HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-26-2021 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Co mmission
Agenda
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, May 26, 2021
6:00 PM REGULAR MEETING TELECONFERENCE
Broadcasted via Webinar
Based on the threat of COVID-19 as reflected in the Proclamations of Emergency issued by both the Governor
of the State of California, the San Luis Obispo County Emergency Services Director and the City Council of the
City of San Luis Obispo as well as the Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20 issued on March 17, 2020, relating
to the convening of public meetings in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the City of San Luis Obispo will
be holding all public meetings via teleconference. There will be no physical location for the Public to view
the meeting. Below are instructions on how to view the meeting remotely and how to leave public comment.
Additionally, members of the Planning Commission (PC) are allowed to attend the meeting via teleconference
and participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were present.
Using the most rapid means of communication available at this time, members of the public are
encouraged to participate in PC meetings in the following ways:
1. Remote Viewing - Members of the public who wish to watch the meeting can view:
• Televised live on Charter Cable Channel 20
• View a livestream of the meeting on the City’s YouTube channel: http://youtube.slo.city
• View the Webinar (recommended for the best viewing quality):
➢ URL: https://slocity-org.zoom.us/j/99977050566?pwd=UDBvbUc5dGFlNm1DSWk1WXQrMWROdz09
➢ Telephone Attendee: +1 (669) 900-6833
➢ Webinar ID: 999 7705 0566; Passcode: 444375
Note: The City utilizes Zoom Webinar for remote meetings. All attendees will enter the meeting
muted. An Attendee tutorial is available on YouTube; please test your audio settings.
2. Public Comment - The PC will still be accepting public comment for items within their purview. Public
comment can be submitted in the following ways:
• Mail or Email Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of meeting - Can be submitted via email to
advisorybodies@slocity.org or U.S. Mail to City Clerk at: 990 Palm St. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
➢ Emails sent after 3:00 PM – Can be submitted via email to advisorybodies@slocity.org and will
be archived/distributed to members of the Advisory Body the day after the meeting. Emails will
not be read aloud during the meeting.
• Verbal Public Comment
➢ Received by 3:00 PM on the day of the meeting - Call (805) 781-7164; state and spell your name,
the agenda item number and leave your comment. The verbal comments must be limited to 3
minutes. All voicemails will be forwarded to Advisory Body Members and saved as Agenda
Correspondence. Voicemails will not be played during the meeting.
➢ During the meeting – Join the webinar (instructions above). Once public comment for the item
you would like to speak on is called, please raise your virtual hand, your name will be called, and
your microphone will be unmuted. If you have questions, contact the office of the City Clerk at
cityclerk@slocity.org or (805) 781-7100.
Planning Commission Agenda for May 26, 2021 Page 2
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Robert Jorgensen
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn,
Michelle Shoresman, Mike Wulkan, Vice Chair Nicholas Quincey, and
Chair Robert Jorgensen
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
1. Minutes of the Planning Commission meeting of April 28, 2021.
PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Comments are
limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if
action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public h earing. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes;
consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes.
2. Review of a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on an existing 4.98-
acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of
Stanford Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration is proposed (CEQA); Project Address: 500 Westmont. Case
#: SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020; Alice Jo Meinhold Survivors Trust/Andrew G.
Meinhold, owner/applicant. (Kyle Van Leeuwen – 90 minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Tentative
Tract Map (TTM) No. 3157 and adopt the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration.
3. Review of the City’s Public Draft Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021 -2041
(Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) that will supersede the 2001
Parks and Recreation Master Plan and General Plan Element. An Initial Study/Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) is recommended for the project; Project Address: Citywide; Case #: GENP-1942-
2018 & EID-0150-2021; Zone: Citywide; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
(Shawna Scott – 45 minutes)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve the Draft
Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and
General Plan Element Update) and adopt the associated Initial Study/Negative Declaration.
Planning Commission Agenda for May 26, 2021 Page 3
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
4. Staff Updates & Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday,
June 9 , 2021, at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference.
APPEALS
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to City Council within 10 days of
the action (Recommendations to City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action).
Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal
forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City Clerk’s office, or on the
City’s website (www.slocity.org). The appropriate appeal fee must accompany the appeal
documentation.
LISTENING ASSISTIVE DEVICES are available for the hearing impaired--please see the Clerk
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all of its public meetings accessible to the public.
Upon request, this agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with
disabilities. Any person with a disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order
to participate in a meeting should direct such request to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100
at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)
781-7410.
Planning Commission regular meetings are televised live on Charter Channel 20. Agenda related
writings or documents provided to the Planning Commission are available for public inspection
on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/advisory-bodies. Meeting video
recordings can be found on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/city-clerk/on-demand-meeting-videos
BLANK PAGE
This page is intended to be blank so that you can print double-sided.
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 99 0 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Minutes - Draft
Planning Commission
Minutes
Planning Commission
Regular Meeting
Wednesday, April 28, 2021
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order on
Wednesday, April 28, 2021 at 6:04 p.m., via teleconference, by Chair Hemalata Dandekar.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Michael Hopkins, Steve Kahn, Nicholas Quincey, Michelle
Shoresman, Mike Wulkan, Vice-Chair Robert Jorgensen, and Chair Hemalata
Dandekar
Absent: None
Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey, Assistant City
Attorney Markie Jorgensen, and Deputy City Clerk Kevin Christian
A. ANNUAL ELECTION OF CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER QUINCEY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KAHN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to elect Robert Jorgensen to the position of Chair for a one-year term.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER WULKAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
KAHN, CARRIED 7-0-0 to elect Nicholas Quincey to the position of Vice Chair for a one-
year term.
1. CONSENT AGENDA – CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HOPKINS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
DANDEKAR, CARRIED 7-0-0 to approve the Planning Commission Minutes of April 14,
2021.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Public Comments:
None
--End of Public Comment--
Item 1
Packet Page 1
Planning Commission Meeting Minutes
April 28, 2021
Page 2 of 2
CONSENT ITEM
The item was pulled from Consent for discussion.
2. Review of General Plan Conformity Report, Capital Improvement Program proposed as part
of 2021-23 Financial Plan; Project Address: Citywide. Case #: GENP-0281-2021; City of
San Luis Obispo – Public Works Department, applicant.
Public Works Director Matt Horn and City Engineer Brian Nelson responded to Commission
questions.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KAHN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SHORESMAN, CARRIED 7-0-0, to forward a recommendation to the City Council that all
projects/purchases in the Capital Improvement Plan, proposed as part of the 2021-
2023 Financial Plan, comply with the City's General Plan.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
3. Agenda Forecast – Deputy Community Development Director Tyler Corey provided an
update of upcoming projects.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission
meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 26, 2021, at 6:00 p.m., via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2021
Item 1
Packet Page 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT:Review of a Tentative Tract Map (Tract 3157) to create 23 residential lots on a 4.98-
acre site within the Low-Density Residential (R-1) zone. Project includes the extension of Stanford
Drive, which will connect to an extension of Cuesta Drive. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration is proposed (CEQA).
PROJECT ADDRESS:468/500 Westmont Ave.BY:Kyle Van Leeuwen, Associate Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7091
E-mail: kvanleeuwen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER:SBDV-0169-2020,FROM:Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
EID-0170-2020
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Tentative Tract Map (TTM) No. 3157
and adopt the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration.
SITE DATA
SUMMARY
The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application to subdivide the subject parcel
into 23 residential lots. No residential development is proposed at this time; however, recordation of
the map would require the installation of public improvements, including new roads, water,
wastewater and storm water infrastructure (Attachment 2, Project Plans and Vesting Tentative Tract
Map). To accommodate the onsite improvements, 86 ornamental, native and non-native trees would
be removed, 51 of which are identified as subject to tree removal permitting and compensatory
requirements.
Applicant Andrew G. Meinhold,
Alice Jo Meinhold Survivors
Trust
Representative Katie Rollins, Cannon
Zoning Low-Density Residential (R-1)
General Plan Low Density Residential
Site Area 4.98 acres
Environmental
Status
Initial Study-Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND)
Meeting Date: May 26, 2021
Item Number:
Item 2
Packet Page 3
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 2
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
Review the project for consistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations and applicable
City development standards and guidelines. Planning Commission (PC) review is required for
projects that include the subdivision of five or more lots (Subdivision Regulations, Table 1). The PC’s
role is to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed subdivision and associated
environmental review.
2.0 PROJECT STATISTICS AND SETTING
TABLE 1: SUBDIVISION: GROSS AND NET LOT SIZE
Lot Gross Lot Size (sf) Net Lot Size* (sf) Lot Gross Lot Size (sf) Net Lot Size*
(sf)
1 24,451 20,109 13 6,000 Same
2 11,283 9,265 14 6,000 Same
3 9,750 8,976 15 6,000 Same
4 7,884 6,598 16 6,000 Same
5 9,115 7,468 17 6,533 Same
6 10,097 7,931 18 6,001 Same
7 8,868 6,823 19 6,691 Same
8 6,374 Same 20 6,298 Same
9 6,000 Same 21 6,117 Same
10 6,000 Same 22 9,283 Same
11 6,000 Same
12 6,000 Same Minimum Req Net 6,000
*Net lot size excludes areas between creek top of bank
2.1 SETTING
The project site is located adjacent to the northern city limit line just west of Highway 1. The 4.98-
acre site is located at the terminus of the east and west portions of Westmont Avenue and the northern
terminus of Cuesta Drive and Stanford Drive. Existing development on the project site includes a
residential structure and associated accessory structures, a pool, and other site improvements.
Vegetation on the property includes a freshwater forested/shrub wetland with associated riparian
habitat that extends through the western portion of the site. The site is generally comprised of
developed/ruderal land, riparian habitat, and annual grassland. There are 177 ornamental and native
trees throughout the project site.
Surrounding land and Zoning are as follows:
West: Single-family residences zoned Low-Density Residential (R-1).
North: Cal Fire San Luis Obispo Unit Headquarters (Fire Station #12), outside city limits.
East: Single- and multi-family residences zoned Low-Density (R-1) and Medium-Density (R-2).
South: Single-family residences zoned Low-Density Residential (R-1).
Item 2
Packet Page 4
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 3
3.0 PREVIOUS REVIEW
The project was reviewed by the City’s Tree Committee on May 17, 2021 for consistency with the
Tree Regulations. The Tree Committee (TC) recommended that, with the inclusion of the
recommended condition of approval for compensatory planting, the PC find the proposed tree
removals consistent with the City’s Tree Regulations (Attachment 3, Tree Committee Staff Report
and Draft Minutes). The TC recommended that the project approval include a condition to provide
compensatory tree plantings at a one-to-one ratio on site, consistent with Municipal Code
requirements, and that compensatory plantings consist of an even mix of 15-gallon and 24-inch tree
box sizes. The recommendation also stipulated that 50% of the required compensatory plantings be
of a native species. This condition has been included in the proposed resolution as Condition #5.
The TC also included in their motion a request that the Planning Commission consider the retention
of several specific trees onsite. This included one eucalyptus within the creek corridor (#114), and
two eucalyptus and one live oak near the southern edge of the property line on proposed lots 23 (#s
33, 34, & 91). Staff does not recommend retention of these trees as retention of the eucalyptus in the
creek corridor is inconstant with wildfire mitigation measure W-1, and retention of trees near the
southern property line would require a redesign of the stormwater treatment/retention system and
changes in lot grading.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The project must conform to the standards and limitations of the Subdivision Regulations and be
consistent with the General Plan. Staff has evaluated the project and the PC shall consider if the
project is in substantial compliance with the applicable standards, as discussed in this analysis.
4.1 Consistency with the General Plan
The General Plan Land Use Element (LUE), Circulation Element (CE), and Housing Element (HE)
provide policies for the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods. The
Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) also provides policies to preserve and protect natural
resources on the project site. The project is consistent with these policies in several aspects.
LUE Policy 2.2.3 Neighborhood Traffic: Neighborhoods should be protected from intrusive
traffic. All neighborhood street and circulation improvements should favor pedestrians,
bicyclists, and local traffic. Vehicle traffic on residential streets should be slow. To foster
suitable traffic speed, street design should include measures such as narrow lanes, landscaped
parkways, traffic circles, textured crosswalks, and, if necessary, stop signs, speed humps,
bollards, and on-street parking and sidewalks.
LUE Policy 2.2.4 Neighborhood Connections: The City shall provide all areas with a pattern
of streets, pedestrian network, and bicycle facilities that promote neighborhood and
community cohesiveness. There should be continuous sidewalks or paths of adequate width,
connecting neighborhoods with each other and with public and commercial services and
public open space to provide continuous pedestrian paths throughout the city. Connectivity to
nearby community facilities (such as parks and schools), open space, and supporting
commercial areas shall also be enhanced, but shall not be done in a method that would
increase cut-through traffic.
Item 2
Packet Page 5
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 4
CE Policy 4.1.4 New Development: The City shall require that new development provide
bikeways, secure bicycle storage, parking facilities and showers consistent with City plans
and development standards. When evaluating transportation impacts, the City shall use a
Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
CE Policy 5.1.3 New Development: New development shall provide sidewalks and pedestrian
paths consistent with City policies, plans, programs, and standards. When evaluating
transportation impact, the City shall use a Multimodal Level of Service analysis.
HE Policy 7.3: New residential developments should incorporate pedestrian and bicycle
linkages that provide direct, convenient and safe access to adjacent neighborhoods, schools,
parks, and shopping areas.
The design of the subdivision protects the existing neighborhood from intrusive traffic by only
connecting the two existing streets to the south, avoiding any increase in cut-through traffic between
other existing neighborhoods and Highway 1. The subdivision design also incorporates a potential
bicycle and pedestrian connection to the east, as well as parkways, on-street parking, and sidewalks.
Figure 1: Subdivision Design Circulation Connections
LUE Policy 2.3.5. Neighborhood Pattern: The City shall require that all new residential
development be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this
impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods.
The design of the subdivision integrates with the existing neighborhood by continuing the street
layout of Stanford and Cuesta Drive, including street width, sidewalks, and parkways (see Figure 2
as example).
Item 2
Packet Page 6
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 5
Figure 2: Cuesta Drive Street Design Connection to Existing
LUE Policy 2.3.7. Natural Features: The City shall require residential developments to
preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks,
wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
LUE Policy 2.3.10 Site Constraints: The City shall require new residential developments to
respect site constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and
wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
COSE Policy 7.7.9 Creek Setback B.: Development approvals should respect the separation
from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features identified in part A above
(buildings, streets, driveways, etc.), whether or not the setback line has been established.
The TTM identifies the dimensions of the creek and existing riparian area. The lots proposed adjacent
to the creek are a larger size so that creek protection measures, such as compliance with creek setback
requirements, can be met and still allow development of the created parcel. The TTM also proposes
no development or grading activities in the southwest corner of the site, where the creek and
associated vegetation is most prominent and established. In all, over 60 coast live oaks, will be
retained within the protected creek corridor area, as well as other native species.
Item 2
Packet Page 7
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 6
Figure 3: Creek Corridor, trees number in black within setbacks are retained
4.2 Consistency with Subdivision Regulations
Lots Size and Dimensions
The Subdivision Regulations regulates minimum lot sizes in the R-1 zone and sets specific
development standards. The minimum lot size allowed in the R-1 zone is 6,000 square feet with a
minimum width of 50 feet and a minimum depth of 90 feet. Lots are also required to have a minimum
street frontage of 20 feet. All of the lots within the proposed subdivision meet these base requirements
for size and dimension. Additionally, the Subdivision Regulations states that any area between creek
banks shall be excluded from the calculation of minimum lot area. The TTM has also demonstrated
compliance with this requirement (See Table 1 above).
Corner Lots
Lot 19 of the TTM is the only “corner lot” included in the proposed subdivision. Per Table 3 of the
Subdivision Regulations, corner lots in residential subdivisions shall have a minimum area of 15%
greater than otherwise required and shall be ten feet wider that otherwise required. Lot 19 does
provide a width of no less than 60 feet, consistent with this standard, but is less than 15% larger than
the minimum lot area. Staff has included in the proposed resolution condition #3 which requires the
area of lot 19 to be increased to no less than 6,900 square feet for final map recordation, consistent
with regulations standards for corner lots. This can be achieved by moving the lot line between Lot
19 and lot 20 approximately 2 feet, without compromising Lot 20’s compliance with minimum lot
size or dimension standards. Only minor changes in site grading will be needed with this adjustment
of lot lines.
Item 2
Packet Page 8
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 7
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA). An Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was prepared and is currently
being circulated. The IS/MND was noticed for circulation on April 29, 2021 and will be circulated
until May 29, 2021 for public review. The Planning Commission shall review the environmental
analysis (refer to Attachment 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) and provide a
recommendation to the City Council regarding adoption of the IS/MND. The following discussion
highlights some of the more significant topics of the environmental analysis.
Biology
The initial study and associated biological survey identified Cambria morning glory within the annual
grassland on site, which is a special-status plant species. Construction of the project would result in
the removal or disturbance of the Cambria morning glory. Implementation of Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 and BIO-2 reduce potential impacts to Cambria morning glory to less than significant. These
measures require implementation of a Rare Plan Mitigation Program that would establish replanting
of Cambria morning glory so that after a 5-year period there would be no net loss of the plant on site.
The project site contains a riparian forest along the onsite creek located in the western portion the
property. The identified riparian forest consists of native riparian trees and shrubs, and native
understory plants are also present within the riparian area. In addition, the Fire Protection Plan
requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian habitat, resulting in the removal of 13 trees,
primarily acacia (silver wattle) trees. The proposed TTM shows the extent of the riparian area and a
20-foot creek setback, which would be further protected by implementation of mitigation measure
BIO-11, which requires recordation of a biological easement on the Final Map and application of
creek setback standards. No paving or structures would be permitted in the biological easement area,
however, grading activity is proposed in several areas within the creek setback for stabilization, and
placement of rip rap pads are proposed within or adjacent to the setback1. The project requires permits
described in Mitigation Measure BIO-10 for work proposed within the riparian area. The easement
and application of creek setback standards would affect proposed Lots 1–8.
Wildfire
The project area and adjacent lands are identified as low and moderate wildland fire risk in the Safety
Element of the General Plan. The Element states that development shall only be approved when
adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available or will be made concurrent with
development. Parcel upgrades include emergency access, upgraded roads, and necessary utility
connections. To manage wildfire risk associated with placing residents in close proximity to moderate
and high fire hazard severity areas, a Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan for the project site has been
identified in Mitigation Measure WF-1. Additionally, a Wildland Fire Protection Report identifies
mitigation measures to further reduce wildland fire hazards to future development and is described in
Mitigation Measure WF-2. Part of this mitigation measure calls for the removal of non-native plant
species within the creek corridor to manage wildfire risk.
1 Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 G. Exceptions to Creek Setback: 2. Accessory Structures and Uses. The following items may be
located within the required creek setback without obtaining a discretionary exception unless otherwise noted, provided, that they do
not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any
flooding capacity in compliance with the City’s flood damage prevention regulations; in total occupy not more than one -half of the
total required creek setback area; and are consistent with other property development standards of the Zoning Regulations.
h. Natural flood control and stormwater improvements, including vegetated buffers, bioswales, and rain gardens.
Item 2
Packet Page 9
SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
468/500 Westmont
Page 8
5.1 Comments Received
Comments were received from the State Department of Toxic Substances Control recommending
certain broad-based evaluations be included in the MND Hazards and Hazardous Materials section.
In review of these recommendations, staff finds that the Initial Study sufficiently identifies the
potential impacts related to hazardous materials for this project and project site. Given the project’s
size, location, and surroundings, potential impacts would be mitigated by Mitigation Measures AQ-
3, AQ-4 and AQ-5. This was the only comment received at the time of publication of this report. The
applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed specific to this project. The IS/MND shall
constitute the complete environmental determination for the project.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The project has been reviewed by various City departments and divisions including; Planning,
Engineering, Utilities, Fire, Building, Office of Sustainability, Natural Resources and the City
Arborist. Comments have been incorporated into the draft resolution as conditions of approval.
6.0 ACTION ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional
information or analysis required.
6.2 Deny the project. An action denying the application should include findings that cite the basis
for denial and should reference inconsistency with the General Plan, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations or other policy documents.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map & Phasing Plan
3. Tree Committee Staff Report and Draft Meeting Minutes 5.17.21
4. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 2
Packet Page 10
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3157
TO CREATE TWENTY-THREE (23) RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN THE LOW-
DENSITY (R-1) ZONE (SBDV-0169-2020/EID-0170-2020)
WHEREAS, the Tree Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web based
public hearing on May 17, 2021, recommending the Planning Commission find the project
consistent with the Tree Regulations Ordinance, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-
0169-2020, Alice Jo Meinhold Survivors Trust, applicant ; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a web
based public hearing on May 26, 2021, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under SBDV-0169-
2020, and EID-0170-2020, Alice Jo Meinhold Survivors Trust, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearings were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has duly considered
all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and evaluation and
recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council
approve the project (SBDV-0169-2020, & EID-0170-2020), based on the following findings:
1. As conditioned, the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons
living or working at the site or in the vicinity because the project respects site constraints and
will be compatible with the scale and character of surrounding neighborhoods.
2. The proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its design and improvement, is
consistent with the General Plan because:
a. The Land Use Element provides that the purpose of the Low-Density Residential
land use designation is to provide for single family detached dwellings, which the
subdivision is designed and intended to accommodate, and complies with the
maximum density limit of seven density units per acre.
Item 2
Packet Page 11
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 2
b. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policies 2.2.3 and 2.2.4,
Circulation Element Policy 5.1.3, and Housing Element Policy 7.3 because the
design of the subdivision protects the existing neighborhood from intrusive traffic
by avoiding any increase in cut-through traffic between other existing
neighborhoods and Highway 1 and by incorporating a potential bicycle and
pedestrian connection to the east, as well as parkways, on-street parking, and
sidewalks with proposed streets.
c. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 2.3.5 because the design of
the subdivision integrates with the existing neighborhood by continuing the street
layout of Stanford Drive and Cuesta Drive, including street width, sidewalks, and
parkways.
d. The project is consistent with Land Use Element Policy 4.2.1 because the project
respects the separation from creek banks by identifying the dimensions of the creek
and existing riparian area. The lots proposed adjacent to the creek are a larger size
(24,451 to 7,884 square feet) so that creek protection measures, such as compliance
with creek setback requirements, can be met and still allow residential development
within the created parcels. The project also proposes no development or grading
activities in the southwest corner of the site, where the creek and associated
vegetation is most prominent and established.
e. The project is consistent with Housing Element Policy 6.8 because the project will
facilitate residential infill development.
3. The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural
heating or cooling opportunities in the subdivision because the project has demonstrated that
development of the proposed lots can be achieved in compliance with the setback standards
of the Zoning Regulations, which are intended to help provide air circulation and exposure to
sunlight.
4. As conditioned, the subdivision and associated tree removals are consistent with the City’s
Tree Regulations because the project will be required to provide compensatory tree plantings
at a rate consistent with Municipal Code requirements with a size and species of tree found
to be appropriate by the Tree Committee.
5. The design of the tentative map and proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious
health problems or substantial environmental damage since further development or
redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with the City’s Development
Standards, Engineering Standards, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
(IS/MND) has been prepared in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) to evaluate the potential environmental effects of the proposed project. The Planning
Commission hereby recommends the City Council adopt the IS/MND and Mitigation, Monitoring,
Item 2
Packet Page 12
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 3
and Reporting Program, based on incorporation of the following mitigation measures, which will
reduce potential environmental impacts to less than significant.
Air Quality
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles,
the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road
Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be
permitted;
c. Use of alternative-fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible;
and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and
enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with
13 CCR 2485. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds
and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California- and non-
California-based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of
said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5
minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power
a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle
during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes
at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as
noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of
the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation
can be reviewed at the following website: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-
idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. During all construction and ground-disturbing
activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate matter control measures
and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
Item 2
Packet Page 13
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 4
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit
of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased
watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or
other dust barriers as needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation
and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following
completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month
after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass
seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between
top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code
(CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on
the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that
may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113
and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track out,
designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to
use them. Install and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track-out prevention
device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at
preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and
a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be
effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-out
prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where
feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and
building plans.
Item 2
Packet Page 14
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 5
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose
responsibility is to ensure any fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance
and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures as necessary to
minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s
limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their
duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated on an open dirt lot).
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the
SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork,
or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant
shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property,
including sampling and testing for NOA in full compliance with SLOAPCD
requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the
City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation
determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant
must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be present
onsite, proposed earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be conducted in
full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the
CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (17
CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61,
Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing,
to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant; and
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements
for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Asbestos-Containing Material. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the applicant
shall provide an asbestos report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. If
ACM are determined to be present, at least 10 working days prior to any demolition work
the applicant shall provide notification to SLOAPCD of such work. The notification shall
include an asbestos report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. ACM
removal and disposal shall follow the requirements of the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants Regulation (NESHAP) Subpart M and of the SLOAPCD.
Item 2
Packet Page 15
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 6
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated onto Final Map and project
grading / building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination
with the SLOAPCD, as necessary.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Implement a Rare Plant Mitigation Program that ensures no net loss of Cambria
morning glory on the project site. Prior to any tract improvements, a Rare Plant
Mitigation Program shall be implemented for Cambria morning glory and shall be
overseen by a qualified botanist approved by the City. As a component of the program,
seed shall be collected from Cambria morning glory plants during the appropriate season
prior to tract grading activities. Using standard procedures, the qualified botanist shall
clean and store the seeds until the receiving sites shown on the project plans are ready.
Suitable habitat of 2,180 square-feet in size outside of the development area (as
designated on the site plans in the creek setback zone) shall be designated as the
mitigation site that will be maintained in a natural state and not be subject to mowing
earlier than June 1 each year. The areas will be maintained as grassland habitat and no
planting of ornamental species or other adverse modifications (such as grazing activities)
will be allowed. The mitigation site shown on the project plans is twice the size as the
areas currently occupied by the rare plant occurrences (2,180 square-feet of habitat
created for 1,076 square-feet of habitat impacted). This equates to a 2:1 mitigation ratio
(habitat created to habitat impacted) to ensure a minimum 1:1 replacement ratio is
achieved. Topsoil from each of the four occurrences will be collected in 6-inch lifts and
stored for top-dressing the mitigation site once grading of the pads is complete. As
needed, the mitigation site should be prepared for planting by removal of non-native
species or other measures as necessary, then applying the salvaged topsoil. Once topsoil
has been layered evenly through the area, collected seed should be hand-broadcasted into
suitable locations by the qualified botanist and covered with compost. Seed may also be
incorporated into the native erosion control seed mix described in the Native Erosion
Control Seed Mix table under Mitigation Measure BIO-9 and applied to other grassy
areas of the site as part of the erosion control effort. Depending on the season when
construction starts, the qualified botanist may also potentially salvage plants (i.e., dig
them up when soils are moist) and transplant them to containers to be maintained until
the mitigation sites are ready for planting.
BIO-2 Conduct annual monitoring and implement adaptive management measures for 5
years to ensure no net loss of Cambria morning glory onsite. The Rare Plant
Mitigation Program shall include annual monitoring and maintenance of the mitigation
site to ensure success of the program. Monitoring by a qualified botanist shall occur
during the spring growing season (between April 15 and May 15 each year) to ensure
successful establishment of planted propagules. The established rare plants shall be
mapped to evaluate the goal of no net loss of the species onsite. The measurable objective
shall be to have at least 1,076 sf of occurrence comprised of approximately 300 Cambria
Item 2
Packet Page 16
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 7
morning glory plants. Appropriate vegetation sampling techniques shall be used to assess
the areal cover of vegetation to evaluate the status of the established occurrences. If the
success criteria of having approximately 300 plants covering 1,076 sf within the creek
setback zone is not reached by the third year of monitoring, remedial actions such as
collecting more seed and distributing it in suitable areas should be employed, with a
corresponding additional year of monitoring. Other activities to increase the success of
the rare plant mitigation effort could include non-native plant species removal within the
mitigation site to reduce competition, additional seed application, or supplemental
irrigation during periods of prolonged drought. The qualified botanist shall prepare
annual reports for the applicant detailing the methods and results of the mitigation effort
and monitoring effort. The applicant shall be responsible for submitting the report to the
City on an annual basis (by December 31 of each year) for the 5-year monitoring period
or until the final success criteria described above are met.
BIO-3 To the extent feasible, avoid initial site grading in the winter months. The burrowing
owl has been recorded in the vicinity of the project from October to the end of April. If
initial vegetation removal and site grading for the tract improvements is conducted
outside of this period, potential effects on this species would be avoided and no further
mitigation would be required. Restricting the time period for earth-moving activities is
also required to avoid or minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation (see
Mitigation Measure BIO-9). If initial grading work must commence during the time
period that burrowing owls may be present onsite, preconstruction surveys for this
species shall be included in the survey effort described in Mitigation Measure BIO-4
prior to vegetation removal or tract improvements.
BIO-4 Conduct a preconstruction survey and avoid construction in areas occupied by
special-status wildlife species until relocated or they have left the site. Within 7 days
prior to the start of vegetation/tree removal, ground-disturbing activities, or demolition
of existing structures, a biologist approved by the City shall survey the project impact
area to identify whether nesting birds, roosting bats, monarch butterfly overwintering
populations, obscure bumble bee, and/or California legless lizard are present on site. A
separate survey shall be conducted for any phase of the project not conducted
concurrently or within 10 days of cessation of the previous phase (i.e., structure
demolition conducted prior to general site grading). The biologist shall use appropriate
survey techniques for the special-status species identified in the 2020 BRA as having
potential to occur onsite. For example, burrows shall be examined with binoculars or
wildlife cameras, and inspected for whitewash or prey remains. Leaf litter and cover
objects shall be searched for northern California legless lizards. Potential bat roost sites
shall be inspected for sign of roosting bats such as guano or prey remains. If any of these
species are found onsite, the biologist shall coordinate with the City, and CDFW as
appropriate, on methods to ensure the successful relocation of individuals to suitable
habitat nearby. In some cases, CDFW may recommend creating structures for displaced
woodrats and bats. Burrowing owls can be discouraged from using burrows onsite, or
occupied burrows can be avoided until the owls have left the area. Bats can be restricted
from roost sites by placing netting over their entrances after they have left the roost for
Item 2
Packet Page 17
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 8
night-time foraging. The wildlife protection measures to be employed will be based on
the results of the survey and the particular characteristics of their use of the site, in
coordination with CDFW and the construction engineer. If no special-status animal
species are found onsite during the preconstruction survey, work may proceed with the
implementation of the following Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7.
BIO-5 Prepare and present a Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to any
vegetation removal or tract improvements, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Worker
Environmental Awareness Program that will be presented to all project personnel. This
program shall detail measures to avoid and minimize impacts on biological resources. It
shall include a description of special-status species potentially occurring on the project
site and their natural history, the status of the species and their protection under
environmental laws and regulations, and the penalties for take. Recommendations shall
be given as to actions to avoid take should a special-status species be found on the project
site. Other aspects of the training shall include a description of general measures to
protect wildlife, including:
1. Delineation of the allowable work area, staging areas, access points, and limits
to vehicle access;
2. Storage of all pipes, metal tubing, or similar materials stored or stacked on the
project site for one or more overnight periods shall be either securely capped
before storage or thoroughly inspected for wildlife before the materials are
moved, buried, capped, or otherwise used.
3. Inspection of materials stored onsite, such as lumber, plywood, and rolls of silt
fence, for wildlife that may have sheltered under or within the materials;
4. Use of netting to exclude birds from nesting in construction materials;
5. Construction of escape ramps in all excavations and trenches more than 6 inches
deep;
6. Contact information for the City-approved biologist and instructions should any
wildlife species be detected in the work site;
7. Dust suppression methods during construction activities when necessary, to
meet air quality standards and protect biological resources; and
8. Methods for containment of food-related trash items (e.g., wrappers, cans,
bottles, food scraps), small construction debris (e.g., nails, bits of metal and
plastic), and other human generated debris (e.g., cigarette butts) in animal-proof
containers and removal from the site on a weekly basis.
All project personnel who have attended the training shall sign an attendance sheet.
The program shall be repeated for any new crews that arrive subsequently on the site.
BIO-6 Install high-visibility construction and silt fence along the creek corridor to
delineate the allowable work area, exclude wildlife from the site, and protect the
stream habitat. Prior to vegetation removal or tract improvements, and during
subsequent residential development for Lots 1-7, a high-visibility construction fence at
Item 2
Packet Page 18
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 9
least 4 feet tall together with a silt fence, or an approved wildlife exclusion fence, shall
be erected along the creek corridor to delineate the limits of grading and vehicle access.
