
emergency response or evacuation plan and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address such impacts.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to interference with an adopted
emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no mitigation is required.
g) As described in the Safety Element, the City is considered a “community at risk” due to the threat of wildfire impacting the
urban community. Policy 3.0 of the Safety Element specifies that developments will only be approved when adequate fire
suppression services and facilities are available or will be made available concurrent with the proposed development. Policy 3.1
of the Safety Element also establishes policies for wildland fire safety. In addition, the Community Wildfire Protection Plan
(CWPP) provides a citywide strategic planning level framework for hazardous fuel assessment and reduction, and identifies
goals to improve fire prevention and suppression efforts and to restore fire-adapted ecosystems. Future development envisioned
under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for consistency with the Safety Element, City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04,
Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and the CWPP. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document
and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate
environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts associated
with exposing people or structures to loss, injury or death involving wildland fire and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to wildland fire. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than
significant impact related to exposure of people or structures to the risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fire, and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
12 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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; 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation? 2 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), c) (i-iv) As a policy document, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would not result in impacts related to hydrology and water
quality. One of the Draft Plan Update’s goals is to develop parks and recreation facilities sustainably, which includes policies
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
such as incorporating working landscapes that help filter pollutants and capture stormwater and reduce the use of chemicals,
which would improve water quality and the rate and volume of stormwater runoff. Future projects envisioned under the Draft
Plan Update would generally be required to comply with the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) Construction
General Permit if construction of the project disturbs greater than 1 acre of soil. Compliance with the Construction General
Permit would require preparation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of construction
BMPs, including, but not limited to, Erosion and Sediment Control BMPs and Good Housekeeping BMPs. Any groundwater
dewatering activities during excavation would be required to comply with the appropriate National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) waste discharge requirements permit, which requires testing and treatment (as necessary) of
groundwater encountered during dewatering prior to its release. Additionally, the City is within the jurisdiction of the Central
Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB), which has established Post Construction Requirements (PCR) for
development and redevelopment projects. Chapter 12.08 of the City’s Municipal Code, Urban Stormwater Quality Management
and Discharge Control, also specifies requirements to prevent, control, and reduce pollution in stormwater runoff, and identifies
local requirements for post-construction BMPs. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended
to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical
development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental
review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition,
individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and
water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to violation of water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, or alteration of drainage patterns. Therefore, adoption
of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the violation of water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements, degradation of water quality, or alteration of drainage patterns, and no mitigation is required.
b) The City is located partially within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). One of
the Draft Plan Update’s goals is to develop parks and recreation facilities sustainably, which includes policies such as preserving
and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site, developing working landscapes, and low water use planting
and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems to reduce water use. These policies promote water conservation and
groundwater recharge. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development
of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to groundwater and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to groundwater supplies and groundwater recharge. Therefore, adoption of the
Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to depletion of groundwater supplies or interference with
groundwater recharge, and no mitigation is required.
d) Based on the County Tsunami Inundation Maps (California Department of Conservation 2019), the City is not located within
a tsunami inundation zone. Additionally, the City does not have large bodies of standing body of water with the potential for
seiches to occur. Future projects envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with City Municipal Code
Chapter 17.78, Flood Damage Prevention, and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
(FIRM) flood zone requirements to address impacts associated with flooding. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a
programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the risk of release
of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than
significant impact related to risk of release of pollutants in flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, and no mitigation is required.
e) Refer to Responses 10 (a) and (b). One of the Draft Plan Up date’s goals is to develop parks and recreation facilities sustainably,
which includes policies such as preserving and incorporating existing vegetation and natural features on site, developing working
landscapes, and low water use planting and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems to reduce water use, which are
consistent with the CCRWQCB’s Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan) (CCRWQCB 2019)
and the sustainable groundwater management. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended
to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical
development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental
review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition,
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to hydrology and
water quality and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with or obstruction
of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update
would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with or obstruction of a water quality control plan or sustainable
groundwater management plan, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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? 14 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
14 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) According to the Draft Plan Update, San Luis Obispo’s Parks and Recreation Department defines its mission “to inspire
happiness by creating community through people, parks, program and open space.” The Draft Plan Update presents a blueprint
for realizing this mission. The five goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing
needs of the community, sustainability, maximize resources, and safety) embody this vision; so it could be said that the Draft
Plan Update is the very antithesis of any effort to physically divide an established community, regardless of whether the
“community” is defined as a neighborhood, a specific plan area, or the entire City.
