HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 3 - GENP-1942-20218 & EID-0150-2021 (Parks & Rec. Blueprint Plan and Element Update)
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
PLANNING COMMISSION
DRAFT
Parks + Recreation Blueprint
for the Future: 2021-2041
Parks and Recreation Plan and
General Plan Element Update
May 26, 2021
Recommendation
2
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.
3
City Staff Team
▪Shelly Stanwyck, Assistant City Manager Community Services
▪Greg Avakian, Parks and Recreation Director
▪Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
▪Devin Hyfield, Recreation Manager
▪Lindsey Stephenson, Recreation Manager
▪Aleah Bergam, Administrative Analyst
▪Sahvanna Ettestad, Communications Coordinator
▪Parks and Recreation and Community Development Staff
▪Multi-disciplinary City experts
▪Consultant team: WRT Design, PROS Consulting, ETC Institute,
Wallace Group, LSA Associates
4
City Team
Lead Advisory Body:
Parks & Recreation Commission
City Council
City Advisory Bodies
Multiple stakeholders,
community partners,
and organizations
Our Community
5
Top priority for the Parks
and Recreation
Commission
Combined Element and
“Master” Plan dated 2001
Out of date, minimal
usefulness
Need for policy direction
and data (current and
future needs)
Opportunity to plan the
future with our community
for parks and recreation
for the next 20 years
Address operational
needs, lifecycle of
amenities, adaptability to
climate change
Address needs of our
community including
sustainable transportation
and diversity, equity, and
inclusion
Why Update the Plan?
6
Scope of Update
Full repeal and replace of 2001 Plan and Element
Parks and Recreation Plan:
❖Chapters 1-3: Inventory, data, research, and community input
❖Chapter 5: Implementation Plan
General Plan Parks and Recreation Element:
❖Chapter 4: Goals and Policies
CEQA: Programmatic Initial Study / Negative Declaration
COSE ELEMENT
7
•Contains Policies for Open Space Uses
•The Conservation and Open Space Element is a tool to protect and
preserve these unique community resources.
•Its overarching goal is to protect resources (such as air and water,
wildlife habitat, scenic and agricultural lands, watershed and
historic features) with a secondary goal of accommodating passive
recreation where it will not harm the environment or interfere with
agricultural operations (Page 6-8).
Conservation,
Open Space
Element
(COSE)2006
•The Parks and Recreation Element consists of plans for indoor and
outdoor recreational facilities primarily for active recreational uses,
such as parks, playfields and community centers.Does not include
uses or policies for open space.
Parks and
Recreation
Element does not
update or alter
COSE polices.
8
Significant Changes
Addresses both resident and daytime (service)
populations
Intention to be aspirational and visionary
◼Not every potential park -specific amenity opportunity will be
identified in subsequent park -specific plans
◼Provides flexibility to meet parkland and amenity needs Citywide
Achieve strong public buy-in through focused park
and facility plans and community engagement
9
▪Amenity Needs informed by:
▪Current inventory
▪Estimated daytime (service) population
▪Community engagement
▪Recreational trends and consultant recommendations
▪Advisory body recommendations and direction
▪Future locations of needed amenities will be guided by:
▪Use of sub-area map for equitable distribution
▪Population density within residential neighborhoods
▪Identification of access gaps (limited or lack of access via
sustainable transportation)
Significant changes
10
Addresses changing needs of the community
(new sports, activities, interests) and goes beyond
recreation with a focus on community building
Intentional focus to advance
and support:
Significant changes
Sustainable
transportation
Carbon
neutrality
Evolving understanding of
community’s DEI needs
11
Community Engagement
Foundational stakeholder interviews (April 2018)
25+ Pop-up events (Spring and Summer 2018)
Bright Ideas Public Workshop (September 2018)
Needs Assessment Survey (August –October 2018)
PRC Workshop Series (January-March 2019)
Community Needs Assessment Workshop (June 2019)
Park Improvement Priorities Workshop (September 2019)
Public Draft Plan Update Public Workshop (March 2021)
Community Engagement
12
Advisory Body
Meetings
Comment
Cards
Open City
Hall
Neighborhood
Meetings
Interested
Parties List
Social Media
Communication
with staff
Chapter 1: Introduction & Themes
13
Introduces the planning process
and overarching goals of the plan
(starts on page 2)
Guiding Themes, which permeate
through the Plan’s
recommendations, goals, and
policies:
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Stewardship and
Sustainability
Design
Excellence
Inclusion
and
Access
Building
Community
Good
Governance
Partnerships
and
Public
Engagement
Chapters 2 & 3: Community Needs
14
Chapter 2:People and Parks.