If possible, the fence shall be erected along the creek setback line, and encroachment into
the setback shall be kept at a minimum. In no case shall ground disturbance occur within
the riparian habitat or below the top of bank without obtaining proper permits from
regulatory agencies. The type of fence used may be a combination of wildlife exclusion
and silt fence (i.e., ERTEC Triple-function E-fence) or similar materials that would serve
the purposes of safety/construction area delineation, wildlife exclusion, and siltation
prevention. The fence shall be checked weekly by construction personnel for needed
maintenance.
BIO-7 Conduct biological monitoring for special-status wildlife species while the property
is cleared and graded, and structures are removed. A qualified biologist shall monitor
the removal of structures, materials, and vegetation that may provide cover for obscure
bumble bee, northern California legless lizards, and bat roosting sites. The biologist shall
be onsite daily until all materials are removed and all vegetation has been cleared. If any
special-status species are found, work shall be delayed until the individuals have left the
work area or CDFW shall be notified to obtain authorization for capture and relocation.
BIO-8 Avoid vegetation removal within the riparian habitat during the overwintering
season. Vegetation removal within the riparian area shall be conducted outside of the
overwintering season for monarch butterfly (late October through February) and obscure
bumble bee (late October through January) to avoid disturbance to species potentially
inhabiting riparian vegetation.
BIO-9 Install erosion and sediment BMPs and revegetate graded areas. The following
erosion and sedimentation control BMPs are required to be implemented during
vegetation removal, tract improvements, during individual lot construction, and after the
construction phases of the project:
1. If possible, the potential for erosion and sedimentation shall be minimized by
scheduling construction to occur outside of the rainy season, which is typically
defined as October 15 through April 15. Adherence to this measure would also
serve as avoidance for the burrowing owl, as described in Mitigation Measure
BIO-3.
2. To minimize site disturbance, all construction related equipment shall be
restricted to established roads, construction areas, and other designated staging
areas. The creek setback zone sha ll be clearly marked as described in Mitigation
Measure BIO-6.
3. Prior to any site disturbance during tract improvements or individual lot
construction, a Sediment and Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a
qualified engineer. The use of silt fence, straw wattles, erosion control blankets,
straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and other appropriate techniques should be
employed to protect the drainage features on and off the property. Biotechnical
Item 2
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 10
approaches using native vegetation shall be used as feasible. All areas with soil
disturbance shall have appropriate erosion controls and other stormwater
protection BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. All sediment and
erosion control measures shall be installed per the engineer’s requirements prior
to the initiation of site grading if planned to occur within the rainy season.
4. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site, and a Spill Response Plan shall be in
place.
5. No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled within 100 feet of wetland areas,
riparian habitat and/or drainage features, and refueling areas shall have a spill
containment system installed. No vehicles or construction equipment shall be
stored overnight within 100 feet of these areas unless drip pans or ground covers
are used. All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily
basis to ensure proper operation and to avoid potential leaks or spills.
Construction staging areas shall be located in a location where spills would not
drain into aquatic habitats.
6. No concrete washout shall be conducted on the site outside of an appropriate
containment system. Washing of equipment, tools, etc. should not be allowed
in any location where the tainted water could enter onsite drainages.
7. The use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall be in compliance with
all local, state, and federal regulations. All uses of such compounds shall
observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other
state and federal legislation.
8. All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project
site should be cleaned up immediately.
9. All areas with soil disturbance shall have appropriate erosion controls and other
stormwater protection BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. Silt fencing,
erosion control blankets, straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and/or other types
of materials prescribed on the plan shall be implemented to prevent erosion and
sedimentation. Biotechnical approaches using native vegetation shall be used
as feasible.
10. Areas with disturbed soils shall be restored under the direction of the project
engineer in consultation with a qualified restoration ecologist as detailed above.
Methods may include recontouring graded areas to blend in with existing
natural contours, covering the areas with salvaged topsoil containing native
seedbank from the site, and/or applying the native seed mix as described in the
table below. Native seed mix shall be applied to the graded areas in the creek
setback area through either direct hand seeding or hydroseeding methods.
Seeding with the native erosion control seed mix should be provided on all
disturbed soil areas prior to the onset of the rainy season (by October 15).
Item 2
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 11
Native Erosion Control Seed Mix
Species
Application
Rate
(lbs/acre)
California Brome (Bromus
carinatus) 10
purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) 5
tomcat clover (Trifolium wildenovii) 5
six weeks fescue (Vulpia
microstachys) 5
Total 25
BIO-10 Obtain necessary permits for impacts in jurisdictional areas, implement a
compensatory mitigation program, and monitor the success of the program to
ensure no net loss of Riparian/Wetland habitat or other waters on the subject
property. Prior to any vegetation removal or site disturbance within the areas delineated
as jurisdictional features (Figure 5, Aquatic Resources Delineation 2021), the applicant
shall provide documentation to the City that a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from
USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB, and
a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement from CDFW have been obtained or have been determined by the regulatory
agencies to not be required.
If regulatory permits are required, prior to the initiation of vegetation removal or tract
improvements, the applicant shall retain a qualified biological monitor to ensure
compliance with all Clean Water Act and CDFW permit requirements during work
adjacent to the creek. The monitor shall be present during the installation of the
construction fencing delineating the limits of work in relation to the edge of riparian,
creek top of bank, and 20-foot creek setback buffer, as described in Mitigation Measure
BIO-6. Since the Cambria morning glory compensatory mitigation site is to be located
within this buffer, the monitor shall direct appropriate wildlife exclusion and erosion
control BMPs to protect riparian habitat during site preparation for planting. The monitor
shall be present during construction of the rip rap pad and any other work within the
creek setback area on stormwater structures. The monitor shall also oversee removal of
non-native tree species and site preparation for tree planting within the setback. If a
Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) is required by the regulatory agencies,
the applicant shall provide a copy of the plan to the City and the biological monitor shall
be responsible for successful implementation of the plan.
BIO-11 Record a Biological Easement and Biological Easement Agreement protecting
riparian area: A Biological Easement and Biological Easement Agreement shall be
recorded in conjunction with the final map recordation. The easement agreement shall
be developed by the applicant in a format provided by the City. The following activities
Item 2
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 12
are permitted within the biological easement, subject to the review and approval by the
City Sustainability and Natural Resources Official:
1. Stormwater improvements.
2. Removal of non-native trees.
3. Restoration and creek bank stabilization activities.
No future paving or structures shall be permitted within the biological easement. Creek
setback standards shall be applied to the easement area, consistent with municipal code
requirements.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on Final Map and all
grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department and Natural
Resources Manager shall verify compliance.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical
or archaeological remains are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated
with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community
Development Director shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct an
assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if necessary. After
the find has been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. These
requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all improvement/construction
plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during
ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order
shall be issued, and the City Community Development Director shall be notified.
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall
occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and
disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of
Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s
final map and all improvement/construction plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and
construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance,
including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring Plan, and review and approval of
cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required Mitigation Measures.
Noise
Item 2
Packet Page 22
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 13
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following BMPs shall
be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at
the project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control
devises (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for
project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever
possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air exhaust from
pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the
compressed air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise
abatement methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine
vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to
ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g.,
mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise
BMP, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development
Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior to commencement of
construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All
construction workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour
limitations and how, why, and where BMP measures are to be implemented.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and project
grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections. Tribal Cultural
Resources
Tribal Cultural Resources
TC-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan
Tribe shall be notified prior to any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site
monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities,
all ground disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City
shall be notified immediately consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures
CR-1 and CR-2.
Item 2
Packet Page 23
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 14
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and project
grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development
Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections.
Wildfire
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the
applicant shall provide a vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered
professional forester or certified arborist for each lot. The plan shall identify fuel load
reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase defensible
space around residential structures and driveways/access roads. The plan shall also
identify appropriate standards for installation of new landscaping, such as requirements
for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
WF-2 Additional Fire Hazard Reductions. Future development would incorporate the
following fire reduction methods identified by the 2020 Wildland Fire Protection Report
(Neumann)to reduce wildland fire risk:
1. Rain gutters, when not adequately maintained, will collect leaf material which
becomes a receptive fuel bed for embers and sparks and can then transmit fire
underneath the non-combustible roof materials. Rain gutters should be
protected by noncombustible leaf shields or not allowed.
2. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for only non-combustible fences
and decks in the subdivision.
3. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for fire resistant landscaping in
the back yards of the subdivision.
4. Require enclosed eves on all structures within the subdivision.
5. Install fireproof vents on all structures (fire-rated, flame and ember resistant).
6. Working with the biologist, remove the non-native vegetation in the creek,
riparian area,
7. reduce the fuel load.
8. Install a non-combustible wall (block or steel stud /stucco) wall 36 inches in
height all around the northern perimeter of the subdivision. The wall shall begin
at the westernmost property line and continue to the 20-foot setback at the west
side of the creek and shall continue beginning at the 20-foot setback at the east
side of the creek, terminating at the property line of CAL FIRE Station #12.
The purpose of this wall is to interrupt fire progression from the north onto the
proposed lots without obstructing the very desirable view of the open space.
Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all
grading and construction plans. The City Community Development Department shall verify
compliance through initial and regular inspections.
Item 2
Packet Page 24
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 15
SECTION 3. Action. The project conditions of approval do not include mandatory code
requirements. Code compliance will be verified during the plan check process, which may include
additional requirements applicable to the project. The Planning Commission (PC) hereby
recommends the City Council approve the project with incorporation of the following conditions:
Planning Division
1. Plans submitted for final map recordation shall label lots one through seven, sixteen, and
eighteen through twenty-three as “sensitive sites”. This status ensures that future site
development will respect existing site constraints, creek setback requirements, privacy of
occupants and neighbors of the project and be compatible with the scale and character of the
surrounding neighborhood. Prior to submittal of a building permit application, development
of these sensitive parcels shall require architectural review, in accordance with Municipal
Code Section 2.48.
2. Plans submitted for final map recordation shall state that lots one through seven are subject to
creek setback standards and requirements, consistent with Municipal Code Section 17.70.030.
3. Plans submitted for final map recordation shall increase the lot size of lot 19 to be no less than
6,900 square feet by reducing the size of lot 20, which shall be no less than 6,000 square feet,
consistent with Subdivision Regulations requirements for corner lots.
4. Plans submitted for final map recordation shall include the Biological Easement required by
mitigation measure BIO-11. This easement shall include all the area between the creek top of
bank or current riparian area, whichever is furthest from the centerline of the creek. The
easement shall also cover all areas identified for Cambria morning glory replanting required
by mitigation measure BIO-1.
5. Plans submitted for public improvements or grading of lots shall identify all trees proposed
for removal, their diameter at breast height, and the location of compensatory tree planting.
Compensatory tree planting shall be provided at a rate of one-to-one for all onsite trees
removed, or otherwise consistent with Municipal Code Standards, unless the tree being
removed is exempt from tree removal permitting by Municipal Code section 12.24.090 (C.1.).
Measurements of tree diameters shall be consistent with forestry best practices, to the
satisfaction of the City Arborist. Compensatory tree plantings shall be an equal mix of 15-
gallon and 24-inch box size and consist of at least 50% native tree species. All compensatory
trees shall be irrigated and maintained by the property owner or subdivider until the tree is
established or the individual lot is sold.
Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development - Subdivision Conditions
6. The subdivision shall be recorded with a final map. The map preparation and monumentation
shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and
Item 2
Packet Page 25
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 16
the Subdivision Map Act. The map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the
current City Engineering Standards. A separate application, checklist, and final map review
fee shall be paid at the time of final map processing.
7. The map and improvement plans shall be tied to the City’s vertical and horizontal control
network in accordance with the City Engineering Standards. Depending upon the location of
existing vertical control benchmark(s), a new benchmark may need to be established within
or adjoining the subdivision.
8. The final map submittal and improvement plans shall include a current title report. An
electronic copy of the title report with embedded links to referenced documents is preferred.
If not available, the submittal shall include a copy of each of the pertinent referenced
documents.
9. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid for each new single family dwelling lot prior to map recordation.
The fees shall be based on the fee resolution in effect at the time of final map submittal. Credit
for the removal of the existing residence will be applied to the final fee.
10. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance of
the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to map
recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket
easements.
11. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement
(P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot. This easement shall be clearly shown on the final map
submittal. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines
bordering each lot.
12. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities,
access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance of
the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to map
recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket
easements.
13. The final map shall include a public path easement connection from Westmont (east) if
attainable to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and Public Works
Director. The easement definition of either a public pedestrian or bikeway easement shall be
confirmed with the City prior to map recordation and in concert with the subdivision
improvement plans.
14. A creek/biological open space easement shall be shown and noted on the map in accordance
with the mitigation measures. A creek maintenance Easement Agreement, in a format
approved by the City shall be recorded prior to or concurrent with the recordation of the map.
The agreement shall further clarify the creek maintenance responsibility and limits of
Item 2
Packet Page 26
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 17
improvements allowed within the creek corridor. The agreement shall be approved to the
satisfaction of the City’s Sustainability and Natural Resources Official and Community
Development Director.
15. The relocation, extinguishment, or quitclaim of any existing easements shall be clearly
identified on the final map or shall be completed separately prior to map recordation if
applicable.
16. The final map shall show and label the limits of the calculated 100-year flood event. The
information may be included on an additional map sheet.
17. The project soils report shall be referenced on the final map in accordance with the subdivision
regulations. The soils engineer shall verify whether additional boring(s) or exploratory
trenching is required to cover the portions of the subdivision located under the existing
developed site. The final report shall complete the analysis and any final recommendation
regarding the potential for liquefaction.
18. The plans, map, and supporting documents shall show and note compliance with the City’s
Drainage Design Manual, Floodplain Management Regulations, and Post Construction
Stormwater Regulations.
19. Stormwater Control Measures (SCM’s) and piping within the public right-of-way should be
limited to the minimum extent feasible. All SCM’s shall be the maintenance responsibility
of the HOA or private property owners. SCM’s that are located within the public right-of-
way will require the recordation of an Encroachment Agreement in a format provided by the
City. The agreement shall be recorded in conjunction the map recordation.
20. The stormwater strategy and subdivision improvement plans shall consider the requirement
for permanent irrigation to any bio-remediation SCM’s. The irrigation system could be
provided from the adjoining domestic meter located along the lot frontage. A common
landscape meter could be provided at the commercial meter water impact fee rate. Private
service piping located within the public right-of-way will require the recordation of an
encroachment agreement. Cross-connection control may be required for all future domestic
meters for lots that are crossed with a private common irrigation service.
21. An Operation and Maintenance Manual and recorded Private Stormwater Conveyance
Agreement will be required as part of the Stormwater Control Plan approval and map
recordation.
22. The final map submittal shall include CCR’s to define the maintenance responsibility of the
several private and/or shared facilities.
23. All existing structures, private water supply, or private waste disposal system shall be
demolished or abandoned to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director, Building Official,
and County Health Department with proper permits prior to map recordation. Existing
Item 2
Packet Page 27
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 18
structures or improvements may remain if specifically approved, are not considered to be a
nuisance or health hazard, and are shown to not be affected by the proposed location of
property lines and/or improvements.
24. The subdivision improvement plan submittal shall include the standard application, checklist,
engineer’s estimate of probable cost, a plan review fee/retainer, and all supporting documents.
25. All new on-site and off-site subdivision improvements shall comply with the City Engineering
Standards and Standard Specifications in effect at the time of subdivision plan approval.
26. The street paving shall comply with City Engineering Standards. If construction phasing of
the new street pavement is proposed, the phasing shall provide for the ultimate structural street
section and pavement life per standard #7110. The engineer of record shall detail this
requirement in the public improvement plans, to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director.
27. The improvement plans shall clearly show and label the existing rights-of-way, street
improvements, and utility infrastructure located at the subdivision boundaries and points of
connection to Westmont (east), Cuesta, Stanford, and Westmont (west).
28. The transitions from the several sidewalk connections from the adjoining neighborhood 4’
wide sidewalks to the new 5’ detached sidewalks and 6’ walking path shall be approved by
the City Engineer prior to map recordation. Limited off-site sidewalk improvements may be
required for the transitions and for the connection to ADA compliant and competent material.
29. Sidewalk extensions and or terminations at the Westmont connections to the subdivision shall
be approved by the Public Works Department prior to final map recordation. Unless
otherwise approved for deferral or waiver by the Public Works Department, the through
connection from Westmont (east) will require a continuation of the sidewalk along the street
end to provide an accessible connection to the 6’ walking path.
30. Westmont street termination improvements, storm drain capture, and utility connections may
require the removal of the existing parkway street tree. A compensatory parkway tree may
be required prior to final map recordation.
31. Plans submitted for public improvements shall show the proposed pathway connection from
Westmont (east) to Cuesta in compliance with City and ADA standards unless otherwise
approved by the Public Works Director. Ramps and landings may be required if the slope
can’t be reduced to walkway gradients. Handrails, if required may need to include a non-
skateboard feature or may need to be attached to a guardrail, fence, or other barrier to
discourage the establishment of a skateable feature.
32. The improvement plans shall show the location of a Mail Box Unit (MBU’s) per City
Engineering Standards and the approval of the Post Master. Unless otherwise approved by
the City, the MBU(s) shall be located outside of the public right-of-way. A separate easement
may need to be included on the map.
Item 2
Packet Page 28
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 19
33. The subdivision plans shall show water, sewer, gas, electrical, phone, and cable connections
to each lot. Any proposal for the elimination of a gas main and/or gas services shall be
approved by the City and supplying utility company.
34. Plans submitted for public improvements shall show the final line and grade of all sewer,
water, and storm drain lines to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Utility Departments.
Utility separations shall be provided for all new and existing systems unless a design
exception is approved by the City and State, if applicable.
35. The utility plan shall include water services and meters to each lot. The service may be
provided as individual services or could be provided as a “U-branch” at the common property
line per City Engineering Standard #6260 and to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department.
36. Unless specifically approved by the Building Official, and the directors of Community
Development, Public Works, and Utilities, the sewer service to Lots 1, 2, and 3 shall be gravity
sewers. The developer shall exhaust reasonable efforts to provide a gravity sewer to each of
the lots to either Westmont, Stanford, or through an easement to Jeffrey. If sewer ejectors are
required for one or more lots, a Notice of Requirements shall include this item and shall be
recorded in conjunction with the final map.
37. Fire Hydrants shall be provided per City Engineering Standards. The final placement shall
consider the hydrant availability and distance from the tract boundary at all four tract
interfaces with the adjoining public streets. Off-site hydrants may be required. Final hydrant
locations and spacing shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department and Utilities
Department prior to final map recordation.
38. A preliminary electrical service design/memo from PGE shall be provided prior to approval
of the subdivision improvement plans. The final PGE design/handout package may be listed
as a deferred submittal item on the cover sheet of the improvement plans. Service to the
subdivision shall be completed without a net increase in the number of service poles located
within the public right of way.
39. Prior to recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall install street lighting and all
associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and
luminaires per City Engineering Standards. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations,
or upgrades may be required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development
to complete the necessary public improvements.
40. Improvement plans shall include a complete tree summary show the diameter and species of
all trees. The plan shall clarify the trees to remain and the trees to be removed. Trees to
remain may require a tree preservation plan per City Engineering Standards.
Item 2
Packet Page 29
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 20
41. Prior to recordation of the final map, invasive plant species shall be removed or eradicated
along and within the Twin Ridge Creek corridor to the satisfaction of the Planning Division
and Sustainability and Natural Resources Official .
42. Agency permits required for any work within the creek corridor shall be secured prior to
commencing with any demolitions, grading, and construction within the jurisdictional areas.
Any jurisdictional permits from the Army Corp, Fish and Wildlife, or Regional Water Quality
Control Board required for the drainage, site improvements, street and road improvements
shall be issued prior to plan approval and/or commencing with work within the respective
waterways. Permit conditions shall be reflected on the approved subdivision plans.
43. A SWPPP and Waste Discharger Identification Number (WDID) shall be issued and
referenced on the grading, erosion control, and stormwater control plan sheets prior to plan
approval and encroachment permit issuance.
44. The grading and drainage plan and reports shall clarify the limit of run-on from the adjoining
public streets and from any upslope private watershed. The upslope watershed to the north
(Cal Fire) shall be evaluated for the capacity of the current drainage systems. The systems
shall be shown to be adequate to carry the design storm, shall be upgraded, or subdivision
improvements added to collect and convey any run-on.
45. Prior to final map recordation, all proposed retaining walls shall be evaluated for collecting
and conveying any surface run-on that might be tributary to the back of wall. Any
concentrated drainage shall be conveyed and discharged in a non-erosive manner.
46. The proposed pad grades shall provide a minimum surface drainage design gradient from a
defined high point(s) to an approved drainage outlet. The pad grading and drainage plan and
build-out strategy shall not rely on subsurface drainage systems without a safe overflow.
47. The proposed slope banks shall honor the top and toe of slope setbacks from the adjoining
property lines in accordance with the California Building Code unless captured with a
retaining wall or curb. Pad grading and drainage improvements plans should consider the
final grading and drainage proposed for the typical lot development.
48. Street trees are required as a condition of development. The proposed trees may be planted
in conjunction with the subdivision improvements or could be deferred to individual lot
development. The proposed parkway planting or bio-remediation improvements shall
consider and honor the requirement for parkway tree planting at the rate of approximately one
tree per every 35 lineal feet of frontage.
Utilities Department
49. The proposed utility infrastructure shall comply with the latest engineering design standards
effective at the time the permit for public improvement is obtained and shall have reasonable
alignments needed for maintenance of public infrastructure along public roads.
Item 2
Packet Page 30
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 21
50. Any private sewer lateral improvement included with public improvement plans that crosses
one proposed parcel for the benefit of another shall provide evidence that a private utility
easement appropriate for those facilities has been recorded prior to issuance of a permit for
such improvement.
51. Public improvement plans submitted shall show all utility easements dedicated to the City in
compliance with the latest engineering design standards and shall have reasonable alignments
needed for maintenance of public infrastructure.
52. Public improvement plans submitted shall show the existing terminal manhole in Cuesta
Drive to be abandoned and a new cleanout manhole shall be installed upstream of the sewer
lateral connection for Lot 16. The proposed sewer lateral for Lot 16 shall connect to the new
6” sewer main extension downstream of the cleanout manhole with a wye.
53. Public improvement plans submitted shall show the proposed public sewer main extension
and manhole in Westmont Avenue to be 6” PVC pipe and meet current City Engineering
Standards.
54. Public improvement plans submitted shall show water meters and private sewer laterals with
appropriate clearance from one another per City Standards.
55. Public improvement plans submitted shall show a separate water meter provided for each new
parcel per Chapter 13.04.120 of the City’s Municipal Code.
56. Potable city water shall not be used for major construction activities, such as grading and dust
control, as required under Prohibited Water Uses; Chapter 13.07.07 0.C of the City’s
Municipal Code. Recycled water is available through the City’s Construction Water Permit
program.
57. The proposed 8” public water main within Stanford Drive shall meet the current City
Standards at the time of building permit submittal and shall maintain a minimum 12”
clearance above the proposed public sewer main, per City Standards.
Indemnification
58. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers
and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents,
officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this
project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review
(“Indemnified Claims”). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified
Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in
the defense against an Indemnified Claim.
Item 2
Packet Page 31
Resolution No. PC-xxxx-21
468/500 Westmont Avenue, SBDV-0169-2020 & EID-0170-2020
Page 22
On motion by ________________________, seconded by ___________________, and on the
final roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
REFRAIN:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 26nd day of May, 2021.
_____________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Item 2
Packet Page 32
6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)VV;Item 2Packet Page 33
6
66666
6
6
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:
:6'6'6'6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 34
/276)/27 6)/27 6)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/27 6)/276)/27 6)/27 6)/276)¬=¬=/276)6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 35
6
6
:6'6'6'6'6'6'
6'/276)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/27 6)/276)/276)/27 6)/27 6)/27 6)/276)/276RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 36
6
6
6
:
:
:
:
:
:
6/27 6)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 37
6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 38
6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 39
6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 40
6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)Item 2Packet Page 41
/276)/27 6)/27 6)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/27 6)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/276)/27 6)/276)/27 6)/27 6)/276)¬=¬=/276)6RXWKZRRG'ULYH6DQ/XLV2ELVSR&$ 3)/27 /27 6) 6)/27/27 6) 6)/27/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27/276)6)¬=¬=/27/276)6/27/27 6) 6)/27/276)6/27/276)6)/27/276)6)3+$6(3+$6(/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27/27 6) 6/27/276)6)/27/276)6)/27 /27 6)6)/27/27 6) 6)/27/27 6) 6)/27/276)6)/27/276)6)3+$6(3+$6( &$11213+$6,1*&21&(37Item 2Packet Page 42
75((&200,77(($*(1'$5(3257
68%-(&7 5HYLHZRIWKHSURSRVHGUHPRYDORIRQVLWHWUHHVDQGUHSODQWLQJRIDWOHDVWVWUHHWWUHHVRQ
VLWHZLWKFRPSHQVDWRU\WUHHSODQWLQJVUHTXLUHGDVDFRQGLWLRQRIDSSURYDO&RPSHQVDWRU\SODQWLQJZLOOEH
UHTXLUHGDWDUDWHRI RQVLWHRU RIIVLWHFRQVLVWHQWZLWK7UHH5HJXODWLRQVVWDQGDUGV7UHHUHPRYDOVDUH
SURSRVHGWRIDFLOLWDWHDSURSRVHGWUDFWPDSGHYHORSPHQW 75 DORWVXEGLYLVLRQLQWKH/RZ'HQVLW\
5HVLGHQWLDO 5 ]RQH
352-(&7$''5(66 :HVWPRQW$YH%< .\OH9DQ/HHXZHQ$VVRFLDWH3ODQQHU
3KRQH
HPDLO NYDQOHHX#VORFLW\RUJ
),/(180%(5 6%'9 )520 $QWKRQ\:KLSSOH&LW\$UERULVW
5(&200(1'$7,21 5HFRPPHQGWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQILQGWKHSURSRVHGWUHHUHPRYDODQG
&RPSHQVDWRU\3ODQWLQJVWUHHWWUHHSODQIRUWKH7UDFW0DSDW:HVWPRQW$YHQXHFRQVLVWHQWZLWKWKH
&LW\¶V7UHH5HJXODWLRQVZLWKDUHFRPPHQGHGFRQGLWLRQRIDSSURYDOIRUFRPSHQVDWRU\SODQWLQJV
6,7('$7$
$SSOLFDQW$QGUHZ*0HLQKROG
$OLFH-R0HLQKROG6XUYLYRUV7UXVW
5HSUHVHQWDWLYH.DWLH5ROOLQV&DQQRQ
=RQLQJ/RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO 5
*HQHUDO3ODQ/RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO
6LWH$UHD DFUHV
(QYLURQPHQWDO
6WDWXV
0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQKDVEHHQ
SUHSDUHGDQGDYDLODEOHIRUUHYLHZRQOLQH
&200,77((3859,(:
7KH 7UHH &RPPLWWHH¶V UROH LV WR UHYLHZ WKH SURMHFW DQG SURYLGH D UHFRPPHQGDWLRQ WR WKH 3ODQQLQJ
&RPPLVVLRQUHJDUGLQJFRQVLVWHQF\ZLWKWKHSROLFLHVDQGVWDQGDUGVVHWIRUWKLQ6DQ/XLV2ELVSR0XQLFLSDO
&RGH 6/20& 7UHH5HJXODWLRQV
352-(&7'(6&5,37,21
7KHSURSRVHGSURMHFWLVD7HQWDWLYH7UDFW0DS 9770 RQD DFUHVLWHORFDWHGDWWKHWHUPLQXV
RIWKHHDVWDQGZHVWSRUWLRQVRI:HVWPRQW$YHQXHDQGWKHQRUWKHUQWHUPLQXVRI:HVWPRQW'ULYHDQG
6WDQIRUG'ULYH VHH$WWDFKPHQW3URMHFW3ODQV 7KHSURMHFWVLWHLVZLWKLQWKH/RZ'HQVLW\5HVLGHQWLDO
0HHWLQJ'DWH 0D\
Item 2
Packet Page 43
6%'9 :HVWPRQW$YHQXH
3DJH
5 ]RQHDQGZRXOGFUHDWHORWVUDQJLQJLQVL]HIURPWRVTXDUHIHHWDQGDUHLQWHQGHG
IRUVLQJOHIDPLO\UHVLGHQWLDOXVH
([LVWLQJ GHYHORSPHQW RQ WKH SURMHFW VLWH LQFOXGHV D UHVLGHQWLDO VWUXFWXUH DQG DVVRFLDWHG DFFHVVRU\
VWUXFWXUHV D SRRO DQG RWKHU VLWH LPSURYHPHQWV 9HJHWDWLRQ RQ WKH SURSHUW\ LQFOXGHV D IUHVKZDWHU
IRUHVWHGVKUXEZHWODQGZLWKDQDVVRFLDWHGULSDULDQKDELWDWWKDWH[WHQGVWKURXJKWKHZHVWHUQSRUWLRQRI
WKHVLWH7KHVLWHLVJHQHUDOO\FRPSULVHGRIGHYHORSHGUXGHUDOODQGULSDULDQKDELWDWDQGDQQXDOJUDVVODQG
7KHUHDUHRUQDPHQWDODQGQDWLYHWUHHVWKURXJKRXWWKHSURMHFWVLWH$WWDFKPHQW7UHH5HPRYDO
([KLELWVKRZVWKHORFDWLRQRIH[LVWLQJWUHHVRQVLWH7RDFFRPPRGDWHWKHRQVLWHLPSURYHPHQWV
RUQDPHQWDOQDWLYHDQGQRQQDWLYHWUHHVZRXOGEHUHPRYHGRIZKLFKDUHVXEMHFWWRWUHHUHPRYDO
SHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV
7KHDSSOLFDQWLVSURSRVLQJWRUHPRYHWUHHVRQVLWHWKDWDUHVXEMHFWWRWUHHUHPRYDOSHUPLWWLQJ2IWKH
WUHHVDUHTXHHQSDOPVWKDWERUGHUWKHH[LVWLQJGULYHZD\DUHVLOYHUZDWWOHV DFDFLD WKDWDUH
ZLWKLQWKHFUHHNFRUULGRUDUHDDQGZRXOGEHUHPRYHGDVDZLOGILUHPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHVHYHQRIWKHWUHHV
DUHOLYHRDNVZLWKWKHUHPDLQLQJWUHHVDYDULHW\QRQQDWLYHWUHHVSHFLHV $WWDFKPHQW7UHH,QYHQWRU\
'DWD7DEOH $GGLWLRQDOWUHHUHPRYDOVRQVLWHDUHQRWVXEMHFWWRWUHHUHPRYDOSHUPLWWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWV
DVVSHFLILHGLQ6HFWLRQ &RIWKH0XQLFLSDO&RGH
7DEOH 7UHHV6XEMHFWWR5HYLHZ
7UHH7\SH4XDQWLW\'%+
4XHHQ3DOP
6LOYHU:DWWOHV
&RDVW/LYH2DN
(XFDO\SWXV
&RDVW5HGZRRG
*UH\3LQH
*UHYLOOHD
5R\DO3DOP
(OP
&DQDU\,VODQG3DOP
1DUURZ/HDYHG3DSHUEDUN
&\SUHVV
2OLYH
7RWDO
Municipal Code § 12.24.090 Tree Removal (C) Permit Not Required. Removing a tree in R-1 and R-2 zones does not
require a permit if all of the following conditions exist: (1) The tree is a designated native species and the trunk is less
than ten inches in diameter as measured by diameter standard height…, or when the tree is nonnative and the trunk is
less than twenty inches DSH; and (2) The tree is not located within a creek setback area…; and (3) The tree is not a
designated street tree, and is not located within ten feet of the back of the sidewalk; and (4) Planting or retention of the
tree was not a condition of development; or (5) The tree is a palm and the trunk is less than twelve inches DSH.