In addition, the Draft Plan Update is consistent with the intent of the City’s General Plan LUE (City of San Luis Obispo 2014d;
adopted December 9, 2014) to set forth a pattern for the orderly development of land within the City's planning area, based on
residents’ preferences and on protection of natural assets unique to the planning area. Similar to the intent of the LUE, the five
goals of the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing needs of the community, sustainability,
optimize resources, and safety) seek to facilitate the orderly development of future parks and recreation projects within the City,
and seek to preserve and protect existing vegetation and natural features at existing parks and facilities. The Draft Plan Update
was also developed in coordination with City residents through a comprehensive public engagement effort, as described in
Chapter 3, What We Heard, of the Draft Plan Update. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact
related to physically dividing an established community, and no mitigation is required.
b) Planned parks and park improvements as described in the Draft Plan Update comply with the designated intent for Park (P),
Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB) land uses as described in the LUE. In addition, as stated previously, the goals of the Draft
Plan Update include building community and neighborhoods, meeting changing needs of the community, sustainability,
optimizing resources, and safety. As stated in Response 11 (a), because the intent of the Draft Plan Update and the five goals of
the Draft Plan Update (i.e., build community and neighborhoods, meet changing needs of the community, sustainability,
maximize resources, and safety) are consistent with the intent of the LUE, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the
LUE. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to land use and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with any land use plan, policy, or regulation. Therefore, adoption of the Draft
Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with a land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted
for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a), b) In 1975, the California Legislature enacted the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act (SMARA), which, among other
things, provided guidelines for the classification and designation of mineral lands. Areas are classified on the basis of geologic
factors without regard to existing land use and land ownership. The areas are categorized into four Mineral Resource Zones
(MRZs):
MRZ-1: An area where adequate information indicates that no significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is
judged that little likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-2: An area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present, or where it is
judged that a high likelihood exists for their presence.
MRZ-3: An area containing mineral deposits, the significance of which cannot be evaluated.
MRZ-4: An area where available information is inadequate for assignment to any other MRZ zone.
Of the four categories, lands classified as MRZ-2 are of the greatest importance. Such areas are underlain by
demonstrated mineral resources or are located where geologic data indicate that significant measured or indicated resources are
present. MRZ-2 areas are designated by the State of California Mining and Geology Board as being “regionally significant,”
and require that a Lead Agency’s land use decisions involving MRZ-2 areas are to be made in accordance with its mineral
resource management policies, and that it consider the importance of the mineral resource to the region or the State as a whole,
not just to the Lead Agency’s jurisdiction.
According to the California Division of Mines and Geology Mineral Land Classification Map (California Department of
Conservation 1989), the City is located within MRZ-3. There are no areas classified as MRZ-2 located within the City. Further,
because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, no impacts related to
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
mineral resources would occur with its adoption. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact to
mineral resources, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
No impact.
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?
5, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne
noise levels? 5, 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or
an airport land use plan, or, where such a plan has not been
adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use
airport, would the project expose people residing or working in
the project area to excessive noise levels?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) The City’s General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996; adopted May 7, 1996, last revised May 7, 1996)
establishes standards and procedures for protecting noise-sensitive uses from stationary and mobile sources. Refer to Table A
for the maximum noise exposure thresholds for noise-sensitive uses due to transportation noise sources, and Table B for
maximum noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses due to stationary noise sources.
Table A: Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to
Transportation Noise Sources
Outdoor
Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces
Land Use
Ldn or CNEL,
in dB
Ldn or
CNEL, in dB
Leq
in dB2
Lmax
in dB3
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing
homes 60 45 - 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music halls - - 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building,
mortuaries 60 - 45 -
Schools, libraries, museums - - 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 - - -
Playgrounds 70 - - -
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Source: General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996).