Demographics and inventory. This
information was presented to the PRC
and the public in the approved
Community Needs Assessment
Report.
(Starts on page 16)
Chapter 3: What We Heard.
Community Engagement Summary.
This information was presented to the
PRC and the public in the adopted
Community Needs Assessment Report,
and subsequent updates presented to
the PRC. (Starts on page 60)
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
General Plan Element (Page 80)
Chapter 4 –Goals and Policies
15
•City Parks and Recreational
facilities should build and connect
community through inclusive and
diverse amenities and
programming.
Build Community and
Neighborhoods
•Leverage regionalism and
creatively increase the number of
City parks, recreational facilities
and amenities, to meet user needs.
Meet the Changing
Needs of the Community
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
General Plan Element (Page 80)
Chapter 4 –Goals and Policies
16
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
◼The City’s Parks and Recreation facilities will be vibrant, resilient, and
sustainable.
Sustainability
◼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.
Optimize Resources
•Provide safe, accessible, inclusive, and well -maintained City parks,
recreational facilities, and amenities.
Safety
Chapter 5: Implementation
17
The Implementation chapter lays out what San Luis
Obispo needs in terms of recreation amenities,
provides a framework for locating those amenities
in existing and future parks, and identifies near -
term, mid-term, and long-term project opportunities.
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Chapter 5: Implementation
18
Needs and priorities determined by:
◼Three years of community feedback
◼Use of recreation amenity standards to determine
projected need for additional future amenities
◼Identification of access gaps and inequities
(parkland, amenities, and facilities more than
10-minute walk from housing)
◼Direction and guidance from the PRC
(Starts on page 102)
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Chapter 5: Implementation
19
◼Documents potential improvements at each park where “visionary”
changes are needed
◼Links needed park amenities with park sites where those amenities
would be best-suited to fit local needs
◼Identifies acreage of new park land where we should look for
additional future park sites
◼Identifies the costs of park improvements and funding strategy for
capital improvements, programming, maintenance and operations
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Key Park Amenity Needs
20
Inventory, Additional Need, Access Gaps, Priority
(Starts on page 106)
◼Athletic fields (diamond, rectangle)
◼Sport Courts (basketball, tennis, pickleball, sand volleyball, roller sports)
◼Indoor Facilities
◼Dog Parks and Off-leash Dog Areas
◼Playgrounds, Outdoor Gathering and Seating Areas
◼Special Recreation Facilities (disc golf, golf courses, swim centers, skate
parks, bike/skate pump tracks)
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Chapter 5: Implementation
21
Park-by-Park Needs, Opportunities,
and Priorities
◼Park and facility needs and
priorities are grouped by park
classification (i.e., neighborhood
parks, community parks) and are
then presented in alphabetical
order
◼Project opportunity priorities are
identified by phase (near-term, mid-
term, and long-term)
◼Opportunities and priorities are also
summarized in Table 5-1
(PDF page 136)
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Community Parks
22
Visionary Projects
Laguna Lake
Park
Meadow Park
Sinsheimer Park
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Diverse in character,
unique features, & wide
range of amenities which
attract users from
throughout the City
The City has seven
community parks totaling
approximately 100 acres
Laguna Lake Park
(Page 120)
23
Comprehensive Phased Update to
Laguna Lake Plan
Consider trade-offs (uses to remain, uses to
discontinue, new uses); mix of passive and
active uses
Opportunities:
▪Revitalize connection to aquatic environment
▪Continued community events
▪Dog area/dog park improvements
▪Multi-generational community center
▪Aquatics (swim) center
▪Active: fields and courts
▪Passive: botanical garden, nature center
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Meadow Park and Meadow Park Center
(including Exposition Park) (Page 122)
24
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Comprehensive Phased Plan
Opportunities:
▪Increased programming and
special events
▪Turf / field upgrades and
reconfiguration
▪Multi-generational community
center