Item 2
Packet Page 44
6%'9 :HVWPRQW$YHQXH
3DJH
75((5(*8/$7,216
6/20&&KDSWHU 7UHH5HJXODWLRQVHVWDEOLVKHVSROLFLHVUHJXODWLRQVDQGVSHFLILFDWLRQVQHFHVVDU\WR
JRYHUQLQVWDOODWLRQPDLQWHQDQFHUHPRYDODQGSUHVHUYDWLRQRIWUHHVWREHDXWLI\WKHFLW\ WRSXULI\WKHDLU WR
SURYLGHVKDGHDQGZLQGSURWHFWLRQ WRDGGHQYLURQPHQWDODQGHFRQRPLFYDOXH DQGWRSUHVHUYHWUHHVZLWK
KLVWRULFRUXQXVXDOYDOXH
7UHH5HPRYDO
&ULWHULDIRU&RQVWUXFWLRQ5HODWHG7UHH5HPRYDO5HFRPPHQGDWLRQV6/20&6HFWLRQ VXEVHFWLRQ
*SURYLGHVFULWHULDIRUFRQVWUXFWLRQUHODWHGWUHHUHPRYDOUHFRPPHQGDWLRQV7KHFULWHULDDUHSURYLGHGEHORZ
ZLWKDGHVFULSWLRQRIKRZWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFWPHHWVWKHFULWHULD
x6L]HRI7UHH7KHVL]HRIWKHWUHHVSURSRVHGIRUUHPRYDOUDQJHIURPLQFKLQGLDPHWHUDWEUHDVW
KHLJKW '%+ WRLQFKHV'%+
x/RFDWLRQ RI 7UHHV RQ 3ULYDWH3URSHUW\ $OOWUHHV SURSRVHG IRU UHPRYDO DUH ORFDWHG RQ SULYDWH
SURSHUW\$FOXVWHURIQRQQDWLYHWUHHVSULPDULO\VLOYHUZDWWOHVDUHORFDWHGDORQJWKHQRUWKZHVW
HGJHRIWKHFUHHNFRUULGRU7KHUHDUHIRXUQDWLYHFRDVWOLYHRDNVZLWKLQWKHFRUULGRUWKDWDUHDOVR
LGHQWLILHGWREHUHPRYHGWKUHHRIWKRVHDORQJWKHVRXWKHDVWHUQHGJHRIWKHFRUULGRU7KHUHPDLQGHU
RIWUHHVVXEMHFWWRUHYLHZDUHORFDWHGRXWVLGHRIWKHFUHHNFRUULGRULQFOXGLQJTXHHQSDOPVWKDW
ERUGHUWKHH[LVWLQJGULYHZD\
x6SHFLHVRI7UHH7KHVSHFLHVRIWUHHVSURSRVHGIRUUHPRYDOYDU\DQGSULPDULO\LQFOXGHQRQQDWLYH
RUQDPHQWDOVSHFLHV7KHUHPRYDOLQFOXGHVVHYHQFRDVWOLYHRDNVWKHRQO\QDWLYHWUHHVSHFLHV
FXUUHQWO\JURZLQJ RQVLWH )RU D FRPSOHWHOLVW RI WUHH VSHFLHV SOHDVH VHH 7DEOH DERYH DQG
DWWDFKPHQWV
x)RUHVWU\%HVW3UDFWLFH:KLOHWKHWUHHLQYHQWRU\WDEOHSURYLGHG $WWDFKPHQW LGHQWLILHVWKDWWKH
PDMRULW\RIWUHHVEHLQJUHPRYHGSUHVHQWDOHYHORI³KLJK´YLJRU7UHHUHPRYDOVDUHQHFHVVDU\WR
IDFLOLWDWHJUDGLQJDQGGUDLQDJHRIWKHSURSRVHGSURMHFW7KH,QLWLDO6WXG\RIHQYLURQPHQWDOLPSDFWV
IRUWKHSURMHFWLQFOXGHVDPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHWRHQVXUHQRQHWORVVRIKDELWDWZLWKLQWKHFUHHN
FRUULGRUZKLFKZLOOUHTXLUHWKDWDSSURSULDWHUHSODQWLQJZLWKLQWKHFUHHNFRUULGRULVFDUULHGRXWSULRU
WRFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHSURMHFW7KHWUHHVZLWKLQWKHFRUULGRUZLOOEHUHSODFHGDWD UDWLR
x3XEOLF5LJKWRI:D\2EVWUXFWLRQRU'LVSODFHPHQW1RVWUHHWWUHHVDUHSURSRVHGIRUUHPRYDO7KH
SURMHFWLQFOXGHVWKHHYHQWXDOSODQWLQJRIQHZVWUHHWWUHHVDVGLVFXVVHGEHORZ
x&RPSOLDQFH5HJDUGLQJ&RPSHQVDWRU\3ODQWLQJV7KHSURSRVHGVXEGLYLVLRQGRHVQRWLQFOXGHD
GHYHORSPHQWSODQIRUWKHLQGLYLGXDOORWVFUHDWHG'XHWRWKLVWKHSURMHFWLVQRWUHTXLUHGWRSURYLGH
ODQGVFDSLQJRUSODQWLQJSODQVEH\RQGZKDWLVQHHGHGWRHYDOXDWHWKHVXEGLYLVLRQDQGHQYLURQPHQWDO
LPSDFWV7KHUHIRUHFRPSOLDQFHZLWKFRPSHQVDWRU\SODQWLQJUHTXLUHPHQWVZLOOEHVDWLVILHGWKURXJK
FRQGLWLRQVSODFHGRQWKHDSSURYDORIWKHSURMHFW
,QLWLDO6WXG\0LWLJDWHG1HJDWLYH'HFODUDWLRQ KWWSV ZZZVORFLW\RUJJRYHUQPHQWGHSDUWPHQWGLUHFWRU\FRPPXQLW\
GHYHORSPHQWGRFXPHQWVRQOLQHHQYLURQPHQWDOUHYLHZGRFXPHQWVIROGHU
Item 2
Packet Page 45
6%'9 :HVWPRQW$YHQXH
3DJH
x+HULWDJH7UHHV1RQHRIWKHWUHHVSURSRVHGIRUUHPRYDOKDYHEHHQGHVLJQDWHG+HULWDJHWUHHV
&RPSHQVDWRU\7UHH3ODQWLQJ3HUWKH7UHH5HJXODWLRQVWUHHUHPRYDOVKDOOEHFRPSHQVDWHGE\SODQWLQJD
PLQLPXPRIRQHQHZWUHHIRUHDFKWUHHUHPRYHGLISODQWHGRQVLWH UHSODQWLQJUDWLR RUWZRQHZWUHHVIRU
HDFKUHPRYHGLISODQWHGRIIVLWH UHSODQWLQJUDWLR 7KHUHDUHWUHHVSURSRVHGIRUUHPRYDORQVLWHZKLFK
ZLOOEHUHPRYHGSULRUWRJUDGLQJRIORWV7KHSURMHFWUHTXLUHVDVDPLWLJDWLRQPHDVXUHRQVLWHFRPSHQVDWRU\
WUHHSODQWLQJDWD UDWLRIRUDOOWUHHVUHPRYHGZLWKLQWKHFUHHNFRUULGRU WUHHV 7KHVHZLOOEHUHSODFHG
ZLWKDQDWLYHWUHHVSHFLHVZLWKLQWKHFRUULGRURUFUHHNVHWEDFNDUHDSULRUWRILQDOUHFRUGLQJRIWKHPDS
$GGLWLRQDOO\VWDIIZLOOEHLQFOXGLQJDUHFRPPHQGHGFRQGLWLRQRIDSSURYDOIRUWKHSURMHFWFDOOLQJIRURQHWR
RQHFRPSHQVDWRU\WUHHSODQWLQJIRURQVLWHWUHHVUHPRYHGRXWVLGHRIWKHFUHHNFRUULGRU WUHHV $OO
FRPSHQVDWRU\WUHHSODQQLQJZLOOEHUHTXLUHGWREHLQSODFHEHIRUHORWVDUHPDGHDYDLODEOHIRUVDOH7KH
SURMHFW SODQV $WWDFKPHQW LGHQWLI\ WKH ORFDWLRQ RI VWUHHWWUHHVDGMDFHQWWRVLGHZDONLPSURYHPHQWV
+RZHYHUVWUHHWWUHHVDUHQRWUHTXLUHGWREHSODQWHGDWWKHWLPHVWUHHWLPSURYHPHQWVDUHLQVWDOOHGRUEHIRUH
ORWVDUHVROG6WUHHWWUHHVDUHUHTXLUHGWREHSODQWHGRQO\ZKHQLQGLYLGXDOORWVDUHGHYHORSHG7KH7UHH
&RPPLWWHHPD\SURYLGHGLUHFWLRQWRWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKHDSSOLFDQWRQVSHFLILFVL]HVRI
FRPSHQVDWRU\WUHHSODQWLQJVIRUWKHWUHHV
6WUHHW7UHH6SHFLHV6WUHHWWUHHVDUHUHTXLUHGWREHSODQWHGZKHQLQGLYLGXDOORWVDUHFUHDWHG7KH7UHH
&RPPLWWHHPD\SURYLGHGLUHFWLRQWRWKH3ODQQLQJ&RPPLVVLRQDQGWKHDSSOLFDQWRQDQ\SUHIHUUHGVSHFLHV
IRUIXWXUHVWUHHWWUHHSODQWLQJV
$77$&+0(176
3URMHFW3ODQV
7UHH5HPRYDO([KLELW
7UHH,QYHQWRU\'DWD7DEOH
Item 2
Packet Page 46
Item 2Packet Page 47
KMA
" !
# $
6
&$/ &$%( 69
% #(&'"#%' %"" "7 ! ! #&' )# >.66 8 $ &$/ ,$%&& 78 9 ! ! #&' )# 8 : ! # ) 9.9 ; "&$/ %) 7; %&$ !""% #(&< ! # ) :.:.;.:.; = $ %#, $ ! 67 >! $$ #* :.65 ##% ' * ' % $ "#65 ! ! ! #% # 8 66
!! &$/ $ (! :.8.7 67 !
$"&!$ 8.8.7.6.6 68! !#" ,"# !2&"#+'% =.9.7 69 &$/&$ "% ;.:.9.8.7.7.7.6 6:
!! &$/3 4 $% #' #* 69#$$* ' "*%#*' !% "6; ! + ") #%" 8.7.6 6<
! " #&'%*## 9< '#%"%# #(&6=
! " #&'%*## 95 '#%"%# #(&6>! 1 #%!"'$#&& ! 77 75
! %() "$$$%'% (! 67.=.9 76
! %() "$$$%'% (! 6;.69 77 ! # ) 8.8.6 '$%#$%',#%"%78
! " #&'%*## (! 8= 79
! " #&'%*## 65 7:
! #"'%,$ " 6< 7;
&$/ &$%( (! ; 7<
! &$/ (" "#*"$ " ; "%" &7=
!! &$/ (#(&%( ''% 67
(&'% "#%!",7>
# "%, & "$ ! 67 85 ! # ) 8.7 86 ! ! #&' )# 9.8 87 ! ! #&' )# 888!$ ! &$/ ( ,$'(& 88 Item 2Packet Page 48
KMA
# $
89!$ ! &$/ ( ,$'(& :9.96 8:
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,8;
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,8<
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,8=
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,8>
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,95
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,96
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,97
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,98
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,99
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,9:
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,9;
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,9<
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,9=
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,9>
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,:5
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,:6
$ ! %("$ ! 67 "' #"% )*,:7
$ ! %("$ ! > "' #"% )*,:8
$ ! %("$ ! 68 "' #"% )*,:9! "%%#*0 )$$%% :.9.8.7 + "* ' #' %& %(&::
!! &$/ #''#"*## :.:.:.9.8.8.8.8.7 %#* "' %#( " ":;
!! &$/ #''#"*## ;.9.8.7.7 %#* "' %#( " ":<
! %() "$$$%'% < :=
! %() "$$$%'% ;.9.8.7.7 :> ! ! #&' )# :.9.8;5 ! ! #&' )# 9;6 ! ! #&' )# 9.6;7 ! ! #&' )# <;8
#" %* #* 6=.67.67 #)% "" & ),;9 ! ! #&' )# 8;: ! ! #&' )# 65;;
! " #&'%*## 8: ' "% $% "-#";<
! " #&'%*## 7= ' "% $% "-#"Item 2Packet Page 49
KMA
# $
;= ! ! #&' )# ;"&" & ), "' &%;> ! ! #&' )# ;"&" & ), "' &%<5
# %%#,#* #* 8.8.7 "&" & ), "' &%<6 ! ! #&' )# 9"&" & ), "' &%<7
! &$/ $ " 69 "&" & ), "' &%<8 ! ! #&' )# 69"&" & ), "' &%<9
# %%#,#* #* :.:.:.9.8.8.7 "&" & ), "' &%<: ! ! #&' )# =# &#"# $%&"'<; ! ! #&' )# =# &#"# $%&"'<< ! ! #&' )# 69.8"&" & ), "' &%<= ! ! #&' )# 67.;"&" & ), "' &%<> ! ! #&' )# 69"&" & ), "' &%=5 ! ! #&' )# 67.65"&" & ), "' &%=6
!&$/ &*## :.9.8.8'" "&#(' &'#%"%=7 ! ! #&' )# > " ( "% $% "-#"=8 ! ! #&' )# 9 " ( "% $% "-#"=9 ! ! #&' )# 9 " ( "% $% "-#"=: ! ! #&' )# 69.=.9"&#(' %"$%#$%', "=; ! ! #&' )# ;.9.9"&#(' %"$%#$%', "=<
! %,$ " (! 87 "&#(' %"$%#$%', "==
! %,$ " (! 87 "&#(' %"$%#$%', "3"#'4=> ! ! #&' )# ;"&#(' %"$%#$%', ">5$ ! !!,#$#%(! (! ; "&#(' %"$%#$%', "3 ),4>6 ! ! #&' )# 6;.="&#(' %"$%#$%', ">7 ! ! #&' )# 67' %'%#%#&& "% >8 ! ! #&' )# 65 "% $% "-#">9 ! ! #&' )# :.7 "% $% "-#">: ! ! #&' )# 68 "% $% "-#">; ! ! #&' )# = "% $% "-#">< ! ! #&' )# 8 "% $% "-#">= ! ! #&' )# 8 "% $% "-#">> ! ! #&' )# 69 "% $% "-#"655 ! ! #&' )# < "% $% "-#"656 ! ! #&' )# 89 "% $% "-#"Item 2Packet Page 50
KMA
# $
657
#" %* #* 9.9.8.8.8.7.7 "% $% "-#"658 ! ! #&' )# 8.7 "% $% "-#"659 ! ! #&' )# 8.6 "% $% "-#"65: ! ! #&' )# 65 "% $% "-#"65; ! ! #&' )# = "% $% "-#"65< ! ! #&' )# 8 "% $% "-#"65=
# %%#,#* #* (! ;.9 , "%" &$%&"'65> ! ! #&' )# 9 "% $% "-#"665 ! ! #&' )# 67 "% $% "-#"666 ! ! #&' )# 69 "% $% "-#"667 ! ! #&' )# 9 "% $% "-#"668 ! ! #&' )# (! 8.8 "% $% "-#"669!$ ! &$/ ( ,$'(& 97 ##' (&',#"'#$#" 66: ! ! #&' )# ; "% $% "-#"66; ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 9 #&& ,% # 66< ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 9.8 #&& ,% # 66= ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 :.8.7 #&& ,% # 66> ! ! #&' )# <.9 "% $% "-#"675! #%" , : "% $% "-#"676 ! ! #&' )# :.6 "% $% "-#"677 ! ! #&' )# ; "% $% "-#"' "" 678 ! ! #&' )# <' %'%#%#&& "679 ! ! #&' )# 9' %'%#%#&& "67: ! ! #&' )# #* 9("(&'' 67;
! %,$ " 67 67< ! ! #&' )# :.7.6 67= ! ! #&' )# =.;.967> ! ! #&' )# (! ;.;"&" & ),685 ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 67 "&" & ),686 ! ! #&' )# 67687 ! ! #&' )# <688 ! ! #&' )# 67# &#"# 0"#'689 ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 (! 65 # &#"# 0"#'68: ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 (! = #&& ,% Item 2Packet Page 51
KMA
# $
68; ! ! #&' )# (! ="&" & ),68< ! ! &$/ "'% #% )# ,% 1 (! 9 #&& ,% 68= ! ! #&' )# (! ;"&" & ),68> ! ! #&' )# ;695
# %%#,#* #* #* 9 "&" & ),696 ! ! #&' )# (! 67"&" & ),697! &#(' %" #%" * "(' #* ; ),"$# &#"# '#% "% 698 ! ! #&' )# 69"&" & ),699 ! ! #&' )# ; 69: ! ! #&' )# 6969; ! ! #&' )# ;69< ! ! #&' )# 969= & )%*'' ;.9.9.7 %#) &"&2#)%%#*"69> & )%*'' 8.7.6 6:5 & )%*'' 8.6 6:6 & )%*'' :.9 6:7 & )%*'' 65.:.7 6:8 & )%*'' = 6:9 & )%*'' 9.9.8.8.7 6:: & )%*'' :.6 6:; & )%*'' :.9.8 6:< & )%*'' ;.7.7 (&'%&#&'!&6:= & )%*'' 9.8.7 6:> & )%*'' 8.8.7 6;5 & )%*'' :.7 6;6 & )%*'' 8 6;7 & )%*'' 8 6;8$ ! !!,#$#%(! #* ;.:8.8.7.7.7.7.6 6;9 ! ! #&' )# =6;: ! ! #&' )# 96;; ! ! #&' )# ;6;< ! ! #&' )# ;.96;=! &#(' %" #%" * "(' :.9.8 #" "" 6;> ! # ) : Item 2Packet Page 52
KMA
# $
6<5 ! ! #&' )# ;6<6 ! '#,#" ;.8.7.7 6<7 ! ! #&' )# ;6<8 ! ! #&' )# 9.86<9 ! ! ""&% 69.67 6<: ! ! #&' )# ;.:.9.86<; ! ! #&' )# =6<<! &#(' %" #%" * "(' 9.8.8 "'#%& #""Item 2Packet Page 53
Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of May 17, 2021 Page 1
Minutes
TREE COMMITTEE
Monday, May 17, 2021
Special Meeting of the Tree Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Meeting of the San Luis Obispo Tree Committee was called to order on Monday, May
17, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference by Chair Alan Bate.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Daniel Canella, Elizabeth Lucas, Allen Root, Emily Rosten,
Vice Chair Jake Minnick and Chair Alan Bate
Absent: Committee Member Rodney Thurman
Staff: Anthony Whipple, Urban Forester and Megan Wilbanks, Deputy City Clerk
PUBLIC COMMENT ON AGENDA ITEMS ONLY
None
--End of Public Comment--
TREE REMOVAL APPLICATIONS
1. 468 & 500 Westmont Ave. Review of the proposed removal of 51 onsite trees and replanting
of at least 20 street trees on site, with the remainder of compensatory tree plantings required
as a condition of approval. Compensatory planting will be required at a rate of 1:1 onsite or
2:1 offsite, consistent with Tree Regulations standards. Tree removals are proposed to facilitate
a proposed tract map development (TR 3157), a 23-lot subdivision in the Low-Density
Residential (R-1) zone (SBDV-0169-2020).
Associate Planner, Kyle Van Leeuwen, provided a presentation and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Public Comment:
Becky
Genevieve Czech
--End of Public Comment—
Item 2
Packet Page 54
Minutes – Tree Committee Meeting of May 17, 2021 Page 2
The applicant’s representative, Katie Rollins with Cannon, responded to comments and
questions from Tree Committee Members.
ACTION: UPON MOTION OF VICE CHAIR MINNICK, SECONDED BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER ROSTEN, CARRIED 5-1-1 (Member Root dissenting and Member Thurman
absent), to recommend that the Planning Commission approve the project with the following
recommendations:
x All regulated trees shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio, on the site, with 15-gallon or 24-inch
box trees
x Require 50% of the replacement trees to be native species
x Require the developer or the property owner to irrigate and maintain replanted trees until
they are established
x Retain tree #33, #34, #91, and #114
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:51 p.m. The next Special Meeting of the Tree Committee is
scheduled for Monday, June 28, 2021 at 5:30 p.m. via teleconference.
APPROVED BY THE TREE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2021
Item 2
Packet Page 55
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER # EID-0170-2020
1. Project Title:
468-500 Westmont Avenue Tentative Tract Map
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Kyle Van Leeuwen, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7091
4. Project Location:
468 and 500 Westmont Avenue (APN 052-496-001), San Luis Obispo, CA (project site)
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Andrew Gareth Meinhold and Timothy James Meinhold
1950 Bridle Ridge Trail
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
6. General Plan Designations:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-1 (Low Density Residential)
8. Description of the Project:
The 468-500 Westmont Drive Tentative Tract Map Project (project) is a request to the City of San Luis Obispo
(City) for a Tentative Tract Map (TR 3157) for the subdivision of one existing parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number
[APN] 052-496-001) totaling 4.98 acres into 23 individual parcels meant to facilitate residential development on
land in the R-1 (Low Density Residential) zone. The new parcels would range in size from 6,000 to 22,783 square
feet (sf) and would be located at 468 and 500 Westmont Drive, at the northern edge of the city limits (Figure 1).
Access improvements would include a proposed 54- to 60-foot-wide access road beginning at the existing terminus
of Stanford Drive and looping east to connect with the existing terminus of Cuesta Drive. The variation in the road
width accounts for existing widths of Cuesta and Stanford Drives. This access road would provide access to Lots
4–16 and 19–23. Lots 1–3 would take access from a shared driveway off the western terminus of Westmont Avenue
and Lots 17 and 18 would be accessed from the eastern terminus of Westmont Avenue. Parking for the tract would
be provided onsite, and each residential lot is designed to accommodate the required two parking spaces for each
lot. The development proposes a connection to the existing waterline on Stanford Drive and looping it around to
Cuesta Drive. An additional water line from Westmont Avenue would connect to Cuesta Drive through an easement
Item 2
Packet Page 56
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
across Lot 15. A 17-foot-wide, asphalt-concrete (AC) easement across Lot 15 from Westmont Avenue to Cuesta
Drive is proposed for drainage, utility, and bicycle/pedestrians. A drainage basin is also proposed within the
easement. A design exception for the easement (bicycle pathway) is requested as the current slope is 9 percent,
which exceeds the standard of 8 percent. A proposed 15-foot-wide sewer line easement is proposed along the
western property line of Lot 10. There is an existing sewer line that extends across Lot 10 that would be relocated
within the proposed easement. A fire lane easement is proposed across Lots 1–3 that would be used for emergency
vehicle access and would contain a sewer line that serves Lots 1-3. A 10-foot-wide public utility easement is
proposed along the frontages of Lots 4–16 and 19–23. A 10-foot-wide Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E)
easement is proposed along the rear yards of Lots 3 and 7–18 and an additional PG&E easement is proposed along
the western edge of Lots 1–3. Drainage easements are proposed along Lots 4, 15, and 19–23 and would be designed
to comply with the City’s Low Impact Development (LID) requirements. Proposed drainage measures include an
85th percentile retention area, a 95th percentile retention area, and Filterra and Biofiltration treatment. Four-foot
retaining walls located in the rear or side yards would be provided for slope stability on Lots 1 -5 and 8-23.
Additional 3-foot retaining walls would be provided on Lots 8 and 9 for wildland protection. (See Attachment 2.)
The project includes a phasing plan that would allow for the final map recordation into three phases, as allowed
under Section 66456.1 of the Government Code. Phase one would include Lot 1, Lot 2, Lot 17, and Lot 18. Phase
two would include Lots 4 through 10 and Lots 21 through 23. Phase three would include Lot 11 through 16, Lot
19, and Lot 20.
Table 1 summarizes existing and proposed characteristics for the proposed lots.
Table 1. Existing and Proposed Parcel Characteristics
Parcel Size (total) Slope Site Conditions and Improvements
Existing
Parcel
4.98 acres 8% x Two residential units with a shared carport
x Accessed by a private driveway from Stanford
Drive
x Ornamental/ruderal vegetation associated with
the developed area
x Onsite creek with associated wetland and riparian
areas in the western portion of the property
x Annual grassland with Cambria morning glory
(Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis)
(300 plants)
Proposed Lots
1–3
1.044 acres
(45,484 sf)
8% x Three proposed lots located on the western
portion of the property
x Accessed by a proposed common driveway from
Westmont Avenue from the east
x Proposed 20-foot setback from the riparian edge
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards
x Two proposed stormwater chambers with 95th
percentile retention area (assume 1 foot of
ponding)
x Proposed 10-foot-wide PG&E easement along the
rear portion of Lot 3
x Proposed fire lane easement across Lots 1–3
Item 2
Packet Page 57
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
x Existing onsite creek with associated riparian and
wetland vegetation
x Existing rock outcropping between Lots 1 and 2
x Existing trees, annual grassland, and occurrences
of Cambria morning glory
Proposed Lots
4–7
0.619 acres
(26,984 sf)
8% x Four proposed lots located on the central western
portion of the property
x Accessed by a proposed 54- to 60-foot interior
road from Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive
x Proposed 20-foot setback from the riparian edge
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards of Lots 4 and 5
x Proposed Biofiltration treatment within proposed
road
x Existing onsite creek with associated riparian and
wetland areas
x Existing occurrences of Cambria morning glory
and annual grassland
Proposed Lots
8–14
0.836 acres
(36,434 sf)
8% x Seven proposed lots located in the central
northern portion of the property
x Accessed from a proposed 54- to 60-foot interior
road from Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive
x Proposed Filterra system within the proposed
road
x Proposed 15-foot-wide sewer easement on Lot 10
for sewer lines and emergency access
x Proposed 10-foot-wide PG&E easement along the
rear portion of Lots 7–14
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards with an additional 3-foot wall for Lots 8 and
9
x Existing residential units with common carport
and ruderal vegetation
x Existing annual grassland and trees
Proposed Lots
15–16
0.275 acres
(12,000 sf)
9% x Two proposed lots located in the eastern portion
of the property
x Accessed from a proposed 54- to 60-foot interior
road from Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive
x Proposed 17-foot-wide utility, drainage, and
bicycle/pedestrian easement across Lot 15
x Proposed 85th percentile retention area within the
proposed easement
x Proposed Filterra system adjacent to Lot 16
within the proposed road
Item 2
Packet Page 58
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
x Proposed 10-foot-wide PG&E easement along the
rear portion of lots
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards
x Existing annual grassland and trees
Proposed Lots
17–18
0.288 acres
(12,534 sf)
8-9% x Two proposed lots located in the eastern portion
of the property
x Accessed from Westmont Avenue from the west
x Proposed connection to the existing water main in
Westmont Avenue
x Proposed 10-foot-wide PG&E easement along the
rear portion of Lots 7–14
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards
x Existing annual grassland and trees
Proposed Lots
19–23
0.789 acres
(34,389 sf)
8% x Five proposed lots located in the central southern
portion of the property
x Accessed from a proposed 54- to 60-foot interior
road from Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive
x Proposed 85th percentile retention area at the rear
end of the lots
x Proposed Filterra system adjacent to Lot 23 and a
separate system located adjacent to Lot 19 within
the proposed road
x Proposed 4-foot retaining wall in rear or side
yards
x Existing annual grassland and trees
Note: Refer to Figure 3 for proposed lot locations.
The project site is generally surrounded by one- and two-story residential units to the south, east and west. There
is undeveloped residential land to the north of the project site and California Department of Forestry and Fire
Protection (CAL FIRE) Station #12 located directly northeast.
There is a freshwater forested/shrub wetland with an associated riparian habitat that extends through the western
portion of the project area that would be located at the rear (eastern) end of Lots 1–3 and the rear (western) end of
Lots 4–8. The freshwater forested/shrub wetland connects to a freshwater emergent wetland located on
undeveloped land to the north of the project site. The site is generally comprised of developed/ruderal land, riparian
habitat, and annual grassland. There are 177 ornamental and native trees throughout the project site, a rock
outcropping between Lots 1 and 2, and presence of Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis;
a rare plant species) on Lots 3–6.
The project would demolish two existing residential structures and several accessory structures to accommodate
the tract improvements.
To accommodate the onsite improvements, 86 ornamental and native trees would be removed. Acacia trees located
in riparian areas would be removed; however, the project proposes to replace Acacia trees with native vegetation,
Item 2
Packet Page 59
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
including toyon (Heteromelis arbutifolia) or oaks. Proposed improvements would result in 4.27 acres of
groundwork, which includes 7,900 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 4,760 cy of fill.
No residential development on the new parcels is proposed at this time, but it is anticipated that each new parcel
will be developed as a single-family residential use, for a total of 23 single-family residential units. Each single-
family residential property has the potential to include an accessory dwelling unit (ADU) and a junior accessory
dwelling unit (JADU), as an accessory use to the single-family residential use.
9. Project Entitlements:
Development Review
Tree Removal Permit
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
Surrounding uses and stories of surrounding buildings are summarized below:
x North: undeveloped residential land and CAL FIRE Station #12
x East: one- and two-story single-family residences; apartments beyond
x South: one- and two-story single-family residences
x West: one- and two-story single-family residences
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 of California (State)
regulations including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill (AB) 52. A representative from the Salinan tribe requested
a cultural resource specialist from their tribe be onsite to monitor all ground disturbing activities, and this measure
has been included as a mitigation requirement (see Section 18, Tribal Cultural Resources).
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Regional Water Quality Control Board
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Item 2
Packet Page 60
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Item 2
Packet Page 61
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Figure 2. Project Site Map
Item 2
Packet Page 62
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Figure 3. Site Plan Map
Item 2
Packet Page 63
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 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
܆
The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect
determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or
habitat (see attached determination).
܈
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
܈
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Item 2
Packet Page 64
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 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.
܆
Signature Date
For: Michael Codron,
Printed Name Community Development Director
$SULO
6KDZQD6FRWW6HQLRU3ODQQHU
Item 2
Packet Page 65
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 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
Item 2
Packet Page 66
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 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? 1, 4 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1, 4, 5,
6 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced from
publicly accessible vantage point). If the project is in an
urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 4, 7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 7 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) identifies specific goals and policies
intended to protect and enhance the city’s visual quality and character. Policies in the COSE include, but are no t limited to,
promoting the creation of “streetscapes” and linear scenic parkways during construction or modification of major roadways,
designing new development to be consistent with the surrounding architectural context, and preserv ing natural and agricultural
landscapes. The COSE and City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element assign scenic value ratings of “moderate”
and “high” to several roadways in the city, based on the availability of views of scenic resources from these public viewpoints.
According to the Circulation Element, the segment of U.S. Route 101 (US 101) through the city of San Luis Obispo is identified
as having moderate and high scenic value. The COSE also identifies Santa Rosa Street, as having moderate to high scenic value;
however, neither Westmont Avenue, Stanford Drive, or Cuesta Drive have any scenic designation. The COSE does not identify
any “cones of view” or other important scenic vistas in the project site vicinity.
The project is located on land that is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) near the northern city limit. The surrounding land
uses include one- and two-story residences to the south, east, and west, undeveloped land to the north, and CAL FIRE Station
#12 to the northeast. Bishop Peak is prominent to the northwest. The existing parcel supports two existing residential units and
a common carport that is accessed by a private Driveway off Stanford Drive. Ruderal vegetation is present onsite surrounding
the existing development. The project site includes a freshwater forested/shrub wetland with associated riparian habitat in the
western portion of the project site. The project site also includes a rock outcropping and presence of Cambria morning glory, a
rare plant species, in the western portion of the project site. The remainder of the site is primarily comprised of annual grassland
and ornamental and native trees.
While no specific development proposal has been identified for the site, based on the underlying zoning and proposed parcel
sizes, this analysis assumes that future development would consist of residential development. Such development would be
subject to development standards identified in Chapter 17.1 6 Low-Density Residential (R-1) Development Standards and the
City’s Community Design Guidelines, which are intended to provide for infill projects of high architectural quality that are
compatible with existing development.
A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can
be seen from public viewpoints. A substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista would occur if the proposed project would
significantly degrade the scenic landscape as viewed from public roads or other public areas. Some scenic vistas are
officially or informally designated by public agencies or other organizations. Based on the COSE map of scenic
roadways and vistas, the project site is not directly located along roadways considered to be of moderate or high scenic
value or within the cone of view of a scenic roadway. Santa Rosa Street is the nearest road of scenic value, located
Item 2
Packet Page 67
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
approximately 415 feet east of the project site. Existing development including an apartment complex located at the
corner of Westmont Avenue and Santa Rosa Street as well as other residential units would block views of the project
from Santa Rosa Street. Residential development is not currently proposed; however, future development would be
consistent with existing residential units and would comply with City design and zoning standards; therefore, the project
would not affect adversely affect a scenic vista and potential impacts would be less than significant.