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land
use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dB = decibel(s)
Ldn = day-night average noise level
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Lmax = maximum instantaneous noise level
Table B: Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to
Transportation Noise Sources
Duration Day (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) Night (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.)
Hourly Leq in dB1,2 50 45
Maximum level in dB1,2 70 65
Maximum impulsive noise in dB1,3 65 60
Source: General Plan Noise Element (City of San Luis Obispo 1996).
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land
use.
2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
CNEL = community noise equivalent level
dB = decibel(s)
Leq = equivalent continuous sound level
Noise attenuation measures identified in the Noise Element include land use limitations, separation between land uses (i.e., noise
buffers), earth berms, and sound attenuation walls. Noise Element Policy 1.1 states that the City will work to minimize noise
exposure based on the established numerical noise standards. City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, prohibits
operation of tools or equipment used in construction between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. Monday through Saturday, or at any time
on Sundays or holidays. The Municipal Code also requires that construction activities shall be conducted such that that the
maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residences, 80 dBA
at multi-family residences, and 85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. The City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7) also
addresses vibration impacts, if construction is occurring in a public space or right-of-way, by prohibiting the operation of any
device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the
source. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks
and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific noise-related impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to an increase in noise levels or excessive groundborne vibration or noise. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to an increase in noise levels or excessive
groundborne vibration or noise, and no mitigation is required.
c) Refer to Response 9 (e). Chapter 17.64 of the City’s Municipal Code establishes an AOZ that identifies specific regulations
for land uses within the AOZ, including provisions for noise sensitive land uses including neighborhood parks and playgrounds
that could be affected by aircraft noise. Additionally, there are no private airstrips within the City’s Urban Reserve Line.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific noise-related impacts and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to exposure of people residing or working in an area to excessive airport noise. Future
development envisioned under the Draft Plan Update would also be reviewed for consistency with the ALUP and Chapter 17.64
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
of the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related
to exposure of people residing or working in an area to excessive airport noise, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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)?
17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
17 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
a), b) The Draft Plan Update seeks to address existing and future parks and recreation needs for the City’s growing and changing
population. According to the City’s existing standards, which require a minimum of 10 acres of parkland acreage per 1,000
residents, the City is currently deficient in parkland acreage. Therefore, the Draft Plan Update is responding to the needs of the
City’s existing and future population by planning for additional parks and facilities; it is not inducing population growth by
providing parks and facilities.
The Draft Plan Update seeks to place updated and new facilities within or near either existing housing areas or within planned
new housing areas. The City’s approach to providing new and/or improved parks and recreation facilities is consistent with Goal
3 of the City’s Housing Element, which seeks to conserve existing housing, and prevent the loss of safe housing and the
displacement of current occupants, because the approach to providing new and/or improved parks and recreation facilities would
not displace existing people or housing. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development
of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update
would result in no impact related to substantial unplanned population growth or the displacement of substantial numbers of
existing people or housing, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
No impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
Fire protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) Fire and police protection services are provided to the City by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department and the City
of San Luis Obispo Police Department, respectively. Individual projects envisioned by the Draft Plan Update may result in a
marginal cumulative increase in demand on City services, including fire and police protection. However, the Draft Plan Update
is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and
does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements
would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and
the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for
site-specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to fire
and police protection. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the
provision of fire and police protection, or the construction of new or physically altered facilities, and no mitigation is required.
c) The City is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). As described in the Draft Plan Update,
the City maintains a Joint Use Agreement with the SLCUSD, which establishes terms for both the SLCUSD’s and the City’s use
of parks and recreational facilities at specified school sites. Future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update could
include expansion of this agreement to additional sites, hours, and uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic
document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly
authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to
separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to schools. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to schools, and no mitigation is required.
d) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City’s existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for
maintaining these facilities, and considers how new parks and recreational facilities should be provided in the future. Chapter 5
of the Draft Plan Update lays out a framework for locating parks and recreation amenities in existing and future parks and also
includes a park-by-park assessment, identifying the general physical condition of each site, relevant issues pertaining to site
access and use, and park-specific needs and wants. This information is provided in a table, along with planned improvements for
all City parks, in Appendix E of the Draft Plan Update. As stated in Response 14(a) and 14(b), the Draft Plan Update would not
induce population growth within the City. Individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would provide new and
upgraded parks and recreational facilities for existing and future populations, including the City’s daytime population of workers
and students. The individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would benefit the community by creating greater
capacity through the provision of new parks and facilities, which would thereby reduce demand on existing parks and facilities.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation
as necessary to address impacts related to existing parks. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less
than significant impact related to parks, and no mitigation is required.