▪Improved walking paths and
fitness equipment
▪Playground expansion
▪Dog park
▪Increased shade
Sinsheimer Park, Stadium, and Swim
Center (Pages 123, 129, and 131)
25
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Comprehensive Phased Plan
Opportunities:
▪Increased programming
▪Improved access, connection to Railroad
Safety Trail and future bridge
▪Dog park
▪Tennis and pickleball courts
▪Multi-generational community center
▪Stadium improvements/upgrades, future
full renovation/new facility
▪Multi-use fields
▪SLO Swim Center redesign/expansion
▪Land acquisition
Neighborhood Parks
26
Visionary Projects
Emerson Park
Mitchell Park
Cheng Park
Mission Plaza
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Convenient and
accessible active and
passive recreation to
residents within one-half
to one-mile walking
distance
San Luis Obispo has 10
neighborhood parks
totaling approximately 35
acres
Emerson Park
(Page 124)
27
Opportunities:
◼Grant funding, implementation
of Emerson Neighborhood
Park Revitalization Project
◼Consider alternative location
for multi-generational
community center
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Mitchell Park
(Page 125)
28
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Comprehensive Plan
Opportunities:
▪Neighborhood discussion
regarding safety
▪Special events
▪Expanded programming
▪Multi-generational activation
through amenities and
community gatherings
Cheng Park
(Page 126)
(PDF
pg.132)
Opportunities:
◼Spatial redesign –
safety, visibility,
activation
◼Downtown activation
and programming
◼Improved cultural
expression and
educational
opportunities
◼Maintain cultural
significance of original
design
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Downtown Public Spaces
Mission Plaza (Page 127)
30
Opportunities:
◼Ongoing programming and activation
◼Implement Mission Plaza Concept Plan
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Recreation Centers and Facilities
31
Visionary Projects
Laguna Lake Golf Course
Ludwick Community Center
Railroad Safety Trail
SLO Senior Center
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Provide organized or
programmed
recreation
Multi-generational
community gathering
and support
Ludwick Community Center
(Page 128)
32
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Opportunities:
▪Renovation for indoor
recreation, multi-generational
community center
▪After-school childcare
▪Staff offices
▪Senior Center relocation
▪Replace within City at a new
site (Laguna Lake, Meadow
Park)
SLO Senior Center
(Page 130)
33
Opportunities:
◼Multi-generational use
◼Diverse programming
◼Augment with child/youth
activities
◼Consider rentability
◼Address functionality and
maintenance
◼Provide greater connection
with adjacent outdoor space
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Laguna Lake Golf Course
(Page 133)
34
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Opportunities:
▪Alternative programming
▪Community events
▪Source of financial
contribution
▪Facility plan: maintenance,
operation, and programming
Railroad Safety Trail
(Page 134)
35
Opportunities:
◼Bike/skate pump track
◼Improve park connections and
railroad fencing
◼Railroad overcrossing consistent
with Active Transportation Plan
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
36
▪Programmatic environmental document (State CEQA Guidelines Section 15168) may be
prepared on a series of actions that can be characterized as one large project and are
related either:
▪(1) Geographically,
▪(2) A logical parts in the chain of contemplated actions,
▪(3) In connection with issuance of rules, regulations, plans, or other general criteria to
govern the conduct of a continuing program, or
▪(4) As individual activities carried out under the same authorizing statutory or regulatory
authority and having generally similar environmental effects which can be mitigated in
similar ways.
▪Use with Later Activities. Later activities in the program must be examined in the light of the
program EIR to determine whether an additional environmental document must be
prepared.
▪For example, consideration of a comprehensive update to the Laguna Lake Plan would
require tiered environmental analysis based on the specifics of the plan, such as area
affected by grading and development, and identification of amenities and project details
(i.e., lighting, irrigation demand)
California Environmental Quality Act
Council Study Session
May 4, 2021 Comments
37
▪Further assess if use of resident or
daytime population is appropriate for
parkland aspirations (10 acres per 1,000
residents) and/or current and future
amenity needs.