The section of US 101 that extends through the city of San Luis Obispo is classified as an eligible State Scenic Highway
but is not officially designated by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). Santa Rosa Street eventually
turns into State Route (SR) 1 north of the project site, which extends along California’s coast. The portion of SR 1 north
of the project site is an officially designated Scenic Highway by Caltrans. However, the project site is not visible from
either US 101 or SR 1; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The State and City have designated highways that offer scenic views as Scenic Highways. The City has id entified
US 101 from the southern city limit to Marsh Street as a highway with high scenic value, and between Marsh and Broad
Streets and north of California Street as a highway with moderate scenic value. Santa Rosa Street north of Foothill
Boulevard and past the northern city limit is designated as having moderate to high scenic value.
The project site is accessed from Santa Rosa Street to Westmont Avenue from the east, Stanford Drive from the
southwest, and Westmont Avenue from the west. The Patricia Drive Entrance to the Bishop Peak Trailhead is located
0.5 miles northwest of the proposed project site. Views of the proposed housing tract from Bishop Peak and associated
trails would be consistent with current existing views of developed residential units.
Currently, there is no specific development planned for the parcels. It can be assumed that each parcel will be developed
as a single-family residential use, with an ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses in accordance with State law.
Construction of future residences, ADUs, and JADUs may result in additional tree removal, potential earthwork, and
impervious surface area; however, the specifics of which are not known at this time. The project currently proposes a
subdivision of a single parcel (APN 052-496-001) into 23 lots; grading of the project site; development of a road to
connect Stanford and Cuesta Drives; installment of necessary utility, drainage, and bicycle/pedestrian easement; and
necessary tree removal. Future residential development on these parcels would need to comply with City ordinances for
R-1 (Low Density Residential) development outlined in Sections 17.16 and 17.70 of the City Municipal Code and with
the COSE, which outlines view guidelines regarding urban development (Policy 9.1.2). The COSE states that urban
development should reflect its architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires
deliberate design choices that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighbo ring urban development, and
that are compatible with historical and architectural resources.
As mentioned above, improvements would require the removal of trees and a potential removal of a rock outcropping
located on the western portion of the project site. The COSE states that scenic and unique landforms, including
significant trees or outcroppings, should be preserved. Proposed tree removal would be consistent with the City’s Tree
Ordinance, which establishes requirements for compensatory planting (1:1) and preservation requirements for retaining
trees with historic or unusual value. The rock outcropping is located between proposed Lots 1 and 2 and depending on
final construction plans would likely be removed. The outcropping is neither scenic or unique (such as those of the
Morros) and any impacts or remov al of it as a result of the project would be insignificant and not in conflict with policies
of the COSE. Additionally, none of the trees onsite have historic or unusual value.
Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with applicable zoning and the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, and
impacts would be considered less than significant.
The project is not currently proposing the development of outdoor l ighting sources that could create a new source of
light or glare. Future development plans have not been specified; however, if new light sources are proposed, they must
adhere to the COSE (Policy 9.2.3), which states outdoor lighting shall avoid operating at unnecessary locations, levels,
and times; spillage into areas not needing or wanting illumination; glare; and frequencies that interfere with astronomical
viewing. Outdoor lighting standards include, but are not limited to, a requirement for outdoor light sources to be shielded
and directed away from adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, minimum levels of lighting consistent with public
safety standards, and limits to hours of lighting operation. Future residential development would be required to comply
with the Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Section 17.70.100). The project would also be subject to
Item 2
Packet Page 68
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
review and approval by the City Community Development Director to ensure compliance with these standards prior to
final approval. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site is not located within a scenic vista or within the viewshed of a designated State Scenic Highway and is consistent
with existing views visible from Santa Rosa Street. The project does not propose any design features that are inconsistent with
the current zoning regulations or other applicable regulations. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
2. AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY RESOURCES
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the
California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model
(1997) prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an
optional model to use in assessing impacts on agriculture and
farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources,
including timberland, are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s
inventory of forest land, including the Forest and Range Assessment
Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment project; and forest carbon
measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by
the California Air Resources Board. Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significan
t Impact No Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring
Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-
agricultural use?
2, 9 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 2, 10 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
c) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest
land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)),
timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code section 51104(g))?
2, 3, 8 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to
non-forest use? 1 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
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?
1, 2, 9,
10 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (CDOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Item 2
Packet Page 69
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site is designated
as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP.
No portion of the project site or immediately surrounding areas support active agricultural uses. The project site is not located
within or immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultural uses. Based on Figure 6 in the COSE, the project site is not located
within or immediately adjacent to land under an active Williamson Act contract.
According to Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10% native tree
cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or more forest
resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other public benefits.
Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State Board of
Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of trees of a
commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees.
According to FMMP designations, the project site is located on Urban and Built-Up Land (DOC 2020). Since the project
site is not located on land designated as Farmland by the FMMP, the project would not result in the conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use; therefore, no impacts would occur.
The closest Prime Farmland is located approximately 530 feet east of the project just beyond Santa Rosa Street;
however, this area is not zoned for agricultural uses under the City’s COSE . The proposed project would not disturb the
FMMP designated Prime Farmland or interfere with agricultural zoning designations. The project site and adjacent land
are not under a Williamson Act contract. The closest land under a Williamson Act contract is l ocated approximately
0.87 mile west on the opposite side of Bishop Peak. Proposed improvements would not affect nearby land under a
Williamson Act contract or conflict with nearby land that is zoned for agricultural uses; t herefore, the project would not
conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and no impacts would occur.
The project site is currently zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is surrounded by R-1 (Low Density Residential)
zoning designations to the north, west, and south and open space to the east. Therefore, the project site does not include
land use designations or zoning for forest land or timberland. The project would not conflict with zoning for forest land,
timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production, and no impacts would occur.
The project site contains more than 10% of native tree cover resulting from coast live oaks (Quercus agrifolia) located
primarily along the northern and eastern property lines. While these trees provide an aesthetic be nefit to the project site,
they are not present in such a quantity to provide for significant management of forest resources. Subdivision
improvements would require the removal of native trees, and pursuant to the City’s Tree Regulations (City Municipal
Code Chapter 12.24), the project would be required to compensate for removed trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Therefore,
the project’s impact related to loss or conversion of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production
would be less than significant.
The project site is surrounded low-density residential uses to the north, west, and south and open space to the east. The
nearest agricultural uses are approximately 530 feet east of the project site. The proposed project would be consistent
with surrounding uses and consistent with existing zoning for this site and would not adversely affect agricultural water
supplies or other agricultural support facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the
environment that could result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest
use, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site is located in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or forest
land use, or land under a Williamson Act Contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would occur,
and no mitigation is necessary.
Item 2
Packet Page 70
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
3. AIR QUALITY
Where available, the significance criteria established by the
applicable air quality management district or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.
Would the project: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
11, 12,
13 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under
an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard?
11, 12,
13 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1, 3,
12, 13 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people? 1, 14 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa Barbara
and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions including the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
(SLOAPCD). The SLOAPCD monitors air pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met,
develops strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the SCCAB is classified as
being in “attainment” or as “nonattainment.”
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the State standards for ozone, partial nonattainment (in
eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area) for federal ambient standards for ground-level ozone (O3), and
nonattainment for the State standards for particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10). The COSE identifies goals
and policies to achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live, work, and visit the city.
These goals and policies include meeting federal and State air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or diesel-
powered motor vehicles, and encouraging walking, biking, and public transit use.
The major sources of PM10 in the SCCAB are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust produced by high winds.
Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust, mineral extraction and production, combustion products from
industry and motor vehicles, smoke from open burning, paved and unpaved roads, condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid
or solid particles, and wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction, agricultural operations, off-road
vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides
(NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Therefore, ozone levels are dependent on the amount of
these precursors. In the SCCAB, the major sources of ROGs are motor vehicles, organic solvents, petroleum production, and
pesticides. The major sources of NOx are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various
industrial sources.
The SLOAPCD has developed a California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated
with a November 2017 Clarification Memorandum) to evaluat e project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant
impacts could result from a project. To evaluate long-term emissions, cumulative effects, and establish countywide programs to
reach acceptable air quality levels, the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (CAP) was adopted by the SLOAPCD.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and the
activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups that are most likely to be affected by air pollution (i.e.,
sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and chronic
respiratory diseases. The nearest sensitive receptors to the project site are the single-family residences located adjacent to the
south (10 feet), west (20 feet), and east (10 feet) of the project site.
Item 2
Packet Page 71
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance or
demolition of existing structures in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB
Airborne Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The
SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur.
In order to be considered consistent with the 2001 San Luis Obispo County CAP, a project must be consistent with the
land use planning and transportation control measures (TCMs) and strategies outlined in the CAP. The proposed project
is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The proposed development’s
location, uses, and intensity are generally consistent with planning envisioned in the 2014 City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) update and with the CAP’s land use planning strategies. The
project is located within the City’s urban reserve line and would not designate more land for urban use, would be in
close proximity to public transportation, and supports compact communities’ strategies. Increases in housing units
would help to offset projected imbalances between jobs and housing units, as noted in the 2019 Regional Housing Needs
Allocation Plan (RHNA) prepared by the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG). Improvements in a
jobs-to-housing imbalance would help support and promote local and regional improvements related to increased
transportation mobility and potential reductions in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The proposed project does not include
commercial or industrial land uses that would result in increases in employment.
The proposed project would be consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Construction of the subdivision improvements would disturb approximately 4.27 acres of land and result in emissions
of ROGs, NOx, and fugitive dust emissions (PM10). The parcel subdivision would facilitate future single-family
residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses, that would result in emissions of pollutants during
construction activity. During operation, the project would result in emissions of ozone precursor pollutants associated
with mobile source emissions and other uses.
Construction Emissions
Proposed subdivision improvements would disturb approximately 4.27 acres of land and require approximately
12,600 cy of total earthwork; however, specific future development plans are currently unknown and have the potential
to result in additional ground disturbance causing the production of more pollutants. Construction of subdivision
improvements and future residential structures have the potential to cause a short-term increase in dust and vehicle
emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NOx, and particulate matter. As shown in Table 2,
construction emissions from proposed subdivision improvements would exceed the SLOAPCD’s applicable screening
thresholds for ROG, NOx, DPM, or PM10. Therefore, potential construction-related emissions of these pollutants would
require SLOAPCD Tier 1 mitigation as described in Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Total Project
Emissions
SLOAPCD
Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Reactive Organic Gases (ROG) + Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) 0.72 tons 2.5 tons/quarter No
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) 0.03 tons 0.13 tons/quarter Yes
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10) 3.20 tons 2.5 tons/quarter Yes
It is anticipated that the subdivision improvements and construction of single-family residential uses, with an ADUs
and JADUs as potential accessory uses, would occur sequentially. Exact grading volumes for the residential
development are unknown at this time but would likely involve less than 4 acres of site disturbance and 1,200 cy of
earthwork per day, which would not result in exceedances of the SLOAPCD thresholds. To minimize potential impacts,
AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be applicable to the residential development. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 72
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Operational Emissions
The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook provides operational screening criteria to identify projects with the
potential to exceed SLOAPCD operational significance thresholds (see Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook).
Based on Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook, the project does not propose development that would have the
potential to result in operational emissions that would exceed SLOAPCD thresholds (76 single-family residences).
Based on the relatively low volume of trips associated with the project and the type of activities proposed, operational
impacts associated with the project would be minimal. The project would not generate substantial new long-term traffic
trips or vehicle emissions and does not propose construction of substantial new direct (source) emissions. Therefore,
potential operational emissions would be less than significant.
The project site is located within 1,000 feet of multiple sensitive receptors, including single-family residential units to
the south, east, and west of the project site. The development of single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs
as potential accessory uses, would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect
surrounding sensitive receptors. The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes special conditions, such as
proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard construction mitigation measures to reduce
diesel idling (DPM) and fugitive dust. Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas (less than 1,000
feet), standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive dust are required. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would
reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse fugitive dust and construction vehicle emissions; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Project development activities, such as building construction, utility trenching, and installation, would generate odors
associated with equipment exhaust and fumes. The proposed activities would not differ significantly from those
resulting from any other type of construction project. Any effects would be short term in nature limited to the
construction phase of the proposed project and would be less than significant.
The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates that the project site is located within an area identified as having a potential for
NOA to occur. The project includes excavation for road construction and trenching and installation of new water,
wastewater, and stormwater service pipelines to the proposed new parcels. The project may also include demolition of
an existing barn and shed, which have the potential to disturb asbestos-containing materials (ACM). Demolition can
have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
ACM. Future development of the parcels would also likely include excavation for foundations and trenching for utilities.
Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations (17 California Code of Regulations [CCR] Section 93105), the applicant is required to conduct a geologic
evaluation prior to any ground-disturbing activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present.
Mitigation Measures AQ-3 and AQ-4 have been identified to require the applicant to complete a geologic evaluation
and follow all applicable protocols and procedures if NOA is determined to be present onsite. Mitigation Measure AQ-
5 requires inspection for ACM prior to demolition and reported to the SLOAPCD. Based on compliance with identified
mitigation and existing regulations, this potential impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall
implement the following idling control techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative-fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with 13 CCR 2485. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings
of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California- and non-
California-based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
Item 2
Packet Page 73
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except
as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner,
or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit.
The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant
shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading
and building plans:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute
period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour
(mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily an d covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall
be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor
vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in
CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track out, designate
access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a
“track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The track -
out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track
out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate
devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-out soils, the track-
out prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any fugitive
dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation measures
Item 2
Packet Page 74
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s limit of
20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and
weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could be generated
on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact Tim Fuhs at
805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full
compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community
Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have
the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be present onsite, proposed
earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory
jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface
Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission S tandard for Hazardous
Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Asbestos-Containing Material. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the applicant shall provide an asbestos
report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. If ACM are determined to be present, a t least 10 working
days prior to any demolition work the applicant shall provide noti fication to SLOAPCD of such work. The
notification shall include an asbestos report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. ACM removal and
disposal shall follow the requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants Regulation
(NESHAP) Subpart M and of the SLOAPCD.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less
than significant.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4, 5,
62 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 4, 5 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Item 2
Packet Page 75
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected
wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool,
coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological
interruption, or other means?
2, 4, 5,
17, 62 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
4, 5 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
7, 16 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
18 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
The city is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses that support a variety of
natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow local wildlife to move
between habitats and open space areas. The COSE identifies various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural
communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protection of listed species and
species of special concern, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining
development setbacks from creeks.
The project site is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential) and is surrounded by developed one- and two-story single-family
residential units to the south, east, and west, undeveloped land to the north, and CAL FIRE Station #12 to the east. The Patricia
Drive entrance to the Bishop Peak Trailhead is located 0.5 miles northwest. A creek and associated freshwater forested/shrub
wetland and riparian areas occur on the western portion of the project site and connects to a freshwater emergent wetland on the
northern undeveloped parcel.
According to the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) conducted by Keven Merk Associates, LLC (KMA; KMA 2020),
there are five plant communities/land use types within the project site. The communities include ornamental vegetation,
developed/ruderal area, riparian habitat, annual grassland, and rock outcrop. KMA identifies the onsite creek as Twin Ridge
Creek, which runs in a north to south direction on the western portion of the project parcel and is a tributary to San Luis Obispo
Creek. The riparian habitat is comprised of native coast live oak and willows (Salix spp.) along with a variety of non-native
ornamental vegetation. The riparian habitat is considered a sensitive natural community by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife (CDFW) and the City’s COSE. The annual grassland that occurs on the project site is periodically used for horse
grazing and is predominantly comprised of non-native species as a result of a history of disturbance. There is one small rock
outcrop in the western portion of the project area that was determined to be a landscape feature rather than a habitat type.
During tree surveys, a total of 177 trees were identified on the project site , which include ornamental species and naturally
occurring native species. Native trees include coast live oak (quercys agrifolia), valley oak (quercus lobata), Southern California
black walnut (juglans California), California bay laurel (Umbellularia california), arroyo willow (salix lasiolepis), and
California holly toyon (heteromeles arbutifolia). A background review for the site identified five special-plant species that have
potential to occur within the project site, with three species—Cambria morning glory, California black walnut (Juglans
californica), and Monterey pine (Pinus radiata)—occurring onsite. Three invertebrate, one reptile, 19 bird, and four mammal
species were considered to have potential to occur on the project site. Fish species are not expected to occur onsite due to the
intermittent nature of the drainage. The project site is considered critical habitat for the California red-legged frog (Rana
draytonii). The following analysis of biological resources is primarily based off the BRA conducted by KMA for the project
(KMA 2020).
Item 2
Packet Page 76
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
An Aquatic Resources Delineation Report prepared by SWCA Environmental Consultants (SWCA) in January 2021 determined
that a portion of the wetland area supported onsite is considered Waters of the United States (WOTUS) under the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) and Waters of the State (WOTS) under the state Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB)
and CDFW.
Special-Status Plant Species
The BRA for the project site determined that there is potential for four special-status plant species to occur onsite, of
which three species (Cambria morning glory, California black walnut, and Monterey pine) were observed onsite.
Potential special-status plant species include California (southern) black walnut (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR]
4.2, Cambria morning glory (CRPR 4.2), Miles’ milk-vetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus; CRPR 1B.2),
and San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover (Castilleja densiflora var. obispoensis; CRPR 1B.2). In addition, Monterey pine was
observed within ornamental vegetation onsite and in surrounding neighborhood areas and is considered to be a
CRPR 1B.1 only within its native range of Año Nuevo, Cambria, and the Monterey Peninsula. These species are
considered to have potential to occur onsite based on the presence of suitable soils and habitat conditions.
Focused rare plant surveys were conducted for the project site within all potentially suitable habitat areas in March,
April, and May 2020, which is within the blooming period of these four species with potential to occur onsite. Based
on the findings of the surveys, Miles’ milk-vetch and San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover was not observed during field
surveys and would not be affected by project activities. Cambria morning glory and California black walnut were
observed onsite and are discussed below. In addition, the BRA identifies Monterey pine species present within
ornamental vegetation and is also discussed below.
Cambria Morning Glory
Cambria morning glory was observed within the annual grassland, which comprises the project site to the east of the
onsite wetland and riparian habitat. The occurrences supported low densities with average cover estimated at three
plants per square meter. The four observed occurrences were determined to cover approximately 1,076 sf (100 square
meters) of the project site and approximately 300 plants were present onsite. Construction of the project, including
grading and installation of road and utility improvements, as well as future residential development, would result in the
removal or disturbance of Cambria morning glory. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 and BIO-2 are
required to reduce potential impacts to Cambria morning glory. These measures would require implementation of a
Rare Plan Mitigation Program that would establish replanting of Cambria morning glory so that after a 5-year period
there would be no net loss of the plant. Implementation of recommended mitigation measures would reduce impacts to
a level that is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Monterey Pine
Monterey pine was observed within the ornamental trees onsite and in surrounding neighborhoods. Monterey pine is
considered to be a CRPR 1B.1 species within its native range. The three native stands in California are in Año Nuevo,
Cambria, and the Monterey Peninsula. Similar to the California black walnut, since San Luis Obispo is not within this
species’ native range, the Monterey pine would not be considered a special-status species onsite and no mitigation is
recommended.
Special-Status Wildlife Species
Based on a background review for the project site, 19 bird, three invertebrate, one reptile, and four mammal species
have potential to occur on the project site. No fish species were determined to have potential to occur onsite based on
the intermittent nature of the drainage. The species that have potential to occur onsite are discussed below.
Item 2
Packet Page 77
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Birds and Bats
The 19 bird species identified as having the potential to occur onsite include bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus),
burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris actia), Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter
cooperii), ferruginous hawk (Buteo regalis), golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus
savannarum), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), great egret (Ardea alba), loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus),
merlin (Falco columbarius), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus), prairie falcon (Falco mexicanus), sharp-shinned hawk
(Accipiter striatus), snowy egret (Egretta thula), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), white-tailed kite (Elanus
leucurus), yellow-billed magpie (Pica nuttallii), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus),
San Diego desert woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia), Townsend’s big-eared bat (Corynorhinus townsendii), and
western mastiff bat (Eumops perotis californicus). The project site is comprised of numerous ornamental and native
trees and other habitat that have the potential for birds or bats to nest or roost in. Additionally, wintering habitat for
burrowing owl has the potential to be disturbed during proposed groundwork activity. Removal of trees for parcel
upgrades and future development have the potential for accidental take or other indirect affects to bird species in the
area. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-3 through BIO-7 would reduce impacts to nesting or roosting birds
and bats that could be present at the project site. Implementation of these mitigation measures would reduce project
impacts on birds to a level that is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Reptiles
The northern California legless lizard (Anniella pulchra) is a CDFW Species of Special Concern (SSC) and occurs in a
variety of habitats with soil moisture and cover. Suitable habitat for this species is present in the riparian habitat and
marginally in the ornamental vegetation onsite. While no construction activity is proposed within the riparian habitat,
non-native acacia trees within the riparian corridor and adjacent native and ornamental vegetation outside of the riparian
corridor would be removed, and therefore could impact California legless lizard . Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-4 through BIO-7 would reduce impacts to northern California legless lizard to a level that is considered
less than significant with mitigation.
Invertebrates
The monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) is considered a sensitive species by the CDFW. Milkweed is required as a
host plant for caterpillar species, which was not observed onsite; however, individual species were observed flying
overhead during surveys. The density of trees in the riparian habitat could potentially be suitable habitat as an
overwintering or autumnal site. Tree removal is proposed for parcel upgrades and could affect monarch butterfly species
present onsite. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-8 would require vegetation removal to occur outside of the
overwintering season; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The obscure bumble bee (Bombus caliginosus) does not have a specific listing status but is considered sensitive in the
California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and is a species of local concern. The BRA identified that host plants
for these species are located in riparian habitat onsite. The riparian habitat would have a 20-foot setback and minimal
work within the setback would be required. However, acacia tree removal is proposed within the riparian habitat that
has the potential to disturb obscure bumble bee species present within the riparian habitat. Implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-4 through BIO-8 would reduce impacts to obscure bumble bee species to a level that is considered less
than significant with mitigation.
The San Luis Obispo pyrg (Pyrgulopsis taylori) is an aquatic snail that is considered sensitive by CNDDB but does not
have a specific listing status. The species inhabits freshwater habitat, which is present at the onsite creek. Project
activities do not propose alteration or disturbance of the creek that could adversely affect San Luis Obispo pyrg species
potentially present. Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce erosion and sedimentation within the creek
habitat would be sufficient to avoid impacts to potential species present onsite. Standard BMPs are identified in
Mitigation Measure BIO-9 and would reduce impacts to the San Luis Obispo pyrg to a level that is considered less than
significant with mitigation.
Designated Critical Habitat
The project site is considered designated critical habitat for the California red-legged frog by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS). The area is Unit SLO-3 Willow and Toro Creeks to San Luis Obispo and comprises approximately
116,517 acres. The unit occurs along the San Luis Obispo Coast, north of Morro Bay, and extends southeast into the
Item 2
Packet Page 78
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
city of San Luis Obispo. The BRA concluded that the project site does not provide suitable aquatic breeding habitat for
California red-legged frog. The onsite drainage is intermittent and does not contain water of sufficient depth long enough
for California red-legged frog larvae to complete metamorphosis. In addition, the stream lacks any significant pools and
does not contain sufficient depth to support adult frogs. Based on aerial photography of the site, there are no other
potential breeding ponds nearby that could support California red-legged frog. Annual grassland and ornamental
habitats are considered suitable upland and dispersal habitat for California red-legged frog; however, the nearest record
of California red-legged frog is 0.4 mile at Brizziolari Creek, which is separated from the project site by SR 1. The
project site does not provide connections to other suitable aquatic sites and is surrounded by urban development to the
south, west, and east. Therefore, the site is considered to have low potential for upland and dispersal habitat for
California red-legged frog within the designated critical habitat and impacts would be less than significant.
The project site supports identified special-status plants and wildlife species that could be affected by the proposed
project. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-9 would reduce or avoid potential
impacts to biological resources present onsite; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project site contains a riparian forest along the onsite creek located in the western portion the property. The BRA
identifies the riparian habitat as a Central Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest Community, which has a State Rarity Rank
of 3.2. The identified riparian forest consists of native riparian trees and shrubs, which includes coast live oak, red
willow (Salix laevigata), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), toyon, California bay laurel (Umbellularia californica),
interior live oak (Quercus wislizenii), and California black walnut (Juglans californica). Non-native species also occur
in the riparian habitat, including blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), silver wattle (Acacia dealbata), firethorn (Pyracantha
sp.), coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), and English ivy (Hedera helix). Native understory plants present within
the riparian area include poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), and coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis). A separate
wetland community was observed in the riparian area, which includes spikebrush (Eleocharis macrostachya), brown-
headed rush (Juncus phaeocephalus), tall flatsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), and curly dock (Rumex crispus). The project
would require permits described in Mitigation Measure BIO-10 for work proposed within the riparian area. In addition,
the Fire Protection Plan requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian habitat, resulting in the removal of 13
trees, primarily acacia (silver wattle) trees, within the riparian habitats. The project would be required to comply with
the City’s Municipal Code (12.24.090) and replace trees at a minimum 1:1 ratio . The City’s COSE (7.7.9) calls for a
creek setback with appropriate separation from the physical top of bank unless there is no reasonable alternative, in
which structures may be permitted to encroach. The proposed TTM shows the extent of the riparian area and a 20-foot
creek setback, which would be further protected by implementation of mitigation measure BIO-11, which requires
recordation of a biological easement on the Final Map and application of creek setback standards. As noted,
improvements including stormwater improvements, removal of non-native trees and plants, and restoration activities
would be allowed within the easement area. No paving or structures would be permitted in the biological easement area,
however, grading activity is proposed in several areas within the creek setback for stabilization, and placement of rip
rap pads are proposed within or adjacent to the setback. The easement and application of creek setback standards would
affect proposed Lots 1–8. With implementation of the identified mitigation measure, the project would reduce impacts
to the riparian area onsite and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Proposed project construction requires 4.27 acres of ground disturbance, including 7,900 cy of cut and 4,760 cy of fill,
which has the potential to release erosive runoff into the creek and associated wetland areas that may cause adverse
effects to water quality. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 identifies construction BMPs to reduce potential runoff from the
project site that could adversely affects nearby water resources. In addition, an Aquatic Resources Delineation Report
was prepared by SWCA (SWCA 2021) as required by the BRA and determined that Twin Ridge Creek is likely non-
wetland WOTUS and waters of the state. Twin Ridge Creek likely falls under the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB
jurisdictions due to the presence of clearly definable ordinary high-water marks, bank and bed features, riparian
vegetation, and hydrologic connectivity to San Luis Obispo Creek. Twin Ridge Creek does not meet the definition of a
wetland because it does not support hydric soils or consistent indicators of wetland hydrology. The Aquatic Resources
Delineation determined that 0.14 acre of Twin Ridge Creek is potentially under the jurisdiction of the USACE and 0.70
acre of the riparian area is potentially under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB and CDFW. The project identifies a 20-
foot setback from the riparian edge in accordance with the City’s COSE, and this area would be further protected from
Item 2
Packet Page 79
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
future development by implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11, which would create a biological easement;
however, some grading activity and placement of rip rap pads would occur within or adjacent to the creek setback, and
several non-native trees would be removed from within the riparian corridor for fire safety. The project would require
permits described in Mitigation Measure BIO-10 for work proposed within the jurisdictional areas (streambed and
riparian corridor). With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, potential impacts to the riparian area
onsite would be reduced and impacts would be considered less than significant with mitigation.
The project site is located near an area designated as a wildlife corridor within the COSE. The proposed property
subdivision, utility connections, and subsequent future development of new residences would not introduce a substantial
new barrier to wildlife passing through the area because they would be located outside of the designated wildlife
corridor. The BRA determined that the onsite creek, Twin Ridge Creek, does not support fish species due to the
intermittent nature of the drainage; therefore, project activities do not have the potential to interfere with the movement
of migratory fish species within the creek. However, according to the BRA, Twin Ridge Creek is a tributary to San Luis
Obispo Creek and potential erosive runoff from the project has the potential to degrade water quality and fish species
within San Luis Obispo Creek. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 identifies BMPs for construction activity to reduce potential
erosion and sedimentation from entering the onsite creek, which would reduce the potential for erosion and
sedimentation to enter San Luis Obispo Creek. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-11 would create
a permanent biological easement and application of a 20-foot setback standard from the riparian edge, which would be
consistent with the City’s Municipal Code (17.70.030). Future development would be consistent with the City’s
Municipal Code (17.70.030) and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 would reduce impacts to the movement
of migratory or native species; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project site supports Central Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest and other native and non-native trees. The project site
contains 177 ornamental and native trees, primarily within the riparian corridor. The project would remove all 73 trees
located outside the riparian corridor including 15 native coast live oak trees and 1 southern California black walnut tree
(tree numbers 1-62, 85-91, 173-177 as shown in Appendix D of Attachment 3 and Sheet C2 of Attachment 2).
Additionally, the Fire Protection Plan for the proposed project requires removal of non-native trees within the riparian
habitat. A total of 13 non-native trees, primarily acacia (silver wattle) trees, within the riparian corridor would be
removed (tree numbers 114, 148-157, 162, 169, as shown in Appendix D of Attachment 3 and Sheet C2 of Attachment
2).
The project would result in the removal of 86 trees total onsite. Of the 86 trees proposed for removal, 51 trees are subject
to the City’s Tree Ordinance, due to species, trunk size, or location within a creek setback. Based on the compensa tory
tree planting requirements of the City’s Tree Ordinance, the applicant will be required to replant a minimum of one new
tree onsite, or two offsite, for each of the 51 being removed, as set forth in the City Municipal Code (12.24.090). This
application is subject to review and approval by the City Tree Committee. The project would not result in a conflict
with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project is not located within an area governed by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved state, regional, or local habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 Implement a Rare Plant Mitigation Program that ensures no net loss of Cambria morning glory on the
project site. Prior to any tract improvements, a Rare Plant Mitigation Program shall be implemented for Cambria
morning glory and shall be overseen by a qualified botanist approved by the City. As a component of the program,
seed shall be collected from Cambria morning glory plants during the appropriate season prior to tract grading
activities. Using standard procedures, the qualified botanist shall clean and store the seeds until the receiving sites
shown on the project plans are ready. Suitable habitat of 2,180 square-feet in size outside of the development area
(as designated on the site plans in the creek setback zone) shall be designated as the mitigation site that will be
maintained in a natural state and not be subject to mowing earlier than June 1 each year. The areas will be
Item 2
Packet Page 80
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
maintained as grassland habitat and no planting of ornamental species or other adverse modifications (such as
grazing activities) will be allowed. The mitigation site shown on the project plans is twice the size as the areas
currently occupied by the rare plant occurrences (2,180 square-feet of habitat created for 1,076 square-feet of habitat
impacted). This equates to a 2:1 mitigation ratio (habitat created to habitat impacted) to ensure a minimum 1:1
replacement ratio is achieved. Topsoil from each of the four occurrences will be collected in 6-inch lifts and stored
for top-dressing the mitigation site once grading of the pads is complete. As needed, the mitigation site should be
prepared for planting by removal of non-native species or other measures as necessary, then applying the salvaged
topsoil. Once topsoil has been layered evenly through the area, collected seed should be hand-broadcasted into
suitable locations by the qualified botanist and covered with compost. Seed may also be incorporated into the native
erosion control seed mix described in the Native Erosion Control Seed Mix table under Mitigation Measure BIO-9
and applied to other grassy areas of the site as part of the erosion control effort. Depending on the season when
construction starts, the qualified botanist may also potentially salvage plants (i.e., dig them up when soils are moist)
and transplant them to containers to be maintained until the mitigation sites are ready for planting.
