HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 4a. 841 Patricia Dr. (ARCH-0040-2021)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: ARCH-0040-2021 (841 PATRICIA): REVIEW OF CONSTRUCTION OF A
SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND ACCESS
BRIDGE, WITH REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION FROM REQUIRED CREEK
SETBACK, AND CONSIDERATION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
PREPARED FOR TH
BY: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner FROM: Tyler Corey, Deputy Director
Phone Number: (805) 781-7593 Phone Number: (805) 781-7169
Email: woetzell@slocity.org Email: tcorey@slocity.org
APPLICANT: Eric and Julie Michaels REPRESENTATIVE: Oasis Associates, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a Resolution denying the application, based on the project’s inconsistency with
General Plan Policies for protection of natural resources, Creek Setback provisions, and
Community Design Guidelines for Creekside Development.
1.0 COMMISSION'S PURVIEW
Due to the presence of a creek, the property at 841 Patricia Drive is considered a
“sensitive site” (Community Design Guidelines §1.2(E)), and its proposed development
with a single-family dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit is subject to Architectural
Review and Minor Development Review (CDG §1.2(A)(3), Zoning §17.106.030(B)(1)).
Given the “sensitive site” designation of the site and because the site contains a creek
and wildlife corridor that are mapped and depicted as such in the General Plan (see
Attachments B & C), the project could not be determined to be exempt from environmental
review, as described in §15300.2 (Exceptions) of the California Environmental Quality Act
Guidelines (CEQA Guidelines). At the applicant’s request, an Initial Study was conduct ed
pursuant to CEQA Guidelines, with particular focus on evaluation of the potential for
significant environmental impacts from the project on biological resources.
Furthermore, a vehicle bridge crossing the creek is proposed as part of the project, and
the applicant has requested approval by Director’s Hearing of an exception to the creek
setback requirement, as provided by Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4), to accommodate the
placement of the bridge structure within the required creek setback. The Community
Development Director has, as authorized by Zoning §17.109.010, referred consideration
of this matter to the Planning Commission because the proposed project, and in particular
the requested creek setback exception that would result in crossing the creek channel
and intact riparian corridor with the proposed access bridge, involves inconsistencies
related to General Plan policies for resource protection, and significant neighborhood
input on the Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) was received.
Meeting Date: 1/25/2023
Item Number: 4a
Time Estimate: 90 minutes
Page 9 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
The Commission’s purview is to review the application for consistency with applicable
General Plan policies, Zoning Regulations (particularly those for Creek Setbacks set out
in Zoning §17.70.030), and the project’s consistency with the City’s Community Design
Guidelines. In addition, as further described in the Environmental Review section (§4.0)
of this report, below, if the Commission considers approving the project, the Commission
would need to adopt the IS/MND.
2.0 SUMMARY
2.1 Site and Setting
The subject property is an undeveloped 1.41-
acre parcel (Lot 63) within Ferrini Estates
(Tract 1182), an 86-lot single-family
residential subdivision situated at the
northwest edge of the City, west of Highway 1
and north of Highland Drive (see Figure 1). It
is in a Low Density Residential (R-1) Zone.
The lot is on the east side of Patricia Drive,
about 150 feet north of Patricia Court. It is a
“flag lot” situated in the middle of the block,
connected to Patricia Drive by a 25-foot wide
accessway.
The site is characterized by disturbed fill soils
on the western and eastern portions of the
site, sloping down from either side of the
creek toward a shallow channel supporting
riparian vegetation. A 30-foot-wide drainage
easement follows roughly the course of the creek channel in the middle portion of the
property (see Existing Topo / Site Plan, Attachment D, Sheet A2). The Conservation and
Open Space Element (COSE) of the City’s General Plan depicts a creek in this location
(see COSE Figure 9, Attachment B: Creeks and Wetlands), labeled as “Perennial creek,
with degraded corridor, but able to be restored or repaired.” A generalized wildlife corridor
is also depicted travelling through this area (see COSE Figure 3: Wildlife Corridors,
Attachment C).
The site can be divided into three main components, as depicted in project plans (see Lot
Coverage Detail in Site Plan, Attachment D, Sheet AS-1). The central portion of the site
is subject to a drainage easement and a required creek setback. The western and eastern
portions represent the developable area of the site. In addition to normal development
standards, the eastern portion of the site is also subject to a 15-foot wide sewer easement
along the east boundary of the property.
Figure 1: 841 Patricia
Page 10 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
2.2 Proposed Project
The applicant proposes to develop the property for single -family residential use (see
Project Plans, Attachment D, and Project Description, Attachment E), including
Single-family dwelling (4 BR, 4 BA, 4,940 sq. ft.) with greenhouse (430 sq. ft.)
Three-car garage (858 sq. ft.) and utility room (212 sq. ft.)
Swimming pool and outdoor barbecue area
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU, 825 sq. ft.)
Access Bridge across the creek channel to the ADU
Small (128 sq. ft.) accessory storage shed
Primary dwelling and amenities. The proposed dwelling, greenhouse, garage, and pool
and barbecue area are located on the western portion of the site, in and adjacent to a
two-story building (25 feet in height) in an irregular, but roughly rectangular plan, stepping
down to single-story wings at its south end (“en-suite” wing with basement sauna) and
north end (garage and utility room). The building can be characterized as Contemporary
Craftsman in architectural style, with horizontal lap siding, shake shingle roofing, with
gabled roof forms, overhanging eaves, projecting rafters, decorative brackets, rectangular
window forms, including use of divided lights and painted trim, and stone chimney, porch,
and feature wall. The pool and outdoor barbecue area are set into the slope on the east
side of the primary dwelling, internal to the site itself. (see Attachment D: Site Plan, Sheet
AS-1; Exterior Elevations, Sheets A11-A13, and Figure 2, below).