Council Study Session
May 4, 2021 Comments
38
▪Make sure there are clear distinctions about
Open Space and open public spaces/places
and urban trails.
▪Remove reference to a second golf course.
▪Update opportunities for Cheng Park
improvements.
▪Clarify if multi-generational center would also
be a multi-cultural center.
Council Study Session
May 4, 2021 Comments
39
▪Clearly explain and clarify community
engagement results summarized in the
document.
▪Consider park ambassadors to support
diversity, equity, and inclusion.
▪Conduct additional focused outreach
related to diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Council Study Session
May 4, 2021 Comments
40
▪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.
Council Study Session
May 4, 2021 Comments
41
▪Consider dividing the
Meadow/Sinsheimer sub-area
into two sub areas.
42
General Area
1. Foothill / Anholm
2.Downtown
3. Meadow / Sinsheimer
4. Righetti / Orcutt
5. Stoneridge / Margarita
6. Laguna Lake
43
Active Transportation Committee:
March 18, 2021 Recommendations
44
◼Address Sinsheimer Park area connectivity, including 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.
◼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 Policy 1.15 Sustainable Transportation Access,
Policy 3.1 Access by Foot and Bike, and Policy 5.2 Safe Access to
Parks by Sustainable Transportation.
◼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”.
Active Transportation Committee
March 18, 2021 Recommendations
45
◼Suggestion to locate pump tracks on routes to schools and locate
pump tracks where it can be accessed via bicycle.
◼Include bicycle parking in parks, with facilities for standard, electric,
and cargo bicycles.
◼Overall, provide more specific ties to the Active Transportation Plan.
Staff invites feedback from the PRC regarding these
recommendations, which will also be presented to the Planning
Commission upon their consideration of the Plan Update.
Parks and Recreation Commission
May 12, 2021 Recommendations
46
▪Adoption of the Plan Update with noted clarifications by staff
▪Recognized the Plan Update is aspirational
▪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
Key Next Step
47
Date Action
July 6, 2021 City Council –Adoption of final plan
Recommendation
48
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.
Public
Comment
How to Review and Provide Feedback
50
Project Website:
https://www.slocity.org/parksandrecreationelementupdate
Submit email correspondence to: parksandrecblueprint@slocity.org
Submit written correspondence to:
Parks and Recreation Plan and Element Update
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks and Recreation Department
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Implementation Process
51
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
Implementation Process
52
2:
SLO’s
People &
Parks
5:
Implement-
ation
1:
Intro. &
Themes
3:
What We
Heard
4:
Goals &
Policies
•Ribbon
cutting
•Notice of
completion
project
closeout
Project
Completion
•Pre-
construction
meeting
•Public
outreach
•Workdays -
varies by
project
Construction
•Council
authorization
of
Advertiseme
nt of project
•Advertise
project for
Public Bid
•Award CIP
Construction
Contract
Project
Ready to
Construct
•Submit plans
to Building
Department
for review
•Address
Building
Department
comments
and resubmit
for building
permit
issuance
Permits
•Draft plans
meetings and
public input
•Advisory Body
Review and
additional public
input
•Initial Contact
with property
owners, inform
and engage
public
•Environmental
review
Plans and
Specification
s
•Scope
project
•Gather
information,
public input,
and conduct
site visits
Project
Design
•Funding
identified
and
approved by
Council
Project
Identification
and
Budgeting
53
How to address needs:
❖Multi-use, multi-ability,
multi-generational
❖Equitable distribution of
amenities
❖Conversion of
land/structure to
parkland/facility
❖New parkland (land
acquisition)
Need based on standard of 10 acres per 1,000 residents
Current Inventory and 2035 General Plan Build -out Needs
Current acreage 205.6 acres
Specific Plan parkland 41 acres
2035 total need (resident)567 acres
2035 additional need (resident)320 acres
Parkland Needs
Nexus Study and Fair Share
The City uses Quimby Fees
and Capital Facilities Fees
(Development Impact Fees) to
help fund the cost of new
parkland acquisition and park
improvements
Impact Fees were last updated
in 2018; these fees cannot be
used to make up for any
existing deficiencies in parkland
The City Council chose not to
assess a parkland or park
improvement fee on new
commercial development due
to feasibility concerns
54