BIO-2 Conduct annual monitoring and implement adaptive management measures for 5 years to ensure no net loss
of Cambria morning glory onsite. The Rare Plant Mitigation Program shall include annual monitoring and
maintenance of the mitigation site to ensure success of the program. Monitoring by a qualified botanist shall occur
during the spring growing season (between April 15 and May 15 each year) to ensure successful establishment of
planted propagules. The established rare plants shall be mapped to evaluate the goal of no net loss of the species
onsite. The measurable objective shall be to have at least 1,076 sf of occurrence comprised of approximately 300
Cambria morning glory plants. Appropriate vegetation sampling techniques shall be used to assess the areal cover
of vegetation to evaluate the status of the established occurrences. If the success criteria of having approxim ately
300 plants covering 1,076 sf within the creek setback zone is not reached by the third year of monitoring, remedial
actions such as collecting more seed and distributing it in suitable areas should be employed, with a corresponding
additional year of monitoring. Other activities to increase the success of the rare plant mitigation effort could
include non-native plant species removal within the mitigation site to reduce competition, additional seed
application, or supplemental irrigation during periods of prolonged drought. The qualified botanist shall prepare
annual reports for the applicant detailing the methods and results of the mitigation effort and monitoring effort. The
applicant shall be responsible for submitting the report to the City on an annual basis (by December 31 of each
year) for the 5-year monitoring period or until the final success criteria described above are met.
BIO-3 To the extent feasible, avoid initial site grading in the winter months. The burrowing owl has been recorded in
the vicinity of the project from October to the end of April. If initial vegetation removal and site grading for the
tract improvements is conducted outside of this period, potential effects on this species would be avoided and no
further mitigation would be required. Restricting the time period for earth-moving activities is also required to
avoid or minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation (see Mitigation Measure BIO-9). If initial grading
work must commence during the time period that burrowing owls may be present onsite, preconstruction surveys
for this species shall be included in the survey effort described in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 prior to vegetation
removal or tract improvements.
BIO-4 Conduct a preconstruction survey and avoid construction in areas occupied by special-status wildlife species
until relocated or they have left the site. Within 7 days prior to the start of vegetation/tree removal, ground-
disturbing activities, or demolition of existing structures, a biologist approved by the City shall survey the project
impact area to identify whether nesting birds, roosting bats, monarch butterfly overwintering populations, obscure
bumble bee, and/or California legless lizard are present on site. A separate survey shall be conducted for any phase
of the project not conducted concurrently or within 10 days of cessation of the previous phase (i.e., structure
demolition conducted prior to general site grading). The biologist shall use appropriate survey techniques for the
special-status species identified in the 2020 BRA as having potential to occur onsite. For example, burrows shall
be examined with binoculars or wildlife cameras, and inspected for whitewash or prey remains. Leaf litter and
cover objects shall be searched for northern California legless lizards. Potential bat roost sites shall be inspected
for sign of roosting bats such as guano or prey remains. If any of these species are found onsite, the biologist shall
coordinate with the City, and CDFW as appropriate, on methods to ensure the successful relocation of individuals
Item 2
Packet Page 81
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
to suitable habitat nearby. In some cases, CDFW may recommend creating structures for displaced woodrats and
bats. Burrowing owls can be discouraged from using burrows onsite, or occupied burrows can be avoided until the
owls have left the area. Bats can be restricted from roost sites by placing netting over their entrances after they have
left the roost for night-time foraging. The wildlife protection measures to be employed will be based on the results
of the survey and the particular characteristics of their use of the site, in coordination with CDFW and the
construction engineer. If no special-status animal species are found onsite during the preconstruction survey, work
may proceed with the implementation of the following Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7.
BIO-5 Prepare and present a Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to any vegetation removal or tract
improvements, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that will be
presented to all project personnel. This program shall detail measures to avoid and minimize impacts on biological
resources. It shall include a description of special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and their
natural history, the status of the species and their protection under environmental laws and regulations, and the
penalties for take. Recommendations shall be given as to actions to avoid take should a special-status species be
found on the project site. Other aspects of the training shall include a description of general measures to protect
wildlife, including:
1. Delineation of the allowable work area, staging areas, access points, and limits to vehicle access;
2. Storage of all pipes, metal tubing, or similar materials stored or stacked on the project site for one or more
overnight periods shall be either securely capped before storage or thoroughly inspected for wildlife before
the materials are moved, buried, capped, or otherwise used.
3. Inspection of materials stored onsite, such as lumber, plywood, and rolls of silt fence, for wildlife that may
have sheltered under or within the materials;
4. Use of netting to exclude birds from nesting in construction materials;
5. Construction of escape ramps in all excavations and trenches more than 6 inches deep;
6. Contact information for the City-approved biologist and instructions should any wildlife species be
detected in the work site;
7. Dust suppression methods during construction activities when necessary to meet air quality standards and
protect biological resources; and
8. Methods for containment of food-related trash items (e.g., wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps), small
construction debris (e.g., nails, bits of metal and plastic), and other human generated debris (e.g., cigarette
butts) in animal-proof containers and removal from the site on a weekly basis.
All project personnel who have attended the training shall sign an attendance sheet . The program shall be repeated
for any new crews that arrive subsequently on the site.
BIO-6 Install high-visibility construction and silt fence along the creek corridor to delineate the allowable work
area, exclude wildlife from the site, and protect the stream habitat. Prior to vegetation removal or tract
improvements, and during subsequent residential development for Lots 1-7, a high-visibility construction
fence at least 4 feet tall together with a silt fence, or an approved wildlife exclusion fence, shall be erected along
the creek corridor to delineate the limits of grading and vehicle access. If possible, the fence shall be erected along
the creek setback line, and encroachment into the setback shall be kept at a minimum. In no case shall ground
disturbance occur within the riparian habitat or below the top of bank without obtaining proper permits from
regulatory agencies. The type of fence used may be a combination of wildlife exclusion and silt fence (i.e., ERTEC
Triple-function E-fence) or similar materials that would serve the purposes of safety/construction area delineation,
wildlife exclusion, and siltation prevention. The fence shall be checked weekly by construction personnel for
needed maintenance.
Item 2
Packet Page 82
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
BIO-7 Conduct biological monitoring for special-status wildlife species while the property is cleared and graded,
and structures are removed. A qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of structures, materials, and
vegetation that may provide cover for obscure bumble bee, northern California legless lizards, and bat roosting
sites. The biologist shall be onsite daily until all materials are removed and all vegetation has been cleared. If any
special-status species are found, work shall be delayed until the individuals have left the work area or CDFW shall
be notified to obtain authorization for capture and relocation.
BIO-8 Avoid vegetation removal within the riparian habitat during the overwintering season. Vegetation removal
within the riparian area shall be conducted outside of the overwintering season for monarch butterfly (late October
through February) and obscure bumble bee (late October through January) to avoid disturbance to species
potentially inhabiting riparian vegetation.
BIO-9 Install erosion and sediment BMPs and revegetate graded areas. The following erosion and sedimentation
control BMPs are required to be implemented during vegetation removal, tract improvements, during individual lot
construction, and after the construction phases of the project:
1. If possible, the potential for erosion and sedimentation shall be minimized by scheduling construction to
occur outside of the rainy season, which is typically defined as October 15 through April 15. Adherence
to this measure would also serve as avoidance for the burrowing owl, as described in Mitigation Measure
BIO-3.
2. To minimize site disturbance, all construction related equipment shall be restricted to established roads,
construction areas, and other designated staging areas. The creek setback zo ne shall be clearly marked as
described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
3. Prior to any site disturbance during tract improvements or individual lot construction, a Sediment and
Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer. The use of silt fence, straw wattles, erosion
control blankets, straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and other appropriate techniques should be employed
to protect the drainage features on and off the property. Biotechnical approaches using native vegetation
shall be used as feasible. All areas with soil disturbance shall have appropriate erosion control s and other
stormwater protection BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. All sediment and erosion control
measures shall be installed per the engineer’s requirements prior to the initiation of site grading if planned
to occur within the rainy season.
4. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site, and a Spill Response Plan shall be in place.
5. No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled within 100 feet of wetland areas, riparian habitat and/or
drainage features, and refueling areas shall have a spill contain ment system installed. No vehicles or
construction equipment shall be stored overnight within 100 feet of these areas unless drip pans or ground
covers are used. All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure
proper operation and to avoid potential leaks or spills. Construction staging areas shall be located in a
location where spills would not drain into aquatic habitats.
6. No concrete washout shall be conducted on the site outside of an appropriate containment system.
Washing of equipment, tools, etc. should not be allowed in any location where the tainted water could
enter onsite drainages.
7. The use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall be in compliance with all local, state, and federal
regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and
federal legislation.
8. All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project site should be cleaned up
immediately.
Item 2
Packet Page 83
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
9. All areas with soil disturbance shall have appropriate erosion controls and other stormwater protection
BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. Silt fencing, erosion control blan kets, straw bales, sandbags,
fiber rolls, and/or other types of materials prescribed on the plan shall be implemented to prevent erosion
and sedimentation. Biotechnical approaches using native vegetation shall be used as feasible.
10. Areas with disturbed soils shall be restored under the direction of the project engineer in consultation with
a qualified restoration ecologist as detailed above. Methods may include recontouring graded areas to
blend in with existing natural contours, covering the areas with salv aged topsoil containing native
seedbank from the site, and/or applying the native seed mix as described in the table below. Native seed
mix shall be applied to the graded areas in the creek setback area through either direct hand seeding or
hydroseeding methods. Seeding with the native erosion control seed mix should be provided on all
disturbed soil areas prior to the onset of the rainy season (by October 15).
Native Erosion Control Seed Mix
Species Application Rate
(lbs/acre)
California Brome (Bromus carinatus) 10
purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) 5
tomcat clover (Trifolium wildenovii) 5
six weeks fescue (Vulpia microstachys) 5
Total 25
BIO-10 Obtain necessary permits for impacts in jurisdictional areas, implement a compensatory mitigation
program, and monitor the success of the program to ensure no net loss of Riparian/Wetland habitat or other
waters on the subject property. Prior to any vegetation removal or site disturbance within the areas delineated as
jurisdictional features (Figure 5, Aquatic Resources Delineation 2021), the applicant shall provide documentation
to the City that a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality
Certification from RWQCB, and a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and Streambed Alteration
Agreement from CDFW have been obtained or have been determined by the regulatory agencies to not be required.
If regulatory permits are required, prior to the initiation of vegetation removal or tract improvements, the applicant
shall retain a qualified biological monitor to ensure compliance with all Clean Water Act and CDFW permit
requirements during work adjacent to the creek. The monitor shall be present during the instal lation of the
construction fencing delineating the limits of work in relation to the edge of riparian, creek top of bank, and 20-
foot creek setback buffer, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Since the Cambria morning glory
compensatory mitigation site is to be located within this buffer, the monitor shall direct appropriate wildlife
exclusion and erosion control BMPs to protect riparian habitat during site preparation for planting. The monitor
shall be present during construction of the rip rap pad a nd any other work within the creek setback area on
stormwater structures. The monitor shall also oversee removal of non-native tree species and site preparation for
tree planting within the setback. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) is required by the regulatory
agencies, the applicant shall provide a copy of the plan to the City and the biological monitor shall be responsible
for successful implementation of the plan.
BIO-11 Record a Biological Easement and Biological Easement Agreement protecting riparian area: A Biological
Easement and Biological Easement Agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map recordation.
The easement agreement shall be developed by the applicant in a format provided by the City. The following
activities are permitted within the biological easement, subject to the review and approval by the City Sustainability
and Natural Resources Official:
1. Stormwater improvements.
Item 2
Packet Page 84
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No Impact
2. Removal of non-native trees.
3. Restoration and creek bank stabilization activities.
No future paving or structures shall be permitted within the biological easement. Creek setback standards shall be
applied to the easement area, consistent with municipal code requirements.
Conclusion
The project site supports native and ruderal plant species as well as Cambria morning glory, which is a special-status plant
species, and several riparian and ornamental tree species. The site also supports special-status wildlife habitat that could be
affected by the proposed project. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce or avoid impacts to special-status plants
and wildlife species. A wetland area is supported on the western portion of the project area and a 20-foot setback would be
implemented from the riparian edge of the area. In addition, mitigation has been identified to reduce impacts to construction
activity within the riparian area. Tree removal associated with the project would be mitigated through compliance with the City’s
Tree Ordinance but could result in impact to nesting birds and roosting bats. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure
impacts to riparian habitats and sensitive natural communities would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation
Measures BIO-1 through BIO-11, project impacts to biological resources would be less than significant.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource pursuant to §15064.5? 19, 20 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? 59 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries? 59 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast
for at least 10,000 years. The city is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost
of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County; the earliest evidence
of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast. The project site is not located within a Burial
Sensitivity Area as identified in COSE Figure 1: Cultural Resources.
Historic Setting
The COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other community
goals. These policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources;
Item 2
Packet Page 85
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
2. Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove
a threat to health and safety;
3. Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby
historic structures; and
4. Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of
Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is not located within the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone, nor does it contain any built structures that
may be considered potentially eligible historic resources.
The following analysis of Cultural Resources is predominately based on the Cultural Resources Survey conducted by Central
Coast Archaeological Resource Consultants (CCARC) for the project site (CCARC 2020).
The project proposes to demolish the two existing residential structures located on the project site; however, the
residential units were not determined to have historical significance by the Cultural Resources Survey conducted for
the project. Therefore, the project site does not currently contain, nor is it located near, any historic resources identified
in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). The project
site is not identified on the City’s Historic Properties map; therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse
change in the significance of, or any other adverse impact to, a historical resource and impacts would be less than
significant.
The Cultural Resources Report conducted by CCARC in February 2020 concluded that despite the project site’s location
on land with moderate archaeological sensitivity, desktop review and an intensive archaeological field survey of the
project site did not identify any cultural resources. Based on this conclusion, no further archaeological survey is
necessary for the project site. However, based on the large scale of grading and earthwork required for the project,
Mitigation Measure CR-1 has been identified to identify the proper procedures and contact in the event an inadvertent
discovery of an archaeological or historical resource is made. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 would
reduce impacts in the event an archaeological resource is uncovered during excavation and other groundwork activities
during project construction; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project site is not located within a Burial Sensitivity Area associated with San Luis Obispo Creek identified in
COSE Figure 1: Cultural Resources. No human remains are known to exist within the project site; however, the
discovery of unknown human remains is a possibility during ground-disturbing activities. Protocol for properly
responding to the inadvertent discovery of human remains is identified in California Health a nd Safety Code Section
7050.5 and is detailed in Mitigation Measure CR-2. With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-2, potential
impacts to human remains would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical or archaeological remains
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall
be issued, and the City Commu nity Development Director shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall conduct
an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if necessary. After the find has been
appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map
and all improvement/construction plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during ground-disturbing activities
associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Development
Director shall be notified. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance of
the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human re mains shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all
improvement/construction plans.
Item 2
Packet Page 86
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Conclusion
Based on the records search conducted through the Central Coast Information Center, no known historical or archaeological
resources are present onsite. Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been identified above to require appropriate protocol for
inadvertent resource discovery and discovery of human remains. With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2
identified above, potential impacts to cultural resources would be reduced to less than significant.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
21, 22,
23 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
21, 22,
23 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
PG&E has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining
the Monterey Bay Community Power (MBCP) and, beginning in January 2020, MBCP became the City’s primary electricity
provider. In September 2020, MBCP became Central Coast Community Energy (3CE); 3CE will strive to provide 100% carbon-
free electricity to utility customers within the city by 2030, and provides a rate savings relative to PG&E.
The City recently adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean, efficient, and cost-
effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code. When paired with
cost-comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings are operationally
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions free, cost effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals. Unlike other cities
that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost -effective
all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy Code, and implementation of the
Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher performing
buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for
the same purpose.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of
materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real
property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent
version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas:
smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the
exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and nonresidential lighting requirements.
The COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally
controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non-
sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access. Policies
identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation,
procurement, use, and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; fostering
alternative transportation modes; compact, high-density housing; and solar access standards.
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery also identifies strategies and policies to increase use
of cleaner and renewable energy resources in order to achieve the City’s GHG emissions reduction target. These strategies
include promoting a wide range of renewable energy financing options, incentivizing renewable energy generation in new and
Item 2
Packet Page 87
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
existing developments, and increasing community awareness of renewable energy programs. The Climate Action Plan was
updated in August 2020.
During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.
The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar
construction activities in the city. Current federal and state regulations require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and
prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy use
would be less than significant.
Specific development plans are currently unknown; however, it can be assumed that each parcel will be developed as a
single-family residential use, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses. Based on this assumption, the project
would result in an overall increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips and electricity and
natural gas usage by future project occupants. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC and the
City’s adopted amendments (Title 15 of the Municipal Code), including applicable green building standards, ensuring
a high standard for energy efficiency in building design, materials, light fixtures, and appliances. The project would rely
on the local electricity service provider, 3CE, to supply project electricity needs. Compliance with existing regulations
would ensure the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient,
or unnecessary consumption of energy resources. Through use of 100% GHG-free electricity resources, project energy
use would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC and the City’s adopted amendments (Title 15 of the
Municipal Code), including applicable green building standards. The project would be consistent with energy goals and
policies in the COSE associated with use of best available practices in energy conservation. The project would be
consistent with other goals and policies set forth in the Climate Action Plan associated with renewable energy or energy
efficiency, including the provision of compact, high-density housing. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict
with, or obstruction of, a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than
significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
Future development would be designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not conflict
with state or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy would
occur, and no mitigation measures are necessary.
7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects,
including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
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.
1, 2, 3,
23, 24,
25
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 2
Packet Page 88
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 1, 2,
23, 24,
25
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 1, 2, 3,
23, 25 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iv. Landslides? 1, 2, 3,
23, 25 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 1, 2, 3,
23, 27 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
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?
1, 2, 3,
23, 26,
27, 28
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
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?
1, 2, 3,
23, 27,
28
܆܆܈܆
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
1, 2, 3,
8, 23 ܆܆܆܈
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1, 2,
59 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred
faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the city of San Luis Obispo, is
identified under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic,
and Edna Faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The
San Andreas Fault and the offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo,
have a high probability of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan. The highest risk from ground shaking is
found on deep soils that were deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains.
These soils are typically found in valleys.
Faults capable of producing strong ground -shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black
Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering standards and building codes set
minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map and
the Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or within the immediate vicinity
of an active fault zone.
As discussed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update Environmental Impact Report (EIR), San Luis Obispo lies within the southern
Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and
extends from Oregon to northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex and comprised of
sub-parallel northwest–southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic rock, metavolcanic rock, and a mixture of serpentinite
and greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of t he Mesozoic-aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary-age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene-aged Monterey Formation are
also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Lui s Obispo area is the series of Tertiary-aged
volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes), known as the Nine Sisters or the Morros, that extend from the city of San Luis Obispo
northwesterly to the city of Morro Bay. Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all
comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Item 2
Packet Page 89
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more than
the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater
rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubri cating
the spaces between soil particles as a result of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in
creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The
likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide
Hazards Map in the Safety Element, the project site is not located within an area of high liquefaction potential.
Slope Instability and Landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes
include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can be
contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability.
Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with
moderate landslide potential.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.
Primary causes are groundwater withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the
ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such
as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground-
surface subsidence. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site
is not located in an area of known subsidence.
Soil-Limiting Factors
The project site is underlain by Los Osos-Diablo complex (9 to 15 percent slopes) and Cropley clay (2 to 9 percent slopes) soil
units. The Los Osos-Diablo complex is characterized as well drained with a very high runoff class and Cropley clay is
characterized as moderately drained with a moderate runoff class. The project site is underlain by soils that are predominantly
clayey and would have a moderate to high shrink/swell potential as a result. The slope of the project site is generally flat to
slightly sloping, with an average of 8 percent slopes. Foundations and footings should be designed to offset shrink-swell potential,
and the low strength of the clay subsoil. These soil characteristics can require that the subgrade be removed and replaced with a
more suitable material or that a high degree of compaction and moisture control be ma intained.
a.i) The project site is located approximately 2.8 miles east from the Los Osos Fault Zone and 1.9 miles west from the
Cambria fault zone. There are no fault lines that run under or adjacent to the project site; therefore, direct impacts related
to fault rupture are not anticipated. Because San Luis Obispo is located in a seismically active region, it has adopted
building standards to protect structures and individuals. Development plans are not currently specified; however, future
development of the proposed parcels would be designed to comply with the CBC (including Title 15 amendments) and
other applicable guidelines. Therefore, the project would not have the potential to result in substantial adverse effects
involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, and impacts would be less than significant.
a.ii, iii) As discussed in (a.i) above, San Luis Obispo is located in a seismically active region where there is always the potential
for ground shaking. According to Section 1613 of the 2019 CBC, all structures and portions of structures are required
to be designed to resist the effects of seismic loadings caused by earthquake ground motions. Future residential units
developed at the project site would comply with the CBC and other applicable regulations for earthquake hazards.
According to the City’s Safety Element, soils found at the project site have a low potential for liquefaction risk.
Assuming that any and all future development of the project site is compliant with CBC and other federal and state
regulations, the potential to result in substantial adverse effects involving seismic ground shaking and ground-related
failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) According to the City’s Ground Shaking & Landslide Hazards Map, the project site is located in an area that has a low
risk for landslides. The project area is comprised of predominantly flat to slightly sloping land and does not consist of
Item 2
Packet Page 90
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
moderate to steep slopes that would increase risk for landslides at the proposed site. Future developments would comply
with the CBC, which requires, at a minimum, a soils report for new residential development, and other applicable
regulations to reduce the potential for the project to result in substantial adverse effects involving landslides to less than
significant.
b) Proposed project construction requires 4.27 acres of ground disturbance including 7,900 cy of cut and 4,760 cy of fill,
which has the potential to release erosive runoff into the creek and as sociated wetland areas that may cause adverse
effects to water quality. Additionally, the project would remove 86 trees, including 13 non-native trees within the
riparian corridor. The project proposes to disturb more than one-acre of soil and would require the preparation and
implementation of a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with BMPs to avoid or reduce erosive or polluted
runoff from entering the onsite creek and associated wetland area. Section 4, Biological Resources, identifies Mitigation
Measure BIO-9, which outlines BMPs that would reduce construction impacts related to erosive runoff. Project
development would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
Future development as a result of the subdivision will be single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as
potential accessory uses, potential removal of additional existing trees, and connections to the proposed utility lines.
Grading activity for future development is proposed for current parcel improvements; therefore, it is unlikely that future
development would require more than one-acre of groundwork and would not need to develop and implement a SWPPP.
However, future development would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB Post-Construction
Requirements (PCRs), and physical improvement of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water
quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. Therefore, through implementation of Mitigation Measure
BIO-9 and compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to violation of water quality standards would be less
than significant with mitigation.
c) According to the City’s Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map, the project site is not located within an area with
high landslide or liquefaction potential (City of San Luis Obispo 2014). The soils present at the project site currently
support two existing residential units and associated stru ctures and features. Future development would be required to
comply with the CBC and other applicable regulations for building standards. Based on compliance with existing
regulations and Code requirements, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Soils with high shrink/swell potential are predominantly comprised of clay and clay materials. The project site is
underlain by soils that contain clay and clay materials; therefore, the soils have a low to moderate shrink/swell potential.
The volume changes that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. Typical
precautionary measures would likely include premoistening the underlying soil in conjunction with placement of non-
expansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced foundation. In addition, future
development facilitated by implementation of this project would be required to be designed in compliance with standard
seismic design criteria established in the CBC to reduce risk associated with ground failure, including from expansive
soils. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to expansive soils would be less than
significant.
e) The project would utilize an existing sewage connection and would also include a new connection to the City sewer
system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment systems are proposed onsite. Therefore, no impacts would
occur.
f) The project site is underlain late Mesozonic sandstones and shales, early to mid-Cenozonic siltstones, igneous and
intrusive rock, and quaternary alluvium (CCARC 2020). There are no known paleontological resources on the project
site and there are no unique geologic features on the property. For subdivision improvements, 4.27 acres of grading and
excavation activity are proposed (i.e., road improvements and utility trenching), and future residential foundations will
likely remove expansive soils to comply with the CBC. Based on the low sensitivity of the underlying geologic unit, the
lack of proposed activities that would result in significant cuts into bedrock, and the surrounding developed areas, the
project would not have the potential to result in impacts to a unique paleontological resource or unique geologic feature,
and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 91
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations,
potential impacts would be less than significant. Parcel improvements have the potential to result in erosion and sedimentation
that could runoff into nearby water resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 and compliance with existing
regulations would reduce construction impacts related to erosion and impacts to Geology and Soils would be less than significant.
8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
11, 12,
22, 55 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
11, 12,
22, 55 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
GHGs are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere, and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in
Section 3, Air Quality, above. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere as a result of human activities are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012, the City established a Climate Action Plan
that identified measures and implementation strategies in order to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission
levels by 2020. The City’s Climate Action Plan was recently updated and outlines a plan for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035.
The City’s 2016 Community Wide GHG emissions inventory showed that 63% of the city’s GHG emissions came from
transportation, 13% came from commercial and industrial uses, 11% came from residential uses, and 13% from waste.
Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill
(SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the state’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources
of GHGs to meet a state goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40 % below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80%
below 1990 levels by 2050. Other statewide policies a dopted to reduce GHG emissions include AB 32, SB 375, and SB 97, as
well as the Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, CBC, and California Solar Initiative.
The City recently updated its Climate Action Plan. The plan establishes a community-wide goal of carbon neutrality by 2035,
adopts sector specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving those goals. Appendix
C of the Climate Action Plan Update includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of GHG emissions analysis under
CEQA for projects within the City. To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality goal, plans
and projects within the City that undergo CEQA review will need to demo nstrate consistency with targets in the Climate Action
Plan, a qualified GHG reduction strategy, consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. According to the adopted
SLOAPCD guidance, if a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the City’s Climate Action Plan,
the project would not result in a significant impact.
In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE, an existing community choice energy program that serves the
counties of Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey and provides 100 % carbon-free electricity with a rate savings relative to
PG&E. Additionally, the City recently adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings, which encourages clean,
efficient, and cost effective all-electric new buildings through incentives and local amendments to the California Energy Code.
Item 2
Packet Page 92
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
When paired with cost comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings
are operationally GHG emissions free, are cost effective, and help achieve the community’s climate action goals.
a, b) Construction-related activities that would generate GHG emissions include worker trips and hauling trips to and from
the project site, as well as off-road construction equipment (e.g., dozers, loaders, excavators). Construction activity also
requires 4.27 acres of ground disturbance that has the potential to generate ROG and NOx, which are ozone precursors.
Impacts related to GHG emissions occur on a global scale and are, therefore, cumulative in nature. Short-term
construction-related emissions rarely result in a considerable contribution to GHG emissions. Operational-related
activities that would typically generate GHG emissions include residential trips, solid waste disposal, and energy
consumption.
The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the Climate Action Plan are based on the City’s LUCE. If a
plan or project is consistent with the existing 2014 General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site,
then the project would be considered consistent with the demographic forecasts and the land uses assumptions of the
Climate Action Plan. The project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designation for the existing parcel;
therefore, the project is expected to be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for the
development of the City’s latest Climate Action Plan.
As discussed previously, the City recently adopted the 2020 Climate Action Plan, which identifies six pillars, each of
which include long-term goals, measures, and foundational actions for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city.
The pillars include:
1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon-neutral government
operations by 2030.
2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.
3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and achieve a 50%
reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by 2030.
4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40% VMT by electric
vehicles by 2030.
5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035.
6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through
compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be ongoing through 2035.
Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the Climate Action Plan
can utilize the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the
Climate Action Plan’s GHG emissions reduction strategy. The proposed project does not propose any new buildings
that would be applicable to green building and other energy efficiency standards. Parcel improvements would result in
23 new lots, a new interior connection road, and new utility infrastructure and easements. One of the utility easements
would be 17 feet wide and would also be used as bicycle and pedestrian access to and from the site. The proposed
project has the potential to developed single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses,
that would be subject to energy efficiency standards and could increase population and VMT to the project area. The
project site is located 0.2 mile north from two bus stops, and additional bus stops are located on Foothill Boulevard
approximately 0.5 mile south that would facilitate future residential transit use. In addition, the project is within close
walking or biking distance to nearby retail and services, including grocery stores, restaurants, and medical services
located approximately 0.56 mile away, which is consistent with the updated Climate Action Plan. Based on the City’s
Residential VMT Screening Map, the project is located in an area of the City that would result in average VMT less
than or equal to 85% of the regional average, meaning a project in this area would result in reduced VMT. Specific
development plans are currently unknown; however, future residential development would likely utilize GHG-free
energy through participation in 3CE and with compliance with the City’s Clean Energy Choice Program for New
Buildings. New development would also be required to comply with applicable green buildi ng standards identified in
the updated Climate Action Plan. The project would maintain, where feasible, onsite trees and vegetation and would
plant native vegetation at the project site. Based on design elements of the proposed project, the project would be
consistent with the goals in the updated Climate Action Plan; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 93
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project would be located and designed to minimize GHG emissions and would not result in a conflict with an applicable
plan or policy adopted for reducing GHG emissions. The project would be consistent with the City’s Climate Action Plan, a
qualified GHG reduction strategy. No potentially significant impacts associated with GHG emissions have been identified,and
no mitigation measures are necessary.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1, 2
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1, 2
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1, 2, 3 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
30,31,
32 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard or excessive noise for people residing or working in the
project area?
2, 3,
42,43 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
25 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
1, 2,
23,25 ܆ ܆܈ ܆
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (Cortese) List is a planning tool used by the State, local agencies, and developers to
comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release sites.
California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California EPA (CalEPA) to develop at least annually an updated
Cortese List. Various State and local government agencies are required to track and document hazardous material release
information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks
DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known
contamination, such as federal superfund sites, State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school
Item 2
Packet Page 94
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database
contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites
that meet the Cortese List requirements are included on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
The project does not propose the long-term transportation, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Short-term
construction materials may be transported during development of the proposed improvements to the property and during
future development of one- and two-story single-family residences. Hazardous materials would be properly handled to
according to federal and Stateregulations,including response and clean-uprequirementsfor any minor spills. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
The long-term use of the project would be residential units that would not use hazardous materials other than commonly
used household substances within the project site (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.). Construction of the
proposed project is anticipated to require use of limited quantities of hazard ous substances, including gasoline, diesel
fuel, hydraulic fluid, solvents, oils, paints, etc. Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable
federal and State environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including response
and clean-up requirements for any minor spills. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is located approximately 0.47 mile east of Bishop Peak Elementary School.California Polytechnic State
University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly), is located approximately 500 feet east, across Highway 1. While the project
would be located within 0.25 mile of Cal Poly, the eastern portion of the school property that is closest to the project
site is developed with experimental agricultural crops. The project site is approximately 0.63 mile from the nearest
educational instruction buildings, and approximately 1.0 mile from the onsite residential dormitory areas.Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
According to the CalEPA Cortese List resources, including the DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases,
there are no hazardous materials sites on or within 1,000 feet of the project site. Based on the local nature and the
existing and historic traffic levels on Stanford Drive, Cuesta Drive, and Westmont Drive, the potential for these
roadways to contain hazardous levels of aerially deposited lead (ADL) is negligible. No known mining activ ities have
occurred within or near the project site and no known use of organochlorinated pesticides have occurred. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
The nearest airport is the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport,located approximately4.5 miles south of the project
site. The project is not located within the boundaries of the airport land use plan and project development would not
adversely impact airport operations. Similarly, airport operations would not result in a substantial safety hazard.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The City has identified goals regarding emergency response plans in its Safety Element. The proposed site
improvements for future development include the creation of fire safety measures, including an emergency access
easement and improved access roads. Project development has the potential to create temporary traffic controls to
residential streets but would not result in street closures that would block emergency access.Future development would
be designed to comply with building and fire code regulations, as well as City requirements for fire safety; therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
According to the City’s Wildland Fire Hazards Map, the project is located within a low wildland fire severity zone and
surrounding land is located within a moderate wildland fire severity zone. The nearest fire station is San Luis Obispo
City Fire Station #2, located approximately 0.56 mile south of the project site on Chorro Street. Emergency response
times for the project site are less than 5 minutes. The project would consist of infill development within an existing
neighborhood and would not substantially increase wildfire risks. The project proposes the development of
improvements for fire hazard safety that include an emergency access easement, upgraded roads,necessary water
connections, removal of non-native vegetation and ornamental and native trees, and other measures identified in
Mitigation Measures WF-1 and WF-2, included in Section 20, Wildfire. The future development of residential
structures would follow CBC and other design regulations for fire hazards. Therefore, people and/or structures would
not be exposed to significant risk and the impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 95
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures WF-1 and WF-2.
Conclusion
The project would not result in the routine transportation or storage of hazardous materials. The project is not located on a known
hazardous waste site and is not within close proximity to a school or airport. Potential impacts related to hazards, including
emergency access and wildfire, would be less than significant.
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
34,35,
41 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the basin?