e) Because the Draft Plan Update is intended to serve the parks and recreation needs of the existing community, it would not
result in a direct increase in population and would therefore not result in the need to provide additional public facilities, such as
expanding or building new libraries, whose construction would result in an environmental impact. Additionally, individual
projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update could result in an increase in the use of other public facilities such as
roadways, bike lanes, sidewalks, and other urban paths; however, the increased use of sustainable transportation infrastructure
is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Active Transportation Plan.. Regardless, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic
document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly
authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to
separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to public services and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to other public
facilities, including libraries and roadways. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant
impact associated with the provision of new or altered government facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City’s existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for
maintaining these facilities, and developing new and/or improved parks and recreational facilities in the future. As future
development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would create new and/or improved parks and recreational facilities,
demand on existing parks and recreational facilities would decrease, which would limit the extent of on-going physical
deterioration on the existing facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in no impact related to the
accelerated use and subsequent deterioration of existing parks and recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required.
b) The Draft Plan Update evaluates the condition and capacity of the City’s existing parks and facilities, develops a strategy for
maintaining these facilities, and considers how new parks and recreational facilities should be provided in the future. Chapter 5
of the Draft Plan Update lays out a framework for locating parks and recreation amenities in existing and future parks and also
includes a park-by-park assessment, identifying the general physical condition of each site, relevant issues pertaining to site
access and use, and park-specific needs and wants. This information is provided in a table, along with planned improvements for
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
all City parks, in Appendix E of the Draft Plan Update. The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to
guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical
development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental
review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition,
individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to recreational
facilities and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to construction, improvement, or
expansion of recreational facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact
related to the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
13 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)? 18 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 6 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) The City’s General Plan Circulation Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c; adopted December 9, 2014, amended October
24, 2017) establishes policies and programs for multi-modal management, and identifies specific goals and requirements for
transit service, roadway management, bicycle transportation, and pedestrian facilities. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes
goals and polices that seek to increase sustainable transportation access to parks and recreation facilities throughout the City
including providing a park within walking distance of every neighborhood, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle,
providing multi-modal access to parks and recreational facilities, and evaluating the potential for interconnected paths citywide.
Because goals and polices of the Draft Plan Update are consistent with the policies and regulations of the Circulation Element
and support implementation of the City’s Active Transportation Plan, the Draft Plan Update would be consistent with the
Circulation Element. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of
future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with a plan, ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with a plan,
ordinance, or policy addressing the circulation system, and no mitigation is required.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
b) The City Council adopted vehicle miles traveled (VMT) thresholds in June 2020. Per the VMT screening criteria as described
in the City’s Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines, local-serving public facilities, including neighborhood parks
without sporting fields, may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact, and do not require a detailed quantitative VMT
assessment (City of San Luis Obispo 2020d). Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any
physical improvements, its adoption would not result in impacts associated with VMT. In addition, the Draft Plan Update
includes goals and polices that seek to reduce VMT throughout the City including providing a park within walking distance of
every neighborhood, making park locations accessible by foot and bicycle, and providing multi-modal access to parks and
recreational facilities. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of
future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to emergency access. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would
result in a less than significant impact related to conflicts with the City’s VMT guidelines and thresholds, and no mitigation is
required.
c) Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements, its adoption would not
increase hazards due to a geometric design feature or incompatible use. Planned parks and park improvements as described in
the Draft Plan Update would generally be developed within lands designated for Park (P), Recreation (REC), and Public (PUB)
uses. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to transportation and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City’s Circulation Element. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan
Update would result in a less than significant impact related to an increase in hazards due to a geometric design feature or
incompatible use, and no mitigation is required.
d) Policies 9.20 through 9.23 of the Safety Element include the safety objectives and emergency access standards considered
when reviewing a development plan. Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for
consistency with the Safety Element. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide
development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or
improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a
project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual
projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to transportation and would
include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to conflicts with the City’s Safety Element. Therefore,
adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to inadequate emergency access, and no
mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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.