37, 38,
39 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site;1,41 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
ii.Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-
or offsite;
1, 36,
41 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
iii.Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater
drainage systems or provide substantial additional
sources of polluted runoff; or
1, 35 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows?36 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
d)In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
1,25,
36, 40 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
e)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
37, 38,
39, 41 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic
Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal
Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the Monterey County
line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low-lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo
Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner, Prefumo, and
Item 2
Packet Page 96
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Old Garden Creeks. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, which can also present flood hazards. Because
of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are relatively small, but the steep
slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast-moving flood events in the city. There is an unnamed creek (identified as Twin
Ridge Creek) with associated freshwater forested/shrub wetland and riparian areas located in the western por tion of the project
area.
The City is enrolled in the State General Permit National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit program
governing stormwater. As part of this enrollment, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-
Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary objective of these
PCRs is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable and preventing
stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable
development projects that require approvals and/or permits.
The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1%
chance of occurring in any given year. Based on the City’s interactive Parcel Viewer and Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) map (06079C1066G, effective 11/16/2012), the project site is located within
an area of minimal flooding and the onsite creek is not a 100 -year flood zone hazard.
There is an unnamed creek (identified as Twin Ridge Creek) with associated freshwater forested/shrub wetland and
riparian areas located in the western portion of the project area.
Project improvements propose a 20-foot setback from the riparian edge of the existing vegetation that would reduce
impacts during future development and operation. Proposed project construction requires 4.27 acres of ground
disturbance including 7,900 cy of cut and 4,760 cy of fill, which has the potential to release erosive runoff into the creek
and associated wetland areas that may cause adverse effects to water quality. Parcel improvements require the use of
construction vehicles and equipment that could lead to inadvertent polluted runoff through vehicle leakage or spill. The
project proposes to disturb more than 1 acre of soil and would require the development and implementation of a SWPPP
with BMPs to avoid or reduce erosive or polluted runoff from entering the onsite creek and associated wetland area.
Section 4, Biological Resources, identifies Mitigation Measure BIO-9, which outlines BMPs that would reduce
construction impacts related to polluted or erosive runoff. Project development would be required to comply with the
Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
Future development as a result of the subdivision would include single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs
as potential accessory uses, potential removal of existing trees, and connections to the proposed utility lines. Grading
activity for future development is proposed for current parcel improvements; therefore, it is unlikely that future
development would require more than 1 acre of groundwork and would not likely need to develop and implement a
SWPPP. However, future development would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB PCRs, and
physical improvement of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage
within the City’s watershed. Therefore, with implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-9 during parcel improvements
and compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to violation of water quality standards would be less than
significant with mitigation.
San Luis Obispo is located within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. The Sustainable Groundwater
Management Act (SGMA) requires that high- and medium-priority basins comply with the provisions of the SGMA.
The California Department of Water Resources (DWR) designated the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin as
a high-priority basin, and the City has developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan to comply with SGMA regulations.
The COSE states the urban water planning and usage will use the “most efficient available practices” for water
conservation. The “most efficient available practices” refer to behavior and devices that use the least water for a desired
outcome, considering available equipment, lifecycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of
other agencies.
Based on the 2020 Water Resources Status Report, the City utilizes multiple water sources to meet its water supply
needs. The four primary water sources for the City includes Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Re servoir, Nacimiento
Reservoir, and recycled water; groundwater acts as the City’s fifth supplemental source. The total water available for
Item 2
Packet Page 97
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
the City in 2019 was 10,107 acre-feet per year (AFY). As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and
updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long -term safe yield value for
the purposes of this analysis. The 2020 Water Year (October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020) had a total water demand
of 4,762 AF with 0% of water being supplied by groundwater resources. Compared against the City’s 2019 annual
availability, the City has approximately 5,374 AF of water surplus available to allocate to new beneficial uses within
the city.
The project would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s
water resources. Future residential development will be conditioned to comply with City standards, and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
c.i)Project construction requires 4.27 acres of grading activity, which includes 7,900 cy of cut and 4,760 cy of fill. The
project does not propose alteration of the onsite creek; however, the BRA identified that several areas of grading are
proposed within the creek setback and a rip rap pad at the stormwater retention area is planned adjacent to or within the
creek setback area. Additionally, 13 non-native trees would be removed from the riparian corridor.The project proposes
a 20-foot setback from the creek during proposed improvements. However, due to the amount of ground disturbance
proposed for parcel improvements, there is potential for construction activity and permanent impervious surfaces
associated with future development to temporarily alter onsite drainage patterns and disturb the creek channel, which
could increase runoff on-or offsite. The project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP with BMPs
designed to reduce erosive runoff to surface and other water resources in the area. Mitigation Measure BIO-9 identifies
BMPs that would reduce erosive runoff during project construction. The project would also be required to comply with
Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
The 20-foot setback established during parcel improvements would ensure that future development would not require
work within the onsite stream or associated wetland area. Grading activity for futur e development is proposed for current
parcel improvements; therefore, it is unlikely that future projects would require more than 1 acre of groundwork;
therefore, future development is not likely to substantially alter any existing drainage patterns that would lead to on-or
offsite erosion. Because future development is not anticipated to disturb more than 1 acre of soils, the preparation and
implementation of a SWPPP is not necessary . However, future development would be required to comply with the
Central Coast RWQCB PCRs, and physical improvement of the project site would be required to comply with the
drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring
water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. With implementation of BIO-9 and compliance with
existing regulations, impacts related to erosion and siltation on- or offsite would be less than significant with mitigation.
c.ii–iv) As described in the evaluation above, the project site is not located within a flood zone. However, the proposed parcel
improvements and future development would result in new impervious surface areas that could increase surface water
runoff. Proposed parcel improvements would create a new interio r road that loops from Stanford Drive to Cuesta Drive
ranging from 54 to 60 feet in width,a 17-foot-wide AC bicycle/pedestrian pathway that would also be used as a utility
and drainage easement across Lot 15, and other proposed access and easements. Future development plans are currently
unknown; however, it is anticipated that single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory
uses, could be developed as a result of the subdivision, which would create more impervious surface areas.
Construction of the proposed project and future residential development would result in new development on previously
undeveloped land and would result in an increase of impervious surfaces that would cause the timing and amount of
surface water runoff to increase. Physical improvement of the project site would be required to comply with the drainage
requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water
quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact
Development (LID) stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-development site
drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. In order to comply with these standards, the project
proposes four drainage measures throughout the project site, which include an 85th percentile retention area, a 95th
percentile retention area, and Filterra and Biofiltration treatment.The proposed drainage measures would be
implemented to catch additional surface runoff generated from the project during operation.In addition, the project
would be required to comply with the City’s engineering standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post -
Construction Stormwater Requirements, and adopted building and grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis.
Compliance with these requirements would ensure operational impacts are less than significant and implementation of
Item 2
Packet Page 98
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
BIO-9 would reduce construction-related impacts to potential erosive runoff from alteration of drainage patterns;
therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d)The proposed project site is not located within aflood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone; therefore, the release of pollutants
due to project inundation is not anticipated, and no impacts would occur.
e)The City’s COSE identifies goals and policies for the City’s water needs,including planning and water quality
management. The proposed project and any future development would be conditioned to comply with the COSE water
quality and groundwater management standards (Section 10). As discussed above, parcel improvements and future
development would be compliant with the Central Coast RWQCB PCRs, the City’s Waterways Mana gement Plan and
LID design requirements, and other applicable water quality policies and regulations. The project would be required to
pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s water resources. Future residential
development will be conditioned to comply with City standards, and potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-9.
Conclusion
The proposed project would be subject to City requirements regarding water quality and stormwater runoff. Future residential
structures would be required to comply with the water quality and conservation standards stated in the COSE. The project is not
located within a 100-year flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zone. Therefore, project impacts on hydrology and water quality would
be less than significant.
11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Physically divide an established community?42 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
a) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with
any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose
of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
5, 42 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
The project is zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential) and located in the northern portion of the city. The surrounding land uses
include one- and two-story single-family residential units to the south, east and west, undeveloped residential land to the north,
and CAL FIRE Station #12 to the east.
The proposed project is an infill project and would not have the potential to divide an established community on adjacent
parcels or in the vicinity of the project site.The project is designed to be consistent with existing and developing/planned
surrounding commercial infill development and would not physically divide an established community. Impact s would
be less than significant.
The project site is located within the city of San Luis Obispo and is subject to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan.
The project is zoned R-1 (Low Density Residential), and future residential development would be consistent with the
zoning and required to follow design regulations for the zoning requirement (City Ordinances 17.16 and 17.70). Future
development would be consistent with the COSE and other applicable regulations. Mitigation measures identified
throughout this Initial Study would reduce environmental impacts that could conflict with existing regulations and
ensure that future development would be consistent with applicable land use standards and regulations. Therefore,
project impacts would be less that significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 99
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Mitigation Measures
Implement mitigation measures identified in other sections of this Initial Study.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not divide an established community and identified mitigation measures would ensure future
development is consistent with applicable land use plans. Therefore, no mitigation is necessary, and impacts to land use and
planning would be less than significant.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
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?
5 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
Mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits according to the COSE.
a, b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely
due to the urbanized nature of the area and current restrictions on resource extraction within city limits; therefore, no
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
According to the COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within city limits. The project site is located within the city, and there
would be no impact on mineral resources.
13. NOISE
Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
8, 43,
44, 45 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?45 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Item 2
Packet Page 100
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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?
3 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
As analyzed in the City’s 2014 LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise-sensitive land uses are present within the city, including
various types of residential development, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient
lodging, and places of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the city, major sources of
noise include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights.
Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12, Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction on weekdays between
7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public service utilities
or by exception issued by the City Community Development Department. The City Municipal Code also states that construction
activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum noise levels at
affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA)at single-family residences, 80 dBA at multi-family residences,
and 85 dBA at mixed residential/commercial uses. Based on the City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that
creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a
public space or right-of-way is prohibited.
Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used for demolition and construction projects are shown in Table 3.
Table 3. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA)
50 feet From Source
Backhoe 80
Compactor 80
Concrete Mixer 85
Concrete Pump 82
Dozer 85
Excavator 85
Heavy Truck 84
Paver 85
Scraper 85
The nearest noise sensitive receptors to the project site include existing single-family residential units located adjacent to the site
on the south, west, and east.
Project construction has the potential to increase short-term noise in the surrounding area. Project construction includes
demolition of two existing residential structures onsite, excavation and grading activity, development of a new
connection road, and installation of utility infrastructure and easements. Parcel improvements would be required to
adhere to City Municipal Code Section 22.10.120.A.4, which limits the hours and days of construction equipment use
and seeks to limit construction noise to 85 dBA.Project construction would be conducted in close proximity to
surrounding residential units. The nearest residential unit is located approximately 10 feet from the eastern property
line. In addition, there are residential units to the west and south located within 10 to 15 feet from the property. Due to
the close proximity of nearby residential uses, the proposed demolition and construction project activities have the
potential to periodically exceed the City’s Municipal Code standard for conducting construction activities in such a
manner that prevents noise levels above 75 dBa from reaching residential uses, when technically and economically
Item 2
Packet Page 101
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
feasible. Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 have been identified to reduce the potential for exceedances to occur and
minimize potential temporary construction noise impacts to surrounding residential uses.
Upon completion of construction activities, the project would not include any significant stationary noise sources and
would not result in a substantial increase in vehicle noise that would result in an increase to the ambient noise
environment. However, construction activity for future developments would create short-term noise and would be
required to adhere to City Municipal Code Section 22.10.120.A.4 and other applicable regulations. In addition, future
development would be required to implement Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2 to mitigate noise from development
activities near existing residential units. Operation of the project would be generally consistent with surrounding existing
uses in the project vicinity and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Therefore,
upon implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2, potential impacts associated with generation of a substantial
temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standar ds established
would be less than significant with mitigation.
The project does not propose pile driving or other high impact activities that would generate substantial groundborne
noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment for excavation and other ground
disturbance activity would generate groundborne noise and vibration, but these activities would be limited in duration
and consistent with other standard construction activities and would likely not be substantial enough to be detected by
occupants of surrounding land uses. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The project site is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or an airport land use plan; therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following BMPs shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries shall
be shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall
be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods
installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance
and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise BMPs, and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building
permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior to
commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All construction
workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where
BMP measures are to be implemented.
Conclusion
The project has the potential to periodically exceed City Municipal Code construction and oper ational noise standards for single-
family residential uses. With implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 and N-2, potential impacts associated with temporary
exceedances of local established standards would be less than significant. No other potentially significant impacts associated
with noise were identified, and no additional mitigation measures are necessary.
Item 2
Packet Page 102
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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)?
46 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is the largest city in terms of population in San Luis Obispo County and has grown from 45,119 in
2010 to approximately 48,826 in 2020, according to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report 2020 The City’s
housing tenure is approximately 39% owner-occupied and 61% renter-occupied, which is strongly influenced by California
Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo (Cal Poly) and Cuesta College enrollment. Many segments of the city’s population
have difficulty finding affordable housing within the city due to their economic, physical,or sociological circumstances. San
Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county, and, during workdays, the city’s population increases to an
estimated 70,000 persons.
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an
assessment of the housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include ensuring sa fety
and affordability, conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and
tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable
housing and neighborhood design, maximizing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the city, and
developing housing on suitable sites.The project site is zoned as R-1 (Low Density Residential).
The project proposes a subdivision of one existing parcel into 23 different parcels, which would have the potential to
support single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses. Current proposed parcel
improvements would not create structures that would cause population growth. The proposed construction is consistent
with the General Plan,would improve the City’s jobs-housing balance,and would not create substantial unplanned
population growth. Therefore, impacts to significant population growth would be considered less than significant.
The project proposes demolition of the two existing residential units onsite. However, implementation of the project
would create 23 new parcels that will be developed with single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as
potential accessory uses. Therefore impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The proposed parcel improvements and future development would not substantially increase population growth in the area, nor
would it displace substantial numbers of people or existing housing. Future residential development would be consistent with
the R-1 zone and the City’s General Plan, and potential impacts to population and housing would be less than significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 103
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 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
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection?1, 2,
47,48 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Police protection?1, 2,
47, 48 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Schools?1, 2,
47, 48 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Parks?1, 2,
47, 48,
49
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Other public facilities?1, 2,
47, 48 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The project is located in the western portion of the city, 1.5 miles from the city’s downtown. The City of San Luis Obispo Fire
Department (SLOFD) provides emergency response services for the city, including fire and medical, and is comprised of 57 full-
time employees. The SLOFD operates out of four fire stations in the city, with the nearest station to the project located at City
Fire Station #2, 126 North Chorro Street, near the intersection with Foothill Boulevard. The City of San Luis Obispo Police
Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city and is comprised of 85.5 employees, 59 of which are sworn
police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station,which is located at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of
Santa Rosa Street (Highway 1) and US 101. The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District
(SLCUSD) and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City Department of Parks
and Recreation.
All new residential and nonresidential development within the city is subject to p ayment of development impact fees, which are
administered by and paid through the City Community Development Department. Development impact fees provide funding for
maintaining city emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for
projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment.
Fire protection:The project is located within a low fire severity zone and is under local fire jurisdiction. Fire response
times to the project site are less than 5 minutes and the nearest fire station is City Fire Station #2, located 0.56 mile
away. The project would result in single-family residential uses, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses and
would not lead to a substantial increase in population in the city. Implementation of the project would not result in the
need for construction of new or expanded fire protection facilities. In addition, the project would be subject to
development fees for fire protection, which would offset the emergency access, upgraded roads, and necessary utility
connections; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Police protection:The SLOPD is located 1.4 miles southeast of the project site on Walnut Street. The project proposes
uses generally consistent with the surrounding area,and the proposed level of development would be similar to
surrounding residential development. The project proposes residential infill development and would not result in a
substantial increase in demand on police protection services. The project would result in a slight increase in residents
within the city and would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. The project would not result
in a substantial increase in the number of units or population in the city and would not result in the need for construction
Item 2
Packet Page 104
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
of new or expanded police protection facilities. The project would be required to pay development impact fees
established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development.Therefore, the project impacts
on police protection would be less than significant.
Schools:The project site is located within the SLCUSD and would be subject to payment of SLCUSD develop ment
fees to offset the potential increase in student attendance in the district’s schools as a r esult of the project. These fees
would be directed towards maintaining sufficient service levels, which include incremental increases in school
capacities. The nearest schools are Bishop Peak Elementary School and Pacheco Elementary School,located less than
1 mile southeast and south of the project site, respectively. San Luis Obispo High School is located 2 miles away. Local
schools have the capacity to support additional students that may cumulate from future residential development plans.
Therefore, the project impacts on schools would be less than significant.
Parks:The Patricia Drive entrance to the Bishop Peak Trailhead is located 0.5 miles northwest and Throop Park is
0.4 mile south of the project site. Future development plans for the project site have the potential to facilitate population
growth and slightly increase demand on local parks. The General Plan outlines the importance of public recreation. The
project does not currently propose the development of public parks; however,future population growth induced by
future residential development would be supported by current facilities. The project would be subject to required
developer impact fees (Quimby fees) established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new
development. Therefore, project impacts on parks would be less than significant.
Other public facilities:The project would not induce substantial population growth and would result in a negligible
effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. The project would be subject to the City’s
standard development fees, which would offset the project’s marginal contribution to increased use of City facilities.
Therefore, potential project impacts on public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site has the potential to induce future population growth of a maximum of 23 residential lots, which would be
developed with residential units, consistent with the General Plan. There would not be substantial population growth and City
development fees would offset the increased demand on any necessary public services. Therefore ,project impacts on public
services would be less than significant.
16. RECREATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
48, 49 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
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?
48, 49 ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈
Evaluation
Existing City recreational facilities consist of 28 parks and recreational facilities, 10 designated natural resources and open space
areas, and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element identifies goals, policies,
and programs to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The City’s statement of overall
Item 2
Packet Page 105
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
department goals is for the City Parks and Recreation facilities and programs to enable all citizens to participate in fun, healthful,
or enriching activities that enhance the quality of life in the community.
As demand for recreation facilities and activities grow and change, the City intends to focus its efforts in the following areas:
continuing development of athletic fields and support facilities, providing parks in underserve d neighborhoods, providing a
multi-use community center and therapy pool, expanding paths and trails for recreational use, linking recreation facilities, and
meeting the special needs of disabled persons, at -risk youth, and senior citizens. Parks and Recreation Element Policy 3.13.1
establishes the City’s goal to develop and maintain a park system at the rate of 10 acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, 5 acres
of which shall be dedicated as neighborhood parks.
The Patricia Drive entrance to the Bishop Peak Trailhead is located approximately 0.5 miles northwest and Throop Park
is 0.4 mile south of the project site. Future plans for the project site have the potential to facilitate population growth
and increase demand on local parks. As discussed above, the project would be subject to required development impact
fees established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development. Therefore, project impacts
on parks would be less than significant.
The project does not propose the development of recreational facilities,and possible future development includes
residential development on the 23 residential lots,which would not require the construction or expansion of existing
recreational facilities. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
The project site has the potential to induce future population growth of a maximum 23 residential lots, which would be developed
with residential units, consistent with the General Plan. There would not be substantial population growth and City development
fees would offset the increased demand on any necessary recreational facilities. Therefore, project impacts on recreation would
be less than significant.
17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing
the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and
pedestrian facilities?
1, 15,
21,50 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1,
50, 55 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature
(e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible
uses (e.g. farm equipment)?
1, 50 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d)Result in inadequate emergency access?1, 50,
54 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays on public roadways,
as well as transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future
conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment
Item 2
Packet Page 106
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles; reducing use of cars by
supporting and promoting alternatives such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpool ing; promoting the safe operation
of all modes of transportation;and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects
would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems.
Level of Service (LOS) is a term used to describe the operating conditions of an intersection or roadway based on factors such
as speed, travel time, queuing time, and safety. LOS designations range between A and F, with A representing the best operating
conditions and F the worst. The Circulation Element establishes the minimum acceptable LOS standard for vehicles in the city
as LOS D (except in downtown areas).
The City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan outlines the City’s official policies for the design and development of
infrastructure to support sustainable transportation within the city and in adjoining territory under County of San Luis Obispo
jurisdiction but within the City’s Urban Reserve and includes specific objectives for reducing vehicle use and promoting other
modes.
In 2013 SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with
statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions.”SB 743 required the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for
identifying and mitigating transportation impacts under CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources
Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelin es. The revisions included new requirements related to the
implementation of SB 743 and identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for transportation
analysis under CEQA (as detailed in State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b)). Beginning July 1, 2020, the newly adopted
VMT criteria for determining significance of transportation impacts must be implemented statewide.
SLO Transit operates transit service within the city of San Luis Obispo and San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority
(SLORTA) operates transit service throughout San Luis Obispo County and adjacent areas.The project site is located off
Westmont Avenue from the east and Stanford Drive to the southwest. The project site is approximately 0.08 mile west of Santa
Rosa Street between Foothill Boulevard and the northern City limits. The nearest bus stop is located 0.2 mile away at Highland
Drive and Cuesta Drive.Additional bus stops are located 0.5 mile south along Foothill Boulevard.
In June 2020,the City formally adopted the transition from LOS to VMT for the purposes of CEQA evaluation and also
established local VMT thresholds of significance. Potential CEQA impacts are based on the VMT analysis.
The project site is accessed by Westmont Avenue and Stanford Drive, which are residential streets, and vehicular trips
on these streets are generated by residents.
The proposed project would be consistent with the City’s Circulation Element,which establishes goals and policies for
the City’s circulation system,described in the evaluation above. Future development would have access to several
transit stops less than 0.5 mile away. The project proposes a new 17-foot-wide AC bicycle/pedestrian easement to
promote alternative modes of transportation to and from the site. The proposed project is located approximately
0.56 mile north of dining, grocery, and other commercial buildings that could be reached using alternate modes of
transportation. New development would be consistent with goals and policies described in the City’s Circulation
Element and impacts would be less than significant.
The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial
evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with a
Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day
generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. According to the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 10
th Edition, a single-family residential unit generates
9.44 average daily trips (ADT). The project would create 23 new parcels that could result in the development of single-
family residential uses, with an ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses. Operation of the project may create more
than 110 trips per day; however, based on the City’s Residential VMT Screening Map, the project is located in an area
of the city that would result in average VMT less than or equal to 85% of the reg ional average, meaning a project in
this area would result in VMT generation below the City’s adopted thresholds. Therefore, future potential development
Item 2
Packet Page 107
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
of the project is not anticipated to generate VMT at a rate that is inconsistent with adopted plans and impacts would be
less than significant.
The project proposes the improvements that include a new 54- to 60-foot-wide interior road, emergency access, and
various easements, including a bicycle/pedestrian easement. These potential roadway improvements would be designed
and constructed in compliance with City Public Works Department standards to provide adequate vehicle and
emergency vehicle access to all proposed parcels. The project would not substantially increase hazards due to a
geometric design feature or incompatible uses or result in inadequate emergency access . Therefore, project impacts
would be less than significant.
As mentioned above, the project proposes the implementation of emergency vehicle access that would be with City
Public Works Department standards. The emergency access easement is a proposed improvement as part of the parcel
subdivision and would be completed prior to any potential residential development. Therefore, there would be adequate
access for emergency services and project impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
No mitigation is required.
Conclusion
Potential future infill development of residential uses at the project site would not result in a reduction in LOS on surrounding
intersections and would be consistent with State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.3(b) regarding VMT. Any future development
at the project site would be required to meet City Public Works Department safety design standards and would maintain adequate
emergency access. Therefore, no potentially significant impacts related to transportation would occur, and no mitigation
measures are necessary.
18. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources
Code Section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, or cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and
scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to
a California Native American tribe, and that is: Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code Section 5020.1(k)?
17, 18,
19, 59 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1? In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
17, 18,
19, 59 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1. Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe
that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR; or
Item 2
Packet Page 108
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of California PRC Section
5020.1.
2. A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of California PRC Section 5024.1. In applying these criteria for the
purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native
American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise with regard to their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have requested
notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead
agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources as a result of a project.
Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal
cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternatives
and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources. The City has
provided notice of the opportunity to consult with appropriate tribes per the requirements of AB 52 and received correspondence
from Patti Dunton, Tribal Administrator of the Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito Counties. The
correspondence included a request to have all ground disturbing activities for the project monitored by a cultural resource
specialist from their tribe. No other responses from California Native American tribes have been received as of the date of this
document.
a.i, ii.) As discussed in the evaluation above, the City received one response from the Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo,
Monterey, and San Benito Counties in accordance with AB 52. The tribe requested that a cultural resource specialist
from their tribe monitor all ground disturbing activities approved with the project. The request for onsite monitoring has
been included as a mitigation measure with the project as TC-1. No additional consultation was requested from the
Salinan Tribe of San Luis Obispo, Monterey, and San Benito Counties beyond this request. There have been no other
responses from Native American tribes in accordance with AB 52 as of the date of this draft. Therefore, impacts
associated with tribal resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been identified to address the potential for inadvertent discovery of cultural
resources and require cultural resource awareness training and cessation of work area if a discovery is made until a
qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find. Therefore, impacts related to a substantial adverse change
in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
TC-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan Tribe shall be notified prior to
any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface
earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a 25 -foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified
immediately consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2.
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, CR-2, and TC-1, impacts to tribal cultural resources would be less than
significant.
Item 2
Packet Page 109
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water drainage,
electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the
construction or relocation of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
1 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
a) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and
reasonably foreseeable future development during normal, dry,
and multiple dry years?
39, 51 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
47, 60 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
c) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in
excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise
impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
52, 53 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction
statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 52, 53 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
The City Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the community,
and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facil ity
(WRRF) treats all wastewater from the city, Cal Poly, and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, which includes
4.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established
by the SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater. A portion of the
treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
The City utilizes San Luis Garbage as a licensed waste hauler for residential and commercial solid waste removal. Solid waste
collected from the city is taken to Cold Canyon Landfill, which is a modern municipal solid waste disposal facility that is
permitted by California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery (CalRecycle) and meets state and local rules and
regulations. The landfill disposes of non-hazardous solid waste.
For water needs, parcel improvements propose connecting to the existing water line on Stanford Drive and looping it
around to Cuesta Drive and a connection from Westmont Avenue will connect to Cuesta Drive through a proposed
17 foot-wide- easement of Lot 15. For sewer needs, parcel improvements propose connecting to the existing sewer line
on Stanford Drive and also proposes an additional line connecting to Cuesta Drive. Lots 17 and 18 would use the
existing sewer main on Westmont Avenue. The project proposes easements throughout the project site for additional
utility connections and relocation of existing ones. Parcel improvements propose PG&E easements for electricity needs.
Proposed drainage easements would occur across Lots 4, 15, and 19–23. Proposed drainage measures for the project
include an 85th percentile retention area, a 95th percentile retention area, and Filterra and Biofiltration treatment system
to capture surface runoff produced during project operation. Future development would require individual connections
to the proposed utility lines.
These new utility components and associated easements would have the potential to result in noise and dust emissions
in proximity to sensitive receptor locations, such as single-family residences. There would also be the potential for
discovery of subsurface cultural resources during proposed utility work. Excavation and other ground-disturbing
activity has the potential to release erosive or pollutant runoff to the onsite creek and associated wetland area. Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5, BIO-1 through BIO-9, CR-1 and CR-2, N-1 and N-2, and TC_1 would reduce
Item 2
Packet Page 110
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from installation and establishment of new utility connections
associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, and noise, respectively,to less than significant.
Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction or extension of existing utilities would be less
than significant with mitigation.
The project would be serviced by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources, including the Whale
Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation), with groundwater serving
as a fifth supplemental source. As of 2015, the City no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes. The project is
not within the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan Area and therefore recycled water is not available for irrigation use.
As of November 2019, both the Salinas and Whale Rock Reservoirs are above 85% storage capacity and Nacimiento
Reservoir is at 45% storage capacity.
San Luis Obispo is located within the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. The SGMA requires that high-and
medium-priority basins comply with the new law; the DWR designated the San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin
as a high-priority basin. The City has developed a Groundwater Sustainability Plan to comply with SGMA regulations.
The COSE states the urban water planning and usage will use the “most efficient available practices”for water
conservation. The “most efficient available practices”refer to behavior and devices that use the least water for a desired
outcome, considering available equipment, lifecycle costs, social and environmental side effects, and the regulations of
other agencies.
Based on the 2020 Water Resources Status Report, the City utilizes multiple water sources to meet its water supply
needs. The four primary water sources for the City includes Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento
Reservoir, and recycled water; groundwater acts as the City’s fifth supplemental source. The total water available for
the City in 2020 was 10,107 AFY. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s
safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this
analysis. The 2020 Water Year (October 1, 2019 to September 30, 2020) had a total water demand of 4,730 AF with
0% of water being supplied by groundwater resources. Compared against the City’s 2020 annual availability, the City
has approximately 5,377 AF of water surplus available to allocate to new beneficial uses within the city.
The project would be required to pay development impact fees to offset the project’s marginal impact on the City’s
water resources. Future residential development will be conditioned to comply with City standards, and potential
impacts would be less than significant.
The proposed project would create new parcels that range from 6,000 to 24,000 sf each. According to the City’s
Wastewater Generation Rates per Use Table, residential units have to potential to generate 45 to 150 gallons of
wastewater per day based on size of the dwelling unit. Specific development plans have not been identified; however,
there is potential for up to 23 new single-family residential units, with ADUs and JADUs as potential accessory uses,
to result from the proposed project. According to the City’s wastewater generation rates, a typical single-family
residence would generate approximately 150 gallons of wastewater per day and an ADU would generate approximately
105 gallons of wastewater per day. (JADUs are connected to single-family residences and are included with that rate.)
The project has the potential to generate approximately 5,865 gallons of wastewater per day. The City treats about 4.5
million gallons of wastewater per day according to standards set forth by the SWRCB. The WRRF operates in an
efficient manner to comply with federal, State, and local discharge requirements. This additional wastewater generation
would not result in a significant load on the City’s sewer infrastructure or the WRRF . Additionally, impact fees are
collected at the time building permits are issued to accommodate the project’s contribution to the City’s WRRF capacity.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Grading and other ground-disturbing activity has the potential to temporarily increase solid waste generation. Soil and
other waste that results from ground-disturbing activity would be disposed of according to applicable standards and
would not lead to the generation of excessive waste.
The proposed project has the potential to create up to 23 new single-family residential units, with ADUs and JADUs as
potential accessory uses, that would produce solid waste. According to the CalRecycle Estimated Solid Waste
Generation Rates Table, residential units generate approximately 12.23 pounds of solid waste per day.CalRecycle does
not include specific rates for ADUs; however, it can be assumed that based on the size of ADUs as compared to single-
family residential units, that ADUs produce solid waste at rates more similar to multi-family dwellings, which produce
Item 2
Packet Page 111
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
approximately 4 pounds per day. (JADUs are connected to single-family residences and are included with that rate.)
Therefore, the project would produce approximately 373.29 pounds of solid waste per day. Future residential
development would include provision of solid waste and recycling receptacles that would be serviced by San Luis
Garbage and brought to Cold Canyon Landfill, which has approximately 13,100,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity
as of February 2020 and is expected to reach capacity in 2040. Cold Canyon Landfill is compliant with State and local
rules and regulations regarding solid waste and potential future residential development would be required to adhere to
the standards set forth in the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services for trash, green waste, and
recycling. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Solid waste is disposed of at Cold Canyon Landfill, which follows State and local rules and regulations regarding solid
waste. The potential future residential development would be required to adhere to the standards set forth in the City’s
Development Standards for Solid Waste Services for trash, green waste, and recycling.Therefore, the impacts would
be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5,BIO-1 through BIO-9,CR-1 and CR-2,N-1 and N-2, and TC-1.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5,BIO-1 through BIO-9,CR-1 and CR-2,N-1 and N-2,and
TC-1,potential impacts to utilities and service systems would be less than significant.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as
very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan?25, 54 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b)Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate
wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to,
pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled
spread of a wildfire?
1, 25,
54, 56,
57
܆ ܈ ܆
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire
risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the
environment?
1, 25,
54, 56,
57
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of
runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 25,
54, 56,
57
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
Evaluation
Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities
they contain. Additional factors are access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for firefighters. Based on the
City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where development meets rural areas
of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within 1 mile of a designated high or very high fire hazard severity zone,
which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.
܆
Item 2
Packet Page 112
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
The Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, includ ing approving
development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland fire hazard
severity zones as prescribed by CAL FIRE, prohibition of new subdivisions located within “very high” wildland fire hazard
severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
According to the City’s Safety Element Maps, the project is located within a low fire hazard severity zone. The project site is
surrounded by developed residential areas to the north, west, and south that are also designated as a low fire hazard severity zone.
The area of land located to the east of the project is designated as a moderate fire hazard severity zone and Bishop Peak located
0.5-mile northwest is designated as a high fire hazard severity zone. In addition, the project site is not located within a State
Responsibility Area (SRA).
The project proposes infill development within an existing residential neighborhood. Implementation of the proposed
project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans. No breaks in utility service or road closures would occur as a result of project
implementation; therefore, the project would not substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or evacuation
plan and impacts would be less than significant.
The Safety Element describes the project area and immediate land as low and moderate wildland fire risk. The nearest
high wildland fire risk is located 0.5 miles northwest at Bishop Peak. Fire response times are less than 5 minutes for
this project location and City Fire Station #2 is located approximately 0.56 mile south of the project site. The General
Plan states that development shall only be approved when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available
or will be made concurrent with development. Parcel upgrades include emergency access, upgraded roads, and
necessary utility connections.
San Luis Obispo has an average wind speed of approximately 7 miles per hour. The project site is located on land that
is characterized as gently sloping and would not increase fire risk due to hazardous slopes onsite. Parcel improvements
propose to remove multiple ornamental trees and vegetation from the project site that would reduce wildfire hazard.
Future residential structures built on the upgraded parcels would be conditioned to comply with building and fire code
regulations as well as City requirements for fire safety.
In order to manage wildfire risk associated with placing residents in close proximity to moderate and high fire hazard
severity areas, a Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan for the project site has been identified in Mitigation Measure WF-1.
Additionally, a Wildland Fire Protection Report by James A. Neumann identifies mitigation measures to further reduce
wildland fire hazards to future development and is described in Mitigation Measure WF-2. Therefore,with
implementation of Mitigation Measures WF-1 and WF-2, impacts would be considered less than significant with
mitigation.
The proposed improvements to the project site include a new emergency access road, road upgrades, and necessary
utility connections. Additionally, future residential developments would also be required to comply with CBC
regulations for fire safety and to reduce fire risk. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
The project area is not located within an area with substantial risk for flooding or landslides. Improvements made to the
project site for the proposed subdivision and future development of residential structures will be required to comply
with CBC regulations for fire safety and stability.The project does not include any design elements that would expose
people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff,
post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the applicant shall provide a
vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered professional forester or certified arborist for each lot.
The plan shall identify fuel load reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase
defensible space around residential structures and driveways/access roads. The pl an shall also identify appropriate
standards for installation of new landscaping, such as requirements for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
Item 2
Packet Page 113
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 59 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
WF-2 Additional Fire Hazard Reductions. Future development would incorporate the following fire reduction methods
identified by the 2020 Wildland Fire Protection Report (Neumann) to reduce wildland fire risk:
1. Rain gutters, when not adequately maintained, will collect leaf material which becomes a receptive fuel
bed for embers and sparks and can then transmit fire underneath the non-combustible roof materials. Rain
gutters should be protected by noncombustible leaf shields or not allowed.
2. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for only non-combustible fences and decks in the
subdivision.
3. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for fire resistant landscaping in the back yards of the
subdivision.
4. Require enclosed eves on all structures within the subdivision.
5. Install fireproof vents on all structures (fire-rated, flame and ember resistant).
6. Working with the biologist, remove the non-native vegetation in the creek, riparian area, to reduce the fuel
load.
7. Install a non-combustible wall (block or steel stud /stucco) wall 36 inches in height all around the northern
perimeter of the subdivision. The wall shall begin at the westernmost property line and continue to the 20-
foot setback at the west side of the creek and shall continue beginning at the 20-foot setback at the east
side of the creek, terminating at the property line of CAL FIRE Station #12. The purpose of this wall is to
interrupt fire progression from the north onto the proposed lots without obstructing the very desirable view
of the open space.
Conclusion
The project is located 0.5 mile away from a high wildland fire hazard zone and could expose people or structures to new or
exacerbated wildfire risks. The development of new and/or expanded infrastructure and maintenance to reduce wildfire risks is
proposed along with parcel improvements to the project site . Mitigation Measures WF-1 and WF-2 would reduce wildland fire
risk. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire would be less than significant with mitigation.
21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant
or animal community, substantially reduce the number or
restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of California
history or prehistory?
N/A ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
The project would allow for the future development of up to 23 new residential units with ADUs and JADUs as accessory uses
within the project site and would result in the removal of several trees. Mitigation measures BIO-1 through BIO-7 identified in
Section 4, Biological Resources, are included to minimize potential impacts to native plants and wildlife species during project
construction. Specifically, Mitigation Measure BIO-8 through BIO-11 would reduce impacts to aquatic resources onsite.
Mitigation Measures CR-1 and CR-2 have been included to require awareness training be conducted fo r all construction crew
members so that cultural resources can be recognized if unearthed during site disturbance activities and to require work be halted
in the event of an unanticipated discovery until a qualified archaeologist can assess the significance of the find and identify the
appropriate protocol for properly responding to the inadvertent discovery. TC-1 requires a native American monitor to be present
Item 2
Packet Page 114
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 60 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
during ground disturbance to identify unknown tribal cultural resources. With implementation of the recommended mitigation
measures, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
N/A ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
When project impacts are considered along with, or in combination with, other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s
potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project to reduce project-
related impacts to a less-than-significant level. Based on implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and
the relatively limited number and extent of potential impacts, the cumulative effects of the proposed project would not be
cumulatively considerable and would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality and noise that could result in substantial
adverse effects on human beings. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-5 and N-1 and N-2 have been identified to reduce
these potential impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures,
preparation of a geologic investigation for asbestos, and implementation of noise control measures. With implementation of the
mitigation measures identified in this Initial Study, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly
result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings, and this impact would be less than significant with mitigation.
Item 2
Packet Page 115
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 61 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
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. Project Plans, Parcel Map, September 2020
2. Project Plans, Project Description, April 2020
3. City of San Luis Obispo Interactive Parcel Viewer, January 2015
4. Kevin Merk Associates, LLC (KMA), 468 Westmont Avenue, San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California
(Assessor’s Parcel Number 052-496-001) Biological Resources Assessment, August 2020
5. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE), 2006.
6. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Scenic Highways, February 2017
7. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
8. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019
9. California Department of Conservation (DOC) Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, 2018
10. California Department of Conservation (DOC) Land Conservation Act of 1965: San Luis Obispo County, 2006
11. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), County Attainment Status, 2019
12. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook, April 2012
(revised November 2017)
13. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Clean Air Plan, December 2001
Item 2
Packet Page 116
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 62 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
14. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool,
2020
15. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan, 2021
16. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map, 2019
17. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory Map, 2019
18. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), California Natural Community Conservation Plans Map 2019
19. Historic Properties in San Luis Obispo, California (A SLO Story Map ), accessed January 2021
20. San Luis Obispo Historic Preservation Program Guidelines 2010
21. San Luis Obispo Transit 2019-20120 User Guide, June 17, 2019
22. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2020
23. California Building Code, 2019
24. California Department of Conservation (CDOC) Fault Activity Map of California, 2010
25. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, 2014
26. U.S., Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California, Accessed January 2021
27. U.S. Department of the Interior Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, 2019
28. California Department of Conservation (DOC), Soil Web Survey 2020
29. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California, 2004
30. California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC), Envirostor Accessed January 2021
31. State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), Geotracker Accessed January 2021
32. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA), Cortese List Data Resources Accessed January 2021
33. San Luis Obispo 2016 Community Greenhouse Gas Emissions Inventory Update 2019
34. SLO Watershed Project, San Luis Obispo Creek Description, 2014
35. SLO Stormwater Website 2020
36. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood Hazard Layer (NFHL) Viewer, accessed January
2021
37. California Department of Water Resources (DWR) Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA) Groundwater
Management, Webpage, 2019
38. County of San Luis Obispo San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin, Webpage, 2019
Item 2
Packet Page 117
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 63 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
39. City of San Luis Obispo 2019 Water Resources Status Report. August 2019.
40. California Department of Conservation (DOC) Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis
Quadrangle, 2009
41. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin, 2019
42. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use Element 2014
43. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, 1996
44. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges, Federal Highway Administration,
September 2017
45. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. California Department of Transportation
(Caltrans). September 2013. Available at: <http://website.dot.ca.gov/env/noise/docs/tcvgm-sep2013.pdf>.
46. City of San Luis Obispo 2014–2019 General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
47. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report, 2020
48. City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department Development Impact Fees, 2018
49. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, 2001
50. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element, October 2017
51. City of San Luis Obispo 2020 Water Resources Status Report, 2020
52. Estimated Solid Waste Generation Rates, California Department of Resources, Recycling, and Recovery
(CalRecycle), accessed November 2019
53. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc., California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery
(CalRecycle), Accessed August, 2020
54. San Luis Obispo Local Hazard Mitigation Plan 2006
55. San Luis Obispo Residential VMT Screening Map. 2020
56. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE) Fire Hazard Severity Zones Maps, San Luis
Obispo County, March 2009
57. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code. 15.04. Construction and Fire Prevention Regulations. 2019
58. Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR), SB 743 Technical Advisory, April 2018
59. Joslin, Terry; Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants (CCARC), Cultural Resources Survey of the
Westmont Avenue Project, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California, February 2020
60. City of San Luis Obispo Wastewater Generation Rates Per Use Table. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-offset-
program.
Item 2
Packet Page 118
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 64 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
61. City of San Luis Obispo Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. June 2020.
62. SWCA 2021 Aquatic Resources Delineation Report. January 2021.
Attachments
1. Project Location Map
2. Proposed Project Plans
3. Biological Report
Item 2
Packet Page 119
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 65 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 Idling Control Techniques. During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the applicant shall
implement the following idling control techniques:
1. Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors for Both On- and Off-Road Equipment.
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if
feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative-fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction
site.
2. California Diesel Idling Regulations. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with 13 CCR 2485. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight
ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California- and
non-California-based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air
conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper
berth for greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit.
The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 Particulate Matter Control Measures. During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the applicant
shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading
and building plans:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving
the site and from exceeding the SLOAPCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater t han 3 minutes in any 60-
minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles
per hour (mph). Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil
binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
Item 2
Packet Page 120
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 66 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least
2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with
California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114.
10. “Track out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of
motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as
described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code (CWC) Section 13304. To prevent track
out, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors, and others to use them. Install
and operate a “track-out prevention device” where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved
streets. The track-out prevention device can be any device or combination of devices that are effective
at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble
strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked-
out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified.
11. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons whose responsibility is to ensure any
fugitive dust emissions do not result in a nuisance and to enhance the implementation of the mitigation
measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints and reduce visible emissions below the SLOAPCD’s
limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress (for example, wind-blown dust could
be generated on an open dirt lot). The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to
the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition (Contact
Tim Fuhs at 805-781-5912).
AQ-3 Geologic Evaluation. Prior to initiation of ground-disturbing activities, the applicant shall retain a registered
geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property, including sampling and testing for NOA in full
compliance with SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105). This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community
Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have
the potential to disturb NOA, the applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
AQ-4 Naturally Occurring Asbestos Control Measures. If NOA are determined to be present onsite, proposed
earthwork, demolition, and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various
regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (17 CCR 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP; 40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Section 61, Subpart M – Asbestos).
These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
AQ-5 Asbestos-Containing Material. Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the applicant shall provide an asbestos
report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. If ACM are determined to be present, at least 10
working days prior to any demolition work the applicant shall provide notification to SLOAPCD of such work.
The notification shall include an asbestos report that was prepared by a certified asbestos consultant. ACM
removal and disposal shall follow the requirements of the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants Regulation (NESHAP) Subpart M and of the SLOAPCD.
Item 2
Packet Page 121
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 67 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated onto Final Map and project grading / building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 Implement a Rare Plant Mitigation Program that ensures no net loss of Cambria morning glory on the
project site. Prior to any tract improvements, a Rare Plant Mitigation Program shall be implemented for Cambria
morning glory and shall be overseen by a qualified botanist approved by the City. As a component of the program,
seed shall be collected from Cambria morning glory plants during the appropriate season prior to tract grading
activities. Using standard procedures, the qualified botanist shall clean and store the seeds until the receiving sites
shown on the project plans are ready. Suitable habitat of 2,180 square-feet in size outside of the development area
(as designated on the site plans in the creek setback zone) shall be designated as the mitigation site that will be
maintained in a natural state and not be subject to mowing earlier than June 1 each year. The areas will be
maintained as grassland habitat and no planting of ornamental species or other adverse modifications (such as
grazing activities) will be allowed. The mitigation site shown on the project plans is twice the size as the areas
currently occupied by the rare plant occurrences (2,180 square-feet of habitat created for 1,076 square-feet of
habitat impacted). This equates to a 2:1 mitigation ratio (habitat created to habitat impacted) to ensure a minimum
1:1 replacement ratio is achieved. Topsoil from each of the four occurrences will be collected in 6-inch lifts and
stored for top-dressing the mitigation site once grading of the pads is complete. As needed, the mitigation site
should be prepared for planting by removal of non-native species or other measures as necessary, then applying
the salvaged topsoil. Once topsoil has been layered evenly through the area, collected seed should be hand-
broadcasted into suitable locations by the qualified botanist and covered with compost. Seed may also be
incorporated into the native erosion control seed mix described in the Native Erosion Control Seed Mix table
under Mitigation Measure BIO-9 and applied to other grassy areas of the site as part of the erosion control effort.
Depending on the season when construction starts, the qualified botanist may also potentially salvage plants (i.e.,
dig them up when soils are moist) and transplant them to containers to be maintained until the mitigation sites are
ready for planting.
BIO-2 Conduct annual monitoring and implement adaptive management measures for 5 years to ensure no net
loss of Cambria morning glory onsite. The Rare Plant Mitigation Program shall include annual monitoring and
maintenance of the mitigation site to ensure success of the program. Monitoring by a qualified botanist shall occur
during the spring growing season (between April 15 and May 15 each year) to ensure successful establishment of
planted propagules. The established rare plants shall be mapped to evaluate the goal of no net loss of the species
onsite. The measurable objective shall be to have at least 1,076 sf of occurrence comprised of approximately 300
Cambria morning glory plants. Appropriate vegetation sampling techniques shall be used to assess the areal cover
of vegetation to evaluate the status of the established occurrences. If the success criteria of having approximately
300 plants covering 1,076 sf within the creek setback zone is not reached by the third year of monitoring, remedial
actions such as collecting more seed and distributing it in suitable areas should be employed, with a corresponding
additional year of monitoring. Other activities to increase the success of the rare plant mitigation effort could
include non-native plant species removal within the mitigation site to reduce competition, additional seed
application, or supplemental irrigation during periods of prolonged drought. The qualified botanist shall prepare
annual reports for the applicant detailing the methods and results of the mitigation effort and monitoring effort.
The applicant shall be responsible for submitting the report to the City on an annual basis (by December 31 of
each year) for the 5-year monitoring period or until the final success criteria described above are met.
BIO-3 To the extent feasible, avoid initial site grading in the winter months. The burrowing owl has been recorded
in the vicinity of the project from October to the end of April. If initial vegetation removal and site grading for
the tract improvements is conducted outside of this period, potential effects on this species would be avoided and
no further mitigation would be required. Restricting the time period for earth-moving activities is also required to
avoid or minimize the potential for erosion and sedimentation (see Mitigation Measure BIO-9). If initial grading
work must commence during the time period that burrowing owls may be present onsite, preconstruction surveys
for this species shall be included in the survey effort described in Mitigation Measure BIO-4 prior to vegetation
removal or tract improvements.
Item 2
Packet Page 122
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 68 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
BIO-4 Conduct a preconstruction survey and avoid construction in areas occupied by special-status wildlife
species until relocated or they have left the site. Within 7 days prior to the start of vegetation/tree removal,
ground-disturbing activities, or demolition of existing structures, a biologist approved by the City shall survey
the project impact area to identify whether nesting birds, roosting bats, monarch butterfly overwintering
populations, obscure bumble bee, and/or California legless lizard are present on site. A separate survey shall be
conducted for any phase of the project not conducted concurrently or within 10 days of cessation of the previous
phase (i.e., structure demolition conducted prior to general site grading). The biologist shall use appropriate
survey techniques for the special-status species identified in the 2020 BRA as having potential to occur onsite.
For example, burrows shall be examined with binoculars or wildlife cameras, and inspected for whitewash or
prey remains. Leaf litter and cover objects shall be searched for northern California legless lizards. Potential bat
roost sites shall be inspected for sign of roosting bats such as guano or prey remains. If any of these species are
found onsite, the biologist shall coordinate with the City, and CDFW as appropriate, on methods to ensure the
successful relocation of individuals to suitable habitat nearby. In some cases, CDFW may recommend creating
structures for displaced woodrats and bats. Burrowing owls can be discouraged from using burrows onsite, or
occupied burrows can be avoided until the owls have left the area. Bats can be restricted from roost sites by
placing netting over their entrances after they have left the roost for night-time foraging. The wildlife protection
measures to be employed will be based on the results of the survey and the particular characteristics of their use
of the site, in coordination with CDFW and the construction engineer. If no special-status animal species are
found onsite during the preconstruction survey, work may proceed with the implementation of the following
Mitigation Measures BIO-5 through BIO-7.
BIO-5 Prepare and present a Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to any vegetation removal or tract
improvements, a qualified biologist shall prepare a Worker Environmental Awareness Program that will be
presented to all project personnel. This program shall detail measures to avoid and minimize impacts on biological
resources. It shall include a description of special-status species potentially occurring on the project site and their
natural history, the status of the species and their protection under environmental laws and regulations, and the
penalties for take. Recommendations shall be given as to actions to avoid take should a special-status species be
found on the project site. Other aspects of the training shall include a description of general measures to protect
wildlife, including:
1. Delineation of the allowable work area, staging areas, access points, and limits to vehicle access;
2. Storage of all pipes, metal tubing, or similar materials stored or stacked on the project site for one or
more overnight periods shall be either securely capped before storage or thoroughly inspected for
wildlife before the materials are moved, buried, capped, or otherwise used.
3. Inspection of materials stored onsite, such as lumber, plywood, and rolls of silt fence, for wildlife that
may have sheltered under or within the materials;
4. Use of netting to exclude birds from nesting in construction materials;
5. Construction of escape ramps in all excavations and trenches more than 6 inches deep;
6. Contact information for the City-approved biologist and instructions should any wildlife species be
detected in the work site;
7. Dust suppression methods during construction activities when necessary to meet air quality standards
and protect biological resources; and
8. Methods for containment of food-related trash items (e.g., wrappers, cans, bottles, food scraps), small
construction debris (e.g., nails, bits of metal and plastic), and other human generated debris (e.g.,
cigarette butts) in animal-proof containers and removal from the site on a weekly basis.
All project personnel who have attended the training shall sign an attendance sheet. The program shall be repeated
for any new crews that arrive subsequently on the site.
BIO-6 Install high-visibility construction and silt fence along the creek corridor to delineate the allowable work
area, exclude wildlife from the site, and protect the stream habitat. Prior to vegetation removal or tract
improvements, and during subsequent residential development for Lots 1-7, a high-visibility construction fence
at least 4 feet tall together with a silt fence, or an approved wildlife exclusion fence, shall be erected along the
Item 2
Packet Page 123
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 69 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
creek corridor to delineate the limits of grading and vehicle access. If possible, the fence shall be erected along
the creek setback line, and encroachment into the setback shall be kept at a minimum. In no case shall ground
disturbance occur within the riparian habitat or below the top of bank without obtaining proper permits from
regulatory agencies. The type of fence used may be a combination of wildlife exclusion and silt fence (i.e., ERTEC
Triple-function E-fence) or similar materials that would serve the purposes of safety/construction area delineation,
wildlife exclusion, and siltation prevention. The fence shall be checked weekly by construction personnel for
needed maintenance.
BIO-7 Conduct biological monitoring for special-status wildlife species while the property is cleared and graded,
and structures are removed. A qualified biologist shall monitor the removal of structures, materials, and
vegetation that may provide cover for obscure bumble bee, northern California legless lizards, and bat roosting
sites. The biologist shall be onsite daily until all materials are removed and all vegetation has been cleared. If any
special-status species are found, work shall be delayed until the individuals have left the work area or CDFW
shall be notified to obtain authorization for capture and relocation.
BIO-8 Avoid vegetation removal within the riparian habitat during the overwintering season . Vegetation removal
within the riparian area shall be conducted outside of the overwintering season for monarch butterfly (late October
through February) and obscure bumble bee (late October through January) to avoid disturbance to species
potentially inhabiting riparian vegetation.
BIO-9 Install erosion and sediment BMPs and revegetate graded areas. The following erosion and sedimentation
control BMPs are required to be implemented during vegetation removal, tract improvements, during individual
lot construction, and after the construction phases of the project:
1. If possible, the potential for erosion and sedimentation shall be minimized by scheduling construction to
occur outside of the rainy season, which is typically defined as October 15 through April 15. Adherence
to this measure would also serve as avoidance for the burrowing owl, as described in Mitigation Measure
BIO-3.
2. To minimize site disturbance, all construction related equipment shall be restricted to established roads,
construction areas, and other designated staging areas. The creek setback zone shall be clearly marked
as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6.
3. Prior to any site disturbance during tract improvements or individual lot construction, a Sediment and
Erosion Control Plan shall be prepared by a qualified engineer. The use of silt fence, straw wattles,
erosion control blankets, straw bales, sandbags, fiber rolls, and other appropriate techniques should be
employed to protect the drainage features on and off the property. Biotechnical approaches using native
vegetation shall be used as feasible. All areas with soil disturbance shall have appropriate erosion
controls and other stormwater protection BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. All sediment and
erosion control measures shall be installed per the engineer’s requirements prior to the initiation of site
grading if planned to occur within the rainy season.
4. Spill kits shall be maintained on the site, and a Spill Response Plan shall be in place.
5. No vehicles or equipment shall be refueled within 100 feet of wetland areas, riparian habitat and/or
drainage features, and refueling areas shall have a spill containment system installed. No vehicles or
construction equipment shall be stored overnight within 100 feet of these areas unless drip pans or ground
covers are used. All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure
proper operation and to avoid potential leaks or spills. Construction staging areas shall be located in a
location where spills would not drain into aquatic habitats.
6. No concrete washout shall be conducted on the site outside of an appropriate containment system.
Washing of equipment, tools, etc. should not be allowed in any location where the tainted water could
enter onsite drainages.
7. The use of chemicals, fuels, lubricants, or biocides shall be in compliance with all local, state, and federal
regulations. All uses of such compounds shall observe label and other restrictions mandated by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, California Department of Food and Agriculture, and other state and
federal legislation.
Item 2
Packet Page 124
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 70 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
8. All project-related spills of hazardous materials within or adjacent to the project site should be cleaned
up immediately.
9. All areas with soil disturbance shall have appropriate erosion controls and other stormwater protection
BMPs installed to prevent erosion potential. Silt fencing, erosion control blankets, straw bales, sandbags,
fiber rolls, and/or other types of materials prescribed on the plan shall be implemented to prevent erosion
and sedimentation. Biotechnical approaches using native vegetation shall be used as feasible.
10. Areas with disturbed soils shall be restored under the direction of the project engineer in consultation
with a qualified restoration ecologist as detailed above. Methods may include recontouring graded areas
to blend in with existing natural contours, covering the areas with salvaged topsoil containing native
seedbank from the site, and/or applying the native seed mix as described in the table below. Native seed
mix shall be applied to the graded areas in the creek setback area through either direct hand seeding or
hydroseeding methods. Seeding with the native erosion control seed mix should be provided on all
disturbed soil areas prior to the onset of the rainy season (by October 15).
Native Erosion Control Seed Mix
Species Application Rate
(lbs/acre)
California Brome (Bromus carinatus) 10
purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) 5
tomcat clover (Trifolium wildenovii) 5
six weeks fescue (Vulpia microstachys) 5
Total 25
BIO-10 Obtain necessary permits for impacts in jurisdictional areas, implement a compensatory mitigation
program, and monitor the success of the program to ensure no net loss of Riparian/Wetland habitat or
other waters on the subject property. Prior to any vegetation removal or site disturbance within the areas
delineated as jurisdictional features (Figure 5, Aquatic Resources Delineation 2021), the applicant shall provide
documentation to the City that a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from USACE, a Clean Water Act Section
401 Water Quality Certification from RWQCB, and a California Fish and Game Code Section 1602 Lake and
Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW have been obtained or have been determined by the regulatory
agencies to not be required.
If regulatory permits are required, prior to the initiation of vegetation removal or tract improvements, the applicant
shall retain a qualified biological monitor to ensure compliance with all Clean Water Act and CDFW permit
requirements during work adjacent to the creek. The monitor shall be present during the installation of the
construction fencing delineating the limits of work in relation to the edge of riparian, creek top of bank, and 20-
foot creek setback buffer, as described in Mitigation Measure BIO-6. Since the Cambria morning glory
compensatory mitigation site is to be located within this buffer, the monitor shall direct appropriate wildlife
exclusion and erosion control BMPs to protect riparian habitat during site preparation for planting. The monitor
shall be present during construction of the rip rap pad and any other work within the creek setback area on
stormwater structures. The monitor shall also oversee removal of non-native tree species and site preparation for
tree planting within the setback. If a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) is required by the
regulatory agencies, the applicant shall provide a copy of the plan to the City and the biological monitor shall be
responsible for successful implementation of the plan.
BIO-11 Record a Biological Easement and Biological Easement Agreement protecting riparian area: A Biological
Easement and Biological Easement Agreement shall be recorded in conjunction with the final map recordation.
The easement agreement shall be developed by the applicant in a format provided by the City. The following
activities are permitted within the biological easement, subject to the review and approval by the City
Sustainability and Natural Resources Official:
1. Stormwater improvements.
Item 2
Packet Page 125
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 71 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
2. Removal of non-native trees.
3. Restoration and creek bank stabilization activities.
No future paving or structures shall be permitted within the biological easement. Creek setback standards shall
be applied to the easement area, consistent with municipal code requirements.
Monitoring Program: These conditions and measures shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and construction plans.
The City Community Development Department and Natural Resources Manager shall verify compliance.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 Discovery of Previously Unidentified Cultural Resources. In the event that historical or archaeological remains
are discovered during ground-disturbing activities associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall
be issued, and the City Community Development Director shall be notified. A qualified archaeologist shall
conduct an assessment of the resources and formulate proper mitigation measures, if necessary. After the find has
been appropriately mitigated, work in the area may resume. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s
final map and all improvement/construction plans.
CR-2 Discovery of Human Remains. In the event that human remains are exposed during ground-disturbing activities
associated with the project, an immediate halt work order shall be issued, and the City Community Development
Director shall be notified. California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance
of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County
Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the
remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage
Commission (NAHC) within 24 hours. These requirements shall be noted on the project’s final map and all
improvement/construction plans.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on Final Map and all grading and construction plans. The City
Community Development Department shall verify compliance, including preparation and implementation of the Monitoring
Plan, and review and approval of cultural resources monitoring reports documenting compliance with required Mitigation
Measures.
Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following BMPs shall be adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 dBA at the project boundaries
shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devises (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor
enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall
be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed-
air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods
installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance
and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise BMP, and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building
permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior to
commencement of construction and maintained throughout the construction phase of the project. All construction
Item 2
Packet Page 126
ER # EID-0170-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 72 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where
BMP measures are to be implemented.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and project grading and building plans for
review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections. Tribal Cultural Resources
TC-1 Culturally Affiliated Native American Monitor. A representative from the Salinan Tribe shall be notified
prior to any ground disturbing activities to provide for on-site monitoring. If cultural resources are encountered
during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall
cease and the City shall be notified immediately consistent with the requirements of Mitigation Measures CR-1
and CR-2.
Monitoring Program: These measures shall be incorporated into Final Map and project grading and building plans for
review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during
regular inspections.
Wildfire
WF-1 Vegetation/Fuel Management Plan. Prior to issuance of any construction permit, the applicant shall provide a
vegetation/fuel management plan prepared by a registered professional forester or certified arborist for each lot.
The plan shall identify fuel load reduction techniques, including vegetation removal and trimming, to increase
defensible space around residential structures and driveways/access roads. The plan shall also identify appropriate
standards for installation of new landscaping, such as requirements for drought-tolerant and fire-resistant species.
WF-2 Additional Fire Hazard Reductions. Future development would incorporate the following fire reduction
methods identified by the 2020 Wildland Fire Protection Report (Neumann)to reduce wildland fire risk:
1. Rain gutters, when not adequately maintained, will collect leaf material which becomes a receptive fuel
bed for embers and sparks and can then transmit fire underneath the non-combustible roof materials.
Rain gutters should be protected by noncombustible leaf shields or not allowed.
2. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for only non-combustible fences and decks in the
subdivision.
3. Record on all lots a deed restriction that allows for fire resistant landscaping in the back yards of the
subdivision.
4. Require enclosed eves on all structures within the subdivision.
5. Install fireproof vents on all structures (fire-rated, flame and ember resistant).
6. Working with the biologist, remove the non-native vegetation in the creek, riparian area,
7. reduce the fuel load.
8. Install a non-combustible wall (block or steel stud /stucco) wall 36 inches in height all around the
northern perimeter of the subdivision. The wall shall begin at the westernmost property line and continue
to the 20-foot setback at the west side of the creek and shall continue beginning at the 20-foot setback at
the east side of the creek, terminating at the property line of CAL FIRE Station #12. The purpose of this
wall is to interrupt fire progression from the north onto the proposed lots without obstructing the very
desirable view of the open space.
Monitoring Program: This measure shall be incorporated into Final Map and noted on all grading and construction plans.
The City Community Development Department shall verify compliance through initial and regular inspections.
Item 2
Packet Page 127
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE CITY’S DRAFT PARKS AND RECREATION BLUEPRINT
FOR THE FUTURE: 2021-2041 (PARKS AND RECERATION PLAN AND GENERAL
PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE) THAT WILL SUPERCEDE THE 2001 PARKS AND
RECREATION MASTER PLAN AND GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT.
PROJECT ADDRESS: Citywide BY: Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
Email: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: GENP-1942-2018; FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director of
EID-0150-2021 Community Development
VIA: Greg Avakian, Parks and
Recreation Director
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution (Attachment 1), recommending the City Council approve the Draft
Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and
General Plan Element Update) (Attachment 2) and adopt the associated Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (Attachment 3).
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission will consider the Parks and Recreation Commission’s
recommendation regarding the Plan Update, consider the Initial Study/Negative
Declaration, review the project for consistency with applicable policies and goals of the
General Plan, and provide a recommendation to City Council.
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
The City Parks and Recreation Department has prepared the Draft Parks + Recreation
Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan
Element Update) (Plan Update) to guide the future of parks and recreation in the City for
the next twenty years. The current Parks and Recreation Master Plan and Element (2001)
is proposed to be replaced in its entirety by the Plan Update. One notable and important
change with the Plan Update is that the Plan addresses urban parks and recreation, and
no longer includes plans or policies related to the City’s Open Space, which are
appropriately addressed in the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element (adopted in
2006) and adopted Natural Area plans. This report provides an overview of the Plan
Update, including goals, policies, and implementation.
The Draft Plan Update incorporates comments and direction from the Active
Transportation Committee (ATC), the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC), and the
City Council Study Session on the Public Draft Plan Update.
Meeting Date: 5/26/2021
Item Number: 3
Time Estimate: 45 Minutes
Item 3
Packet Page 128
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 2
The Draft Plan Update and Initial Study/Negative Declaration are provided as
Attachments 2 and 3, and the Draft Plan Update is available for public review at
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/parks-
and-recreation-plan-and-element-update.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Project Background
In 2017, the City Parks and Recreation Department initiated the update to the City’s Parks
and Recreation Element of the General Plan and the Parks and Recreation Plan (Plan
Update). On November 7, 2017, the City Council approved the Project Plan for the Plan
Update, and a consultant team led by WRT was selected in February 2018 to support
staff. In April 2018, the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) approved the
Community Engagement Plan1 for the project, and the Plan Update has been informed
by three years of public outreach and comment, public workshops and forums, a
statistically valid survey, and focused review by Parks and Recreation and Planning staff
and the PRC.