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a), b) On January 13, 2021, local Native American tribal groups that have a cultural and traditional affiliation to the City were
formally noticed that an Initial Study under CEQA was being prepared for the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Plan and
General Plan Element Update (see Attachment B). No tribal representatives requested consultation or provided specific requests.
Future projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be required to comply with AB 52 and Senate Bill 18 (SB 18),
as applicable.
Per AB 52, Native American consultation is required for any CEQA project that has a Notice of Preparation (NOP), a Notice of
Negative Declaration (ND), or a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) filed on or after July 1, 2015. The Lead Agency for the
project must notify any Native American Tribes that have requested to be notified regarding projects within 14 days of either
determining that a project application is complete or deciding to undertake a project (i.e., prior to the release of the environmental
document). Under AB 52, Native American tribes have 30 days from the date on which they receive notification to request
consultation.
As written in 2004, SB 18 addresses the potential environmental impact of projects on California Native American Cultural
Places. SB 18 requires planning agencies to consult with California Native American tribes during the preparation, updating, or
amendment of all General/Specific Plans proposed on or after March 1, 2005. Per SB 18, Native American tribes have 90 days
from the date on which they receive notification to request consultation. The purpose of the consultation is to identify and
preserve specified places, features, and objects located within the City’s jurisdiction that have a unique and significant meaning
to California Native Americans.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to tribal cultural resources and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to any known tribal cultural resources that have been listed or been found
eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in
Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5024.1. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would have a less than significant
related to tribal cultural resources, and no mitigation is required.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
4, 19 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
4 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be subject to review by the City Public Works
Department and/or the City Utilities Department, as appropriate, to determine project-specific infrastructure needs and
requirements. In addition, any utility improvements contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would consider one of the goals
of the Draft Plan Update, sustainability, which includes policies aimed at reducing the use of water and energy by providing a
park within walking distance of every neighborhood, increasing trees and shade structures, making park locations accessible by
foot and bicycle, instituting water-efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants, low water
use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic
document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly
authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to
separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA
Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to
relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power, natural gas, or
telecommunications facilities. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact
associated with the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment, storm drainage, electric power,
natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, and no mitigation is required.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
b) According to Policy A 2.2.1 of the City’s Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) (City of San Luis Obispo
1987; adopted February 24, 1987, last revised May 15, 2018), the City utilizes multiple water resources to meet its water supply
needs to avoid dependence on any one water source. The City’s 2020 Water Resources Status Report (City of San Luis Obispo
2020e) states that the City maintains a robust water supply portfolio with greater than five years of water available. In addition,
as also described in Response 19 (a), one of the goals of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes policies aimed
at reducing the use of water by instituting water efficient initiatives including working landscape features to help filter pollutants,
low water use plantings and xeriscaping, and gray and recycled water systems. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a
programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does
not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be
subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State
CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific
impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to water
supply. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to water supply, and
no mitigation is required.
c) The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility is responsible for treating all of the wastewater within the City, and treats
approximately 4.4 million gallons of wastewater daily (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Policy B. 2.2.3 of the WWME states
that new development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is available within the wastewater collection system and/or the
City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. Future development contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be reviewed for
compliance with Policy B. 2.2.3 of the WWME. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended
to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical
development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental
review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition,
individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to utilities and service
systems and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts related to the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to the City’s Water
Resource Recovery Facility, and no mitigation is required.
d), e) Chapter 8.05, Construction and Demolition Debris Recycling Program, of the City’s Municipal Code, requires all new
development to prepare a recycling plan to reduce waste disposal at the Cold Canyon Landfill, which serves the City. One of the
goals of the Draft Plan Update is sustainability, which includes policies to reduce the generation of solid waste including
maintaining agreements with other providers so as not to replicate facilities and services and using recycled materials whenever
possible to avoid or minimize waste when replacing park materials and equipment. In addition, the Draft Plan Update includes
a policy for the provision of green waste, recycling bins and services, and signage to inform correct usage by the public.
Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and
recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future
physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to utilities and service systems and would include appropriate
mitigation as necessary to reduce a project’s waste disposal needs. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in
a less than significant impact related to federal, State, and local solid waste standards or generation of solid waste in excess of
the capacity of local infrastructure, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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? 20, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
20 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
a) Refer to Response 9 (f). Because the Draft Plan Update is a policy document and does not include any physical improvements,
its adoption would not conflict with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The Draft Plan Update
also includes a policy to incorporate adaptability in response to public emergencies when designing elements for new parks,
facilities, and amenities. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development
of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements.
Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific
basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated
under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to wildfire and would include appropriate mitigation
as necessary to address impacts related to the impairment of an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.
Additionally, individual projects would be reviewed by City Fire and City Police for consistency with the EOP, the City
Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and other adopted emergency response and
evacuation plans. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to
impairments associated with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan, and no mitigation is required.
b), c), d) The Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation
projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park
and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the
provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update
would be evaluated for site-specific impacts to wildfire and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary to address impacts
related to wildfire prevention or management. Additionally, individual projects would be reviewed for consistency with the
Safety Element, the City Municipal Code Chapter 15.04, Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations, and the CWPP.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact associated with wildfire prevention
or management, and no mitigation is required.
Mitigation Measures
None.
Conclusion
Less than significant impact.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
As described in Section 4, Biological Resources, Section 5, Cultural Resources, and Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources, the
Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects
within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility
improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions
of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be
evaluated for site-specific impacts to biological, cultural, and tribal cultural resources, and would include appropriate mitigation
as necessary. Furthermore, the Draft Plan Update does not include any policies or programs that would conflict with City policies
on protecting and enhancing biological or cultural resources or preclude the City from achieving resource protection goals.
Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to adverse impacts to
biological, cultural or tribal resources. No mitigation is required.
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)?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
As presented in this IS/ND, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document and is intended to guide development of future
parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any physical development or improvements. Any
future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate environmental review on a project-specific basis, in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. In addition, individual projects contemplated under
the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for cumulatively considerable impacts, and would include appropriate mitigation as
necessary. Therefore, adoption of the Draft Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact in regard to cumulatively
considerable impacts, and no mitigation is required.
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
The Draft Plan Update will help the City meet its parks and recreational facility needs, and would not create significant, adverse
impacts on humans, either directly or indirectly. As presented in this IS/ND, the Draft Plan Update is a programmatic document
and is intended to guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City and does not directly authorize any
physical development or improvements. Any future physical park and facility improvements would be subject to separate
environmental review on a project-specific basis, in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines.
In addition, individual projects contemplated under the Draft Plan Update would be evaluated for direct and indirect
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
environmental effects on human beings, and would include appropriate mitigation as necessary. Therefore, adoption of the Draft
Plan Update would result in a less than significant impact related to effects on human beings, and no mitigation is required.
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. California Department of Conservation. 1989. Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification Map, San
Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara P-C Region.
2. California Department of Conservation. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps. Website:
https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/san-luis-obispo (accessed February 17, 2021).
3. Central Coast Region Regional Water Quality Control Board (CCRWQCB). 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the
Central Coastal Basin (Basin Plan). June.
4. City of San Luis Obispo. 1987. General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element (adopted February 24, 1987,
last revised May 15, 2018).
5. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. General Plan Noise Element (adopted May 7, 1996, last revised May 7, 1996).
6. City of San Luis Obispo. 2000. General Plan Safety Element (adopted July 5, 2000, last revised December 9, 2014).
7. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006a. General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) (adopted April 4, 2006,
last revised December 9, 2014).
8. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006b. Local Hazard Mitigation Plan. February.
9. City of San Luis Obispo. 2009. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. October.
10. City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November.
11. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014a. Airport Area Specific Plan. September.
12. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014b. Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update (LUCE). September 3, 2014.
13. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014c. General Plan Circulation Element (adopted December 9, 2014, amended October 24,
2017).
14. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014d. General Plan Land Use Element (adopted December 9, 2014).
15. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020a. Climate Action Plan.
16. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Greenhouse Gas (GHG) Emissions
Thresholds and Guidance. June 22.
17. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020c. General Plan Housing Element (adopted November 17, 2020).
18. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020d. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. June.
19. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020e. Water Resources Status Report.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
20. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021a. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. February 2, 2021.
21.
City of San Luis Obispo. 2021b. Clean Energy Choice for New Buildings. Website: https://www.slocity.org/
government/department-directory/city-administration/office-of-sustainability/climate-action/carbon-neutral-buildings
#:~:text=The%20Clean%20Energy%20Choice%20Program,to%20the%20California %20Energy%20Code (accessed
March 12, 2021).
22. County of San Luis Obispo. 2005. Airport Land Use Plan for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. May 18.
23. County of San Luis Obispo. 2016. Emergency Operations Plan. December.
24. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo County Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan. October.
25. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOCAPCD). 2001. Clean Air Plan. December.
26. SLOCAPCD. 2005. Particulate Matter Report Implementation of SB 656 Requirements. July 27.
27. SLOCAPCD. 2020a. Ambient Air Monitoring Network Assessment. June.
28. SLOCAPCD. 2020b. Ozone Emergency Episode Plan. January 22.
29. SLOCAPCD. 2021. Asbestos. Website: https://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php (accessed March 9,
2021).
Attachments
Attachment A – Draft Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update
Attachment B – Native American Consultation
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Attachment A
Draft Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update
Available online:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-
recreation/parks-and-recreation-plan-and-element-update
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Attachment B
Native American Consultation
[Address]
January 13, 2021
FROM: Shawna Scott, Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
RE: Tribal Cultural Resources under the California Environmental Quality Act, AB 52
(Gatto, 2014). Formal Notification of determination that a Project Application is
Complete or Decision to Undertake a Project, and Notification of Consultation
Opportunity, pursuant to Public Resources Code § 21080.3.1 (hereafter PRC).
Dear [Name of Tribal Representative]:
The City of San Luis Obispo has determined to undertake the Parks and Recreation Master Plan
and General Plan Element Update, which would be applicable Citywide. Below please find a
description of the proposed project and the name of our project point of contact, pursuant to PRC
§ 21080.3.1 (d).
Description of the Proposed Project:
The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will provide a comprehensive
statement of the City’s goals for parks and recreation and how those goals will be achieved over
the long-term. The Master Plan policies and programs will serve as a blueprint, guiding the City
and its various entities in priority setting and resource allocation. It is understood that the
availability of financial resources can and will affect the timing of implementation but will not
change the goals and intent. The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update considers the Parks
and Recreation Department’s Mission Statement, to Inspire Happiness by creating Community
through People, Parks, Programs, and Open Space, and identify parks and recreation as an
essential service for the community of San Luis Obispo. The Update will support and facilitate
this by providing for community health, wellness, security, and safety; design excellence; and
environmental stewardship. The Update shall be consistent with the City’s General Plan, Active
Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan, including but not limited to neighborhood
compatibility, safe multi-modal access to parks and facilities, and maintenance and expansion of
our City’s urban forest. Parks, facilities, amenities, and programs should be decentralized, and
provided throughout the City to serve the full community equitably. Recreational and community
gathering opportunities should be located within safe walking or accessible distance of each
neighborhood and promote community organization and a sense of ownership by residents.
Neighborhood parks should include amenities for both active and passive recreation, and
depending on the location, include a focal gathering point such as a gazebo. Gathering spaces
would provide opportunities for local-level programming, such as concerts, events, educational
opportunities, fitness classes, and food trucks in collaboration with local residents, businesses,
non-profits, and faith organizations. The City Parks and Recreation and Public Works
Departments should have the resources and staffing, and community and corporate partnerships,
sufficient to create, support, and maintain these parks, amenities, and programs. The Update
considers opportunities for improvements and renovations within existing parks and facilities in
the short term, while also considering long-term fiscal responsibility including economics of
scale, cost/value of new land acquisition now and in the future, new sources of revenue, and
community partnerships. The Update will identify the current inventory and condition of existing
parks, facilities, and amenities, identify existing and future community needs and deficiencies,
assess the capacity of existing parks and facilities to accommodate existing and future needs, and
determine a dynamic path forward to achieve and exceed the City’s identified level of service
and acreage standards for parks and amenities in both the short-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10
years) and long-term (10-20 years).