The Plan Update will be an essential guide for parks and recreation in San Luis Obispo,
while also serving as the General Plan Parks and Recreation Element; goals and policies
are embedded in the City’s larger blueprint for future growth and change. Chapters 1, 2,
3, and 5 of the Blueprint comprise the Parks and Recreation Plan, and Chapter 4 is the
Parks and Recreation General Plan Element. The Plan Update also serves to support,
supplement, and advance the goals of the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community
Recovery2, Active Transportation Plan3, and Recommendations to City Council for
Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the City of San Luis Obispo4. Implementation
of the Plan supports and strives to ensure that City’s parks, facilities, and programs will
be inclusive, safe, and accessible to all people.
Park and Recreation Needs
The City currently has 205.6 acres of parkland, including 99.7 acres of Community Parks,
34.7 acres of Neighborhood Parks, 7.9 acres of Mini Parks, and 63.3 acres of recreational
centers and special facilities. Proposed park acreage standards require a minimum of 10
acres of parkland per 1,000 residents, including five acres of Neighborhood Parks per
1,000 residents (refer to Attachment 2, Plan Update, Policy 1.2 Park Acreage Standards).
Looking ahead, the City would need an additional 361 acres of parkland to meet the park
acreage standard for residents in 2035, inclusive of 249 acres of Neighborhood Parks,
based on resident population estimates in the City’s General Plan (56,686) (Attachment
2, Appendix C, Community Needs Assessment Table 2-6, San Luis Obispo Park Acreage
Standards and Level of Service). Implementation of currently approved parks within
adopted Specific and Development Plans (Avila Ranch, Orcutt Area Specific Plan, Froom
Ranch Specific Plan, and San Luis Ranch Specific Plan) would provide 41 acres of
1 Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission in April 2018, available here.
2 Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery (August 2020), available here
3 Active Transportation Plan (February 2021), available here
4 Recommendations to City Council for Advancing DEI (January 2021), available here
Item 3
Packet Page 129
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 3
parkland and several new amenities (refer to Table 1. Specific Plan Parkland Amenities).
This will contribute to the total acreage of parkland in the City, resulting in total park
acreage of 246, with a remaining gap of 320 acres needed to serve the estimated resident
population in 2035.
Table 1. Specific Plan Parkland Amenities
Amenity Type Specific Plan – Planned Amenities
Diamond Athletic Fields (Youth) 1 - Avila Ranch
Rectangle Athletic Fields 3 – Orcutt Area
1 – Avila Ranch
Outdoor Basketball Court 1 – Avila Ranch (full court)
3 – Avila Ranch (half court)
2 – San Luis Ranch (half court)
1 – Orcutt Area (full court)
Tennis Court 4 – Orcutt Area
2 – Avila Ranch
Playground/Tot Lot 7 – Avila Ranch
2 - San Luis Ranch
3 - Orcutt Area
Dog Park/
Off-leash Dog Area
1 – Avila
1 – Orcutt Area
Pickleball Court 6 – Orcutt Area
2 – Avila Ranch
Group Gathering/Seating Areas 1 – Orcutt Area
1 – Avila Ranch (BBQ)
The Plan Update recognizes that park and recreational amenities are used by both the
resident population and the daytime (service) population, and identifies amenity needs
based on the estimated 2035 daytime (service) population of 88,2865 (Attachment 2, Plan
Update, Policy 1.5 Park Amenity Standards). The recommended park acreage and
amenity standards are ambitious and aspirational, and these gaps highlight the need for
multi-use, multi-generational, and multi-ability amenities within parkland and facilities, in
addition to the identification of new parkland within the City.
In order to determine base needs for City park facilities and amenities, staff worked with
the project consultant team (WRT and PROS) to assess the current level of service for
park facilities and amenities based on the 2017 estimated resident and daytime
populations, and the 2035 estimated resident and daytime populations. This assessment
considered a list of key amenities based on the City’s current inventory, planned
amenities identified in Specific Plan areas (see Table 1. Specific Plan Parkland Amenities,
above), input from the public and the PRC and ATC, consideration of recreational trends,
and recommendations identified in the Community Needs Assessment.
In addition to overall need, the Plan Update assessed needs based on identified sub-
areas within the City (refer to Attachment 2, Figure 4-2 San Luis Obispo Sub-Areas) that
contain multiple neighborhoods, population density within residential neighborhoods, and
5 Daytime (service) population identified in the Capital Facilities Development Impact Fee Nexus Study, 2018)
Item 3
Packet Page 130
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 4
identification of access gaps, with a policy directive for equitable distribution of amenities
through-out the City, such that every resident would be able to access no-cost key
amenities via sustainable transportation including walking, biking, rolling, or transit
(Attachment 2, Plan Update, Policy 1.3 Park Access Standards and Policy 1.6 Park
Amenities Per Area Standard). Existing City inventory, existing needs, future needs,
access gaps, and implementation timing priority are identified in Table 2. Amenity
Inventory and Current and Future Needs.
Table 2. Amenity Inventory and Current and Future Needs
Amenity Current
Inventory
Current
Additional
Need
General Plan
Build-out
Total
Additional
Need1
Location Based on
Access Gaps and
Planned Amenities
(Sub-area)
Priority
ATHLETIC FIELDS
Diamond Athletic
Fields (Youth)
4 2 3 Downtown
Laguna Lake
0-10
years
Diamond Athletic
Fields
(Youth/Adult)
1 4 5 Downtown
Meadow/Sinsheimer
Righetti/Orcutt
Stoneridge/Margarita
Laguna Lake
0-10
years
Diamond Athletic
Fields (Adult)
1 2 3 Downtown
Righetti/Orcutt
Stoneridge/Margarita
Laguna Lake
0-10
years
Rectangle Athletic
Fields
4 4 6 Downtown
Meadow/Sinsheimer
Laguna Lake
0-5
years
SPORTS COURTS
Outdoor
Basketball Court
6 6 8 Citywide 0 – 20
years
Tennis Court 8 7 10 Downtown
Laguna Lake
0-5
years
Pickleball Court 3 9 12 Foothill/Anholm
Downtown
Meadow/Sinsheimer
Laguna Lake
0 – 5
years
Sand Volleyball 8 3 5 Downtown
Stoneridge/Margarita
Laguna Lake
0-20
years
Roller Sports
Court
1 1 2 Downtown
Meadow/Sinsheimer
Righetti/Orcutt
Stoneridge/Margarita
Laguna Lake
10-20
years
Item 3
Packet Page 131
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 5
Amenity Current
Inventory
Current
Additional
Need
General Plan
Build-out
Total
Additional
Need1
Location Based on
Access Gaps and
Planned Amenities
(Sub-area)
Priority
Multi-generational
recreation and
community center
Ludwick
Center
and SLO
Senior
Center
27,000 sf 46,000 sf Citywide 5-20
years
Dog Park/
Off-leash Dog
Area
1 6 7 Foothill/Anholm
Downtown
Meadow/Sinsheimer
0-5
years
Playgrounds/ Tot
Lot
26 10 18 Citywide 0-20
years
Group
Seating/Gathering
Areas
9 6 9 Downtown
Stoneridge/Margarita
0-5
years
SPECIAL RECREATION FACILITIES
Disc Golf Course
(18-hole)
2 0 0 N/A N/A
Golf Course 1 0 0 Citywide 10-20
years
Swim Center 1 Expansion
of existing
pool
1 Citywide 5-20
years
Skate Park 1 0 1 Citywide 10-20
years
Pump Track (Bike
or Skate)
0 2 3 Citywide 0-20
years
1 Includes amenities identified in approved Specific Plans
3.0 SUMMARY OF THE PLAN UPDATE
The following discussion provides a brief guide to the structure and content of the
document. The Plan is divided into five chapters:
Chapter 1 introduces the planning process and overarching goals of the plan. The Plan
includes the following six Guiding Themes, which permeate through the Plan’s
recommendations, goals, and policies:
Design Excellence
Stewardship and Sustainability
Inclusion and Access
Building Community
Partnerships and Public Engagement
Good Governance
Item 3
Packet Page 132
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 6
Chapter 2 takes a deeper look at San Luis Obispo through demographic analysis and its
parks through a detailed inventory. This information was presented to the PRC and the
public in a Community Needs Assessment Report, which is included in the Plan Update
Appendix.
Chapter 3 provides a summary of the extensive community engagement conducted in
association with the Plan Update. This information was presented to the PRC and the
public in the adopted Community Needs Assessment Report, and subsequent updates
presented to the PRC.
Chapter 4 provides the detailed policies that flow from five system-wide goals. The draft
goals and policies were presented to the PRC in July 2020 and have been expanded and
updated based on continued public input, continued staff review, and to maintain
consistency with the adopted Climate Action Plan and Active Transportation Plan and
Recommendations to City Council for Advancing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in the
City of San Luis Obispo. The Plan Update is intended to support and advance the goals
and programs identified in these previously adopted plans.
The five goals include:
Build Community and Neighborhoods: City Parks and Recreational facilities
should build and connect community through inclusive and diverse amenities and
programming.
Meet the Changing Needs of the Community: Leverage regionalism and
creatively increase the number of City parks, recreational facilities and amenities,
to meet user needs.
Sustainability: The City’s Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient,
and sustainable.
Optimize Resources: Establish, maintain, and operate parks, facilities, and
programs in a manner that is cost effective and manageable while engaging the
community in a manner that optimizes involvement and support.
Safety: Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well-maintained City parks,
recreational facilities, and amenities.
Chapter 5 provides the details around implementation and funding strategy, including
phasing and priority projects. This chapter was informed by public comment and PRC
feedback on project prioritization for the near term (0-5 year), mid-term (5-10 year), and
long-term (10-20 year) timeframes. Park and facility improvements can be understood in
three tiers: Tier 1, Critical Park Improvements (Maintenance); Tier 2, Strategic Park
Improvements, Improvement of Existing Parks/Facilities; and Tier 3, “Visionary” Park
Improvements, New Opportunities.
Item 3
Packet Page 133
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 7
Tier 3 park and facility needs and priorities identified in the Plan Update are grouped by
park classification (i.e., neighborhood parks, community parks) and are then presented in
alphabetical order. Project opportunities are prioritized by phase (near-term, mid-term,
and long-term). For quick reference, Tier 3 park and facility opportunities and priorities
are also summarized in Table 5-1 of the Draft Plan Update (Attachment 2).
Implementation of the Plan Update
The Plan Update will be implemented over the next twenty years, depending on funding
and staffing resources. Plan Update Chapter 5 (Implementation) is intended to be
aspirational and identifies opportunities that may be appropriate for existing parks based
on the wants and needs expressed by the community. As amenities and parkland are
constructed, the City will need to monitor implementation of the Plan Update and track
progress towards meeting service standards for both park acreage and identified
amenities, equitable distribution of amenities, and resolving access gaps such that all
residents will be able to enjoy parks and recreation within a ½ mile (or ten minute walk)
from their home.
The Plan Update is also intended to be flexible, to enable the City to conduct focused
community outreach and prepare park-specific comprehensive plans for the following
existing community and neighborhood parks:
Laguna Park (update Laguna Lake Plan)
Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center
Sinsheimer Park, Sinsheimer Stadium, SLO Swim Center
Mitchell Park
In addition, as noted in the plan, new parkland is needed in the following areas to address
population density within neighborhoods and access gaps:
Foothill/Anholm area: in the vicinity of Grand Avenue, potentially through
agreement with San Luis Coastal Unified School District;
Downtown area: along the Johnson Avenue corridor south of the high school;
Meadow/Sinsheimer area, potentially through expansion or amenitization of
Stoneridge Park;
Stoneridge/Margarita area: along the South Higuera corridor;
Laguna Lake area: at the Laguna Lake Golf Course as part of potential site reuse.
Key considerations for the enhancement and redevelopment of existing parks and the
development of new parkland will be striking a balance between active and passive
recreational use, maintaining neighborhood character, ensuring high quality design and
maintenance, and optimizing resources by incorporating multi-generational, multi-use,
inclusive and accessible amenities and facilities. Incorporation of innovative universal
design and continued conversations with the community will be critical to resolve and
Item 3
Packet Page 134
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 8
prevent any barriers6 to our community’s enjoyment of the City parks, recreation
amenities, public art, and programs.
The Plan Update also identifies the need for park activation and building community
through site planning and provision of community gathering space and associated
infrastructure (i.e., gazebo, stage, improved access); supporting and facilitating
community events; incorporation of public art and cultural expression; and dynamic
programming to address multi-generational and multi-ability needs of our community.
Implementation of the Plan Update would be funded by development impact fees, the
general fund, grants, revenues from services, provided, and group area and facility
rentals. Potential external funding sources could include grants; “friends of parks”
organization(s); corporate sponsorships; crowdfunding; partnerships with other agencies;
gifts from non-profit foundations; private donations; irrevocable remainder trusts;
volunteerism; and fundraisers. The Plan update identifies rough lifecycle costs for key
amenities, while more aspirational projects such as multi-generational center would
require a specific cost and financing assessment due to the potential variables that affect
construction, operation, and maintenance costs.
4.0 POLICY CONTEXT AND GENERAL PLAN CONSISTENCY
The recommendations of the Plan Update support and advance many of the goals,
objectives, policies and programs of the City’s General Plan, Active Transportation Plan,
and Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery. The development and enhancement
of accessible parks and facilities in the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT)
and related greenhouse gas emissions. Redevelopment of parks and facilities would
facilitate carbon-neutrality and provide an opportunity to educate and showcase evolving
technology. The Plan Update is consistent with the General Plan, and implementation of
the Plan Update would advance goals and policies of the Land Use Element, including
neighborhood connectivity and enhancement (Policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.6); provision and
enhancement of parks within neighborhoods (Policy 2.3.1); and increasing green space
in the Downtown (Policy 4.11).
5.0 COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT
Chapter 3 of the Plan Update (What We Heard) summarizes the extensive public
engagement conducted over the past three years pursuant to the Plan Update’s
Community Engagement Plan, starting with foundational stakeholder interviews in April
2018. Throughout the summer of 2018, in order to reach our community, City staff
conducted over 25 “pop-up” events with the Parks and Recreation “Bright Ideas” bicycle
to reach and connect with San Luis Obispo residents and visitors at parks, facilities,
programs, and events. During these pop-ups, the public had an opportunity to provide
comments on portable white boards and comment cards and take photos with the “Bright
Ideas” bicycle for sharing on the Parks and Recreation Instagram account. A statistically
valid Needs Assessment Survey was conducted August to October 2018, with a total of
507 respondents.
6 Potential barriers may include, and are not limited to, ability, skill level, sense of safety, monetary
limitations, knowledge and/or interest in programming and/or recreational activity.
Item 3
Packet Page 135
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 9
Public Workshops and forums included the
“Bright Ideas” Public Workshop in September
2018 to gain additional input from the community
regarding existing parks and facilities and the
future of parks and recreation in San Luis
Obispo. A PRC Workshop Series was held in
January, February, and March of 2019, which
consisted of focused discussions and public
input related to the community’s values and
priorities, unmet needs, and hopes and dreams.
Following the Workshop Series, a Community
Needs Assessment report prepared by the
consultant team was presented to the PRC and
the public in May 2019, and a Community
Needs Assessment Workshop was held in
June 2019. A Park Improvement Priorities
Workshop was held with the PRC in September
2019.
Through the remainder of 2019 and 2020, the public had an opportunity to attend PRC
meetings, where information was presented for public response and direction from the
PRC, including draft themes, goals, and policies; lifecycle costs; and the ongoing
feedback and questions provided by the public.
On March 25, 2021, a Public Draft Plan Update Public Workshop was held via Zoom.
The Workshop included a presentation on the Plan Update, and the community was
invited an encouraged to provide feedback via poll questions conducted during the
workshop, use of the “chat” function, and Open City Hall. The results of the public
workshop are summarized in the April 5, 2021 PRC Agenda Report.7 Online community
engagement continues to be fostered by information updates on City social media, the
project website, direct communications with staff, and the Open City Hall website.
Additional opportunities for public comment included public hearings with the ATC and
Study Session with the City Council. Recommendations and direction from the PRC, ATC,
and City Council have informed the current version of the Plan Update to be considered
by the Planning Commission.
6.0 PRIOR REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATIONS
City Council Study Session, May 4, 2021
During the City Council Study Session on the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future:
2021-2041 Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update,8 the City
7 Parks and Recreation Commission agenda report, dated April 5, 2021, available here.
8 City Council Study Session Agenda Report available online:
http://opengov.slocity.org/WebLink/DocView.aspx?id=141546&dbid=0&repo=CityClerk
City Council Study Session, video of meeting available online:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCjSH3YJ12dVzLmQYuevI_sw
Community Needs Assessment report
includes:
Demographic characteristics and
population trends of the community;
Description of existing park system
and comparison to benchmark cities;
Overview of recreational trends and
preferences in the U.S. and in the
region;
Summary and evaluation of existing
amenities and programs; and
Summary of themes heard during
community engagement activities
and the community preferences
reflected in the statistically-valid
survey.
Item 3
Packet Page 136
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 10
Council provided directional items and suggestions for staff and PRC review and
consideration. The City Council’s comments and direction, including staff’s response, are
incorporated into the table below. Edits that have been made to the Plan Update are
identified by showing deleted text in strike-through, and added text is underlined.
Table 2. City Council Study Session Comments
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
Further assess if use of resident or
daytime population is appropriate for
parkland aspirations (10 acres per 1,000
people) and/or current and future amenity
needs.
The Plan Update identifies a parkland
standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents,
and identifies amenity level of service
based on the daytime (service)
population. This approach is identified to
recognize that both the resident and
daytime (service) populations create
demands on parks and recreational
amenities and facilities. The PRC
specifically recommended support for the
10 acres per 1,000 residents, and use of
the daytime population to determine
future amenities.
Make sure there are clear distinctions
about Open Space and open public
spaces/places and urban trails.
Multiple edits were incorporated into the
Plan Update to ensure that the document
makes the appropriate and clear
distinction that the Plan Update focuses
on urban parks and recreation, and does
not affect or serve as a policy document
or plan for the City’s Open Space.
Remove reference to a second golf
course.
The Plan Update has been modified to
remove the opportunity for a second golf
course from the document:
Page 84: Table 4-2 Park Amenity
Standards, do not identify a second golf
course.
Page 114: Golf Courses:
“Additional Need
San Luis Obispo would need one
additional golf course by 2035 to meet
standards; however, two golf courses to
serve the City is not needed.
Access Gaps
Item 3
Packet Page 137
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 11
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
Laguna Lake Golf Course is in Area 6
(West). Any future course should be in a
different part of the city.
Priority
Providing an additional golf course may
be considered a long-term (10-20 year)
priority, subject to land availability. An
additional golf course is not a priority for
the City.”
Consider dividing the Meadow/Sinsheimer
sub-area into two sub areas.
Staff reviewed this comment and
discussed with the PRC for further
direction. No changes to the sub-area
delineations are proposed or
recommended by the PRC; however,
Figure 4-2 will be amended to show the
sub-area delineations and the population
density and access gaps shown in Figure
5-5, Park Access Gaps and Potential
Future Park Sites. The purpose of the
map revision is to clarify that there are
multiple factors that will drive the location
of new and upgraded amenities
throughout the City. A draft revised map
will be presented to the Planning
Commission for consideration.
Look for "quick build" projects as it relates
to what we already have, such as a dirt
pump track, dog parks, shade/cooling,
lighting, gardens, and community events.
No changes to the Plan Update are
proposed; however, the Parks and
Recreation Department and Public Works
Department are working to identify “quick
build” projects within the context of the
Capital Improvement Plan, the City’s
Financial Plan, grant funding, and
opportunities for volunteer/community
collaboration.
Update opportunities for Cheng Park
improvements.
The Plan Update includes the following
additional text:
Page 126: Cheng Park, Planned
Improvements
Added the following two bullets:
Item 3
Packet Page 138
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 12
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
“+ Provide Improved cultural expression
and educational opportunities
+ Maintain cultural significance of original
design”
Clarify if multi-generational center would
also be a multi-cultural center.
No changes to the Plan Update are
proposed, as multi-cultural programming
would be provided at facilities at the
existing Ludwick Community Center or a
future center.
Clearly explain and clarify community
engagement results summarized in the
document.
The Plan Update includes the following
edits to clarify community engagement
responses:
Page 74: Park Improvement Priorities
Workshop, Your Neighborhood:
“Participants were asked to state their
priorities for park improvements in their
neighborhood, from a list of options. Of
these options, “safer access” was the
highest priority, followed by walking
paths, neighborhood events, and dog
park. “Approximately 110 participants
provided responses at this workshop
station, and the average ranking for each
priority is identified in Figure 3-1.”
Page 74: Park Improvement Priorities
Workshop, Community Parks:
“For Laguna Lake Park, we asked
participants to rank a list of 11 potential
improvements. The most popular: a bike
pump track, an adventure playground, a
botanical garden, a walking path, an
outdoor learning area, and additional
picnic areas. “Approximately 100
participants provided responses at this
workshop station, and the average
ranking for each priority is identified in
Figure 3-2.”
Page 75: Park Improvement Priorities
Workshop, Fields and Facilities:
Item 3
Packet Page 139
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 13
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
“Participants were asked to rank four
potential improvements to the SLO Swim
Center. Of these, extended hours for
recreation swim and for lap swim were
the highest ranked. Approximately 85
participants provided responses at this
workshop station, and the average
ranking for each priority is identified in
Figure 3-5.”
Consider park ambassadors to support
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
No changes to the Plan Update are
proposed at this time, as consideration of
establishing park ambassadors at City
parks would be better identified during
evaluation of resources and staffing
needs, are often based on a particular
amenity (such as the Santa Rosa SLO
Skate Park), and would need to take
equity into consideration.
Conduct additional focused outreach
related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
The Plan Update includes the following
edits to further clarify outreach efforts
during park-specific and facility-specific
planning:
Page 103:
“Next, the chapter defines three types of
park improvements, and documents
potential improvements opportunities at
each park where “visionary” changes are
needed. The chapter provides the
flexibility to consider identified
opportunities and determine the
appropriate design and amenities of our
City’s parks and recreational facilities
through focused community outreach and
the preparation of comprehensive park-
specific plans. The community
engagement process will include direct
contact with community groups and
organizations to further advance diversity,
equity, and inclusion at all City parks and
facilities.”
Item 3
Packet Page 140
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 14
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMENTS
REVISIONS
Update Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards
by deleting “Meets Standard/Needs Exist”
column and replacing it with the number of
additional amenities needed to serve the
future daytime population.
Table 4-2 Park Amenity Standards has
been updated by deleting “Meets
Standard/Needs Exist” column and
replacing it with the number of additional
amenities needed to serve the future
daytime population.
Note that the SLO Senior Center is an
historic building.
The Plan Update includes the following
edits:
Page 130: SLO Senior Center, Planned
Improvements, Mid-Term (5 to 10 years):
“+ Re-envision SLO Senior Center in the
context of Mitchell Park through Planning
process. Goals will include creating a
strong linkage between the park and the
center; and considering potential
renovation or expansion or replacement
of the Senior Center relocation of
programs and services to achieve multi-
generational use of the facility. The SLO
Senior Center building is a historic
property, and any improvements shall be
consistent with the City’s Historic
Preservation Ordinance and Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines.
Increase the City’s financial and staff
investment in the SLO Senior Center.”
Item 3
Packet Page 141
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 15
Active Transportation Committee, March 18, 2021
The Public Draft Plan was presented to the ATC on March 18, 2021. The ATC
unanimously moved to recommend adoption of the Plan Update, with recommendations
that were supported by the PRC. ATC recommendations are identified in the table below,
and edits that have been made to the Plan Update are identified by showing deleted text
in strike-through, and added text is underlined.
Table 3. Active Transportation Commission Recommendations
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
HOW ADDRESSED
Address Sinsheimer Park area
connectivity, including inclusive non-
vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer
Park area and through the park. Identify
need for a paved trail connecting the
Railroad Safety Trail to Sinsheimer Park.
Page 123: Sinsheimer Park, Planned
Improvements, Near-Term (0 to 5 Years):
Added bullet:
“+ Address Sinsheimer Park area
connectivity, including inclusive non-
vehicular access both to the Sinsheimer
Park area and through the park. Provide
for an inclusive and accessible paved trail
connecting the Railroad Safety Trail to
Sinsheimer Park.”
Provide stronger language in Policy 1.15
Sustainable Transportation Access and
Policy 1.16 Shaded Play Areas, beyond
“evaluate potential…”and “strive to”.
Specifically address Sinsheimer Park,
Laguna Lake Park, and Meadow Park in
Policies 1.15, 3.1, and 5.2.
Include bicycle parking in parks, with
facilities for standard and electric
bicycles, and cargo bicycles.
Page 88: Policy 1.15, Sustainable
Transportation Access.
“1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access.
Support implementation of the Active
Transportation Plan and provision of
sustainable access to parks and
recreational facilities including, but not
limited to Sinsheimer Park area, Laguna
Lake Park, and Meadow Park, and
interconnected paths citywide. Bicycle
parking should be provided in parks,
recreational facilities, and community
centers, and include facilities for
standard, electric, and cargo bicycles.”
Page 88: Policy 1.16 Shaded Play Areas.
“1.16 Shaded Play Areas.
In addition to shading play areas—a high
priority for the community—trees and
shade structures can also contribute to
distinctive identity and sustainability.
Existing play areas will be assessed for
Item 3
Packet Page 142
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 16
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
HOW ADDRESSED
need, and enhancements to both play
equipment and shade will be scheduled.
The City should strive for provide shaded
play areas within a short walk (1/2-mile)
of all residents: this should be a core
feature of all parks, including mini-parks.”
Policy 3.1 addresses new parks and
facilities, not existing; therefore, no
modifications are proposed related to
these comments.
Policy 5.2 states: “Create bicycle and
pedestrian connections between these
mainline trails and the City’s community
parks (e.g. Sinsheimer, Laguna Lake,
Santa Rosa, Meadow) and major
recreation facilities (e.g. Damon-Garcia).”
Therefore, no modifications are proposed
related to these comments.
Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike:
Amend title to be more inclusive of those
accessing parks and facilities by
alternative non-vehicular means beyond
“foot and bike”.
Page 94: Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and
Bike.
“Policy 3.1 Access by Foot, and Bike, and
Roll”
New parks and facilities should be
located centrally to their service
population, integrated with their
community context, and easily accessed
on foot, and by bike, and roll….”
Overall, provide a more specific ties to
the Active Transportation Plan. See above.
Suggestion to locate pump tracks on
routes to schools, and locate pump.
tracks where it can be accessed via
bicycle.
Page 114: Bike/Roller Pump Tracks
“Priority
A bike/roller pump track has been
identified as a near-term (0-5 year)
priority for the City. A second track may
be considered a long-term (10-20 year)
opportunity. Pump tracks should be
located where they can be accessed via
Item 3
Packet Page 143
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 17
ACTIVE TRANSPORTATION
COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
HOW ADDRESSED
bicycle or roll, and along routes to
schools.”
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An Initial Study / Negative Declaration has been prepared for the Plan ( Attachment 3).
The public review period for the Initial Study / Negative Declaration was Thursday, March
25, 2021 to Monday, April 26, 2021. The Initial Study does not identify any potentially
significant impacts that would occur as a result of adoption of the Plan Update.
As a policy document, the Draft Plan Update does not authorize any physical
development or improvements or provide project-specific construction details that would
allow for project-level CEQA analysis; instead, it is intended to provide goals and policies,
and guide development of future parks and recreation projects within the City. Therefore,
consistent with Section 15168(c)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the 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.
Reference copies of the IS/ND are available on the City’s website at
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documentsonline/environmental-review-documents.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Administrative Draft Plan Update was provided for internal review by several City
departments, including Community Development, Public Works, City Administration,
Utilities. The Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Task Force provided valuable review and
input on the Administrative Draft Plan Update. In addition, the Plan Update was
coordinated with the City Transportation Division and the Office of Sustainability to ensure
the document supports and advances the goals, policies, and programs of the Active
Transportation Plan and Climate Action Plan.
Other community groups have helped shape the Plan Update including Arts Council,
American Youth Soccer Organization, Cal Poly (special thanks to NR 418 class, 2018),
Central Coast Concerned Mountain Bikers, Central Coast Soccer, Friends of SLO City
Dog Parks; Downtown SLO, History Center of San Luis Obispo County, Jack House
Committee, Land Conservancy of SLO County, San Luis Coastal Unified School District,
San Luis Obispo Museum of Art, SLO Baseball, SLO Pickleball Club, SLO Railroad
Museum, SLO REP Theatre, SLO Rugby, SLO Senior Center, SLO Soccer Club, SLO
Women’s Soccer Club, YMCA, and many other individuals.
Item 3
Packet Page 144
GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021
Planning Commission Report – May 26, 2021
Page 18
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue review of the project with specific direction to staff on pertinent issues.
2. Recommend denial of the Plan Update, however staff does not recommend this
as it would be inconsistent with the General Plan, the Active Transportation Plan,
and the Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery.
ATTACHMENTS
1.Draft Resolution
2.Reading File – Draft Plan Update
3.Initial Study/Negative Declaration
Item 3
Packet Page 145
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-21
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL APPROVE THE PARKS AND RECREATION BLUEPRINT
FOR THE FUTURE: 2021-2041 (PARKS AND RECREATION PLAN AND
GENERAL PLAN ELEMENT UPDATE) (GENP-1942-2018, EID-0150-2021;
CITYWIDE)
WHEREAS, the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and
Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update) will be an essential guide for parks and
recreation in San Luis Obispo, while also serving as the General Plan Parks and Recreation
Element; Chapters 1, 2, 3, and 5 of the Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future comprise the
Parks and Recreation Plan, and Chapter 4 is the Parks and Recreation General Plan Element; and
WHEREAS, the Active Transportation Committee of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on March 18, 2021 on the Parks + Recreation
Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update)
(Plan Update), and recommended consideration of the Committee’s comments and adoption of the
Plan Update (7:0); and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a virtual public
hearing Study Session in webinar format on May 4, 2021 on the Plan Update and provided
comments to staff; and
WHEREAS, the Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a virtual public hearing in webinar format on May 12, 2021 on the Plan Update, and
recommended adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications, recognized the Plan Update
is aspirational; the Commission considered City Council Study Session comments and
recommended retainment of the 10 acres per 1,000 resident parkland standard, retainment of the
sub-area delineations, and clarification regarding the use of the Access Gap/Amenities map, and
supported additional City Council Study Session comments (7:0); and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission makes the
following findings regarding the project.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 146
Resolution No. _____ (2021 Series) Page 2
1. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan
and General Plan Element Update) will promote the public health, safety, and welfare of
persons living and working in the City by proving a blueprint for future parks, facilities,
and programs, that will be inclusive, safe, and accessible to all people.
2. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan
and General Plan Element Update) supports and advances many of the goals, objectives,
policies and programs of the City’s Active Transportation Plan, and Climate Action Plan
for Community Recovery, because the development and enhancement of accessible parks
and facilities in the City would reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and related
greenhouse gas emissions. Redevelopment of parks and facilities would facilitate carbon-
neutrality and provide an opportunity to educate and showcase evolving technology.
3. The Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan
and General Plan Element Update) is consistent with the City’s General Plan, because
implementation of the Plan Update would advance goals and policies of the Land Use
Element, including neighborhood connectivity and enhancement (Policies 2.2.4 and 2.2.6);
provision and enhancement of parks within neighborhoods (Policy 2.3.1); and increasing
green space in the Downtown (Policy 4.11).
.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission finds that the project’s
programmatic Initial Study/Negative Declaration adequately evaluates potential environmental
impacts of the project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt
the Initial Study/Negative Declaration and approve the Parks + Recreation Blueprint for the Future:
2021-2041 (Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update).
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 26th day of May 2021.
____________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1Item 3
Packet Page 147
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For: Parks and Recreation Plan and General Plan Element Update
EID-0150-2021
March 2021
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 148
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 149
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 150
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 151
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 152
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,
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 153
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 154
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)).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 155
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 156
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 157
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 158
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?
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 159
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 160
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 161
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 162
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 163
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 164
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 165
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).
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 166
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 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 167
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 168
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 169
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 170
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 171
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 172
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 173
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 174
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,
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 175
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 176
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 177
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 - - -
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 178
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 179
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 180
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 181
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 182
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 183
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 184
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 185
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 186
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 187
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 188
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 189
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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 190
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 191
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 192
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2021
Attachment B
Native American Consultation
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 193
[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.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 194
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 195
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 196
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
ATTACHMENT 3Item 3
Packet Page 197