The Public Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be available to the public
and presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in February 2021. Parks and
Recreation Agendas and Agenda Packets can be viewed online:
https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/parks-and-recreation-
commission
Additional online resources:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/master-plan-and-element-update
Lead Agency Point of Contact:
Shawna Scott, Senior Planner, City of San Luis Obispo
Pursuant to PRC § 21080.3.1 (b), you have 30 days from the receipt of this letter to request
consultation, in writing, with the City of San Luis Obispo.
Very Respectfully,
Shawna Scott
Senior Planner
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E sscott@slocity.org
T 805.781.7176
slocity.org
City of San Luis Obispo, Community Development, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401‐3218, 805.781.7170, slocity.org
January 13, 2021 (Sent Via Certified Mail and Email)
[Address]
RE: Invitation for Tribal Consultation; GC 65352.3
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
(Citywide)
Dear [Name of Tribal Representative]:
I am contacting you on behalf of the City of San Luis Obispo concerning an invitation for
Tribal Consultation pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65352.3. As you know, you have up
to 90 days to respond to this request, but we hope by reaching out to you early, we could
invite your participation at your earliest convenience.
Project Description: The San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will
provide a comprehensive statement of the City’s goals for parks and recreation and how
those goals will be achieved over the long-term. The Master Plan policies and programs will
serve as a blueprint, guiding the City and its various entities in priority setting and resource
allocation. It is understood that the availability of financial resources can and will affect the
timing of implementation but will not change the goals and intent.
The Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update considers the Parks and Recreation
Department’s Mission Statement, to Inspire Happiness by creating Community through
People, Parks, Programs, and Open Space, and identify parks and recreation as an essential
service for the community of San Luis Obispo. The Update will support and facilitate this by
providing for community health, wellness, security, and safety; design excellence; and
environmental stewardship. The Update shall be consistent with the City’s General Plan,
Active Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan, including but not limited to
neighborhood compatibility, safe multi-modal access to parks and facilities, and
maintenance and expansion of our City’s urban forest. Parks, facilities, amenities, and
programs should be decentralized, and provided throughout the City to serve the full
community equitably. Recreational and community gathering opportunities should be
located within safe walking or accessible distance of each neighborhood and promote
community organization and a sense of ownership by residents. Neighborhood parks should
include amenities for both active and passive recreation, and depending on the location,
include a focal gathering point such as a gazebo. Gathering spaces would provide
opportunities for local-level programming, such as concerts, events, educational
opportunities, fitness classes, and food trucks in collaboration with local residents,
businesses, non-profits, and faith organizations. The City Parks and Recreation and Public
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element Update
Page 2
Works Departments should have the resources and staffing, and community and corporate
partnerships, sufficient to create, support, and maintain these parks, amenities, and
programs. The Update considers opportunities for improvements and renovations within
existing parks and facilities in the short term, while also considering long-term fiscal
responsibility including economics of scale, cost/value of new land acquisition now and in
the future, new sources of revenue, and community partnerships. The Update will identify
the current inventory and condition of existing parks, facilities, and amenities, identify
existing and future community needs and deficiencies, assess the capacity of existing parks
and facilities to accommodate existing and future needs, and determine a dynamic path
forward to achieve and exceed the City’s identified level of service and acreage standards
for parks and amenities in both the short-term (0-5 years), mid-term (5-10 years) and long-
term (10-20 years).
The Public Draft Parks and Recreation Master Plan Update will be available to the
public and presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission in February 2021.
Parks and Recreation Agendas and Agenda Packets can be viewed online:
https://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies/agendas-and-minutes/parks-and-
recreation-commission
Additional online resources:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/master-plan-and-element-
update
Please contact Shawna Scott, Senior Planner for additional information or to request a
virtual meeting at sscott@slocity.org or (805) 781-7176.
We look forward to hearing from you soon.
Sincerely,
Shawna Scott
Senior Planner
Community Development
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E sscott@slocity.org
T 805.781.7176