Accessory Dwelling Unit. The proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) and accessory
storage shed are located on the east side of the site, across the creek channel. The ADU
is single-story and just under 16 feet in height. It has a simpler five-sided plan with a low-
slope single gable roof with deeply overhanging eaves. It is detailed in a manner similar
to the primary dwelling, with horizontal lap siding, shake roof, rectangular window forms
with painted trim, and stone patio and five-foot tall patio wall (See Project Plans,
Attachment D, Sheets A14-A16, and Figure 3, below).
Figure 2: Primary Dwelling (West Elevation)
Page 11 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Access Bridge. An access bridge is proposed to be installed across the channel to
connect the western and eastern portions of the site, as the primary dwelling and ADU
are separated by the creek channel and associated riparian vegetation. The bridge is
composed of steel material with concrete abutments. As depicted in plans (see
Attachment D, Sheet C1, and Figure 4 below) the bridge is 12 feet wide and will span
about 55 feet between abutments across the creek channel. The bridge surface is about
four feet above the bottom of the channel. Its decking and framing are about 18 inches
deep, providing two feet of “free board” above the identified 100-year flood plain level.
The bridge will also carry utility services (i.e., water and electric) across the creek channel
to the ADU. As shown in the Tree Survey and Revegetation Plan (Attachment F) existing
oak and willow trees will be removed as necessary from the bridge crossing area, with
compensatory planting under a revegetation plan to replace removed trees elsewhere
within the riparian corridor.
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
The proposed project must be consistent with General Plan policies for development of
property in residential areas and conform to standards and guidelines for such
development that are set out in the City’s Zoning Regulations and Community Design
Guidelines. As noted above in this report, the site is considered to be a “sensitive site”
due to the creek channel present on the site and, accordingly, project analysis is focused
Figure 3: Accessory Dwelling Unit (West Elevation)
Figure 4: Access Bridge; Section (left), Concept Photos (right)
Page 12 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
largely on standards and guidelines regarding protection of the creek channel. Bec ause
an exception from creek setback requirements is requested with this application,
consistency with resource protection policies in the General Plan depends upon
satisfaction of all the required findings for creek setback exceptions, as discussed in
further detail below.
3.1 Creek Setbacks
The Land Use Element of the City’s General Plan sets out several Community Goals for
the Environment demonstrating the importance of creek and wildlife resources:
Land Use Element - Community Goals
3. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water,
soil, and open space.
4. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat on land
surrounding the city, at Laguna Lake, along creeks and other wetlands, and on open
hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse, native plants, fish, and animals can
continue to live within the area.
7. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the city, such as the
volcanic morros, hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
9. Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to preserve and protect
them.
Policies – Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
2.3.7 – The City shall require residential developments to preserve and incorporate as
amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife
habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
2.3.9(c) – New development shall protect stream corridors and natural drainages
2.3.10 – The City shall require new residential developments to respect site
constraints such as property size and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and
wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation, and significant trees.
The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) describes the importance of creek
corridors and provides specific creek protection policies and programs:
The City’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow wildlife to move between
habitats and open space areas. To help preserve natural com munities, it is important to
protect, improve and where appropriate and feasible, protect and re -establish these
corridors. (COSE §7.0 – Background)
Page 13 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 7.3.3 – Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption,
shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces,
wildlife habitat and corridors
Program 7.7.8 – Condition development permits in accordance with applicable
mitigation measures to ensure that important corridors for wildlife movement and
dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance to wildlife include riparian
corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and
water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between
habitat areas
Pursuant to Program 7.7.9 (Creek Setbacks), Creek Setback policies are implemented
by the Creek Setback regulations set out in Zoning §17.70.030. Creek setback
requirements apply to all creeks as defined in the Open Space Element and shown on its
creek map (COSE Figure 9, see Attachment B).
Creek setbacks are measured from the existing top of bank, or from the edge of the
predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow line.
Here, the top of bank is not clearly defined, owing to the shallow nature of the creek
channel, and the edge of the associated riparian vegetation is the appropriate feature
from which to measure the setback. A 20-foot creek setback applies to development of
this property (§17.70.030(E)(1)), with neither paving nor structures larger than 120 square
feet in area permitted within the creek setback (§17.70.030(F)). Project plans depict the
edge of riparian vegetation (labeled as “Surveyed Vegetation Line” on p lans,
Attachment D, Sheet AS-1), which has been confirmed by the City Biologist as an
appropriate representation of the vegetation edge.
The abutments and structure of the proposed access bridge exceed 120 square feet in
area and extend beyond the top of banks and into the channel, and therefore may not be
located within the creek setback without obtaining a discretionary exception , as provided
by Zoning §17.70.030(G).
3.2 Required Findings for Creek Setback Exceptions
Exceptions from creek setback requirements may be considered, as provided by Zoning
§17.70.030(G)(4). Such exceptions may be approved only where an applicant can
provide clear and substantiated evidence that there is no practical way to comply with the
provisions and that no other feasible alternatives will result in better implementation of
other Zoning Regulations or General Plan policies while allowing reasonable use of a site
(Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4)(a)). The granting of an exception is subject to making all of the
required findings set out in Zoning §17.70.030(G)(4)(c), as follows:
Page 14 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Required Findings for Creek Setback Exception (Zoning §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c))
Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an
exception to a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following
findings, in addition to any other required findings associated with the project
application under which the request is considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize
impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including
opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; and
(2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control
measures that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; and
(3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor
increase the adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
(4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography,
which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would
deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the
same zoning; and
(5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement
inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same
zoning; and
(6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other
property in the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project;
and
(8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the
property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may
include less development than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional
development on an already developed site, “reasonable development” may mean no
additional development considering site constraints and the existing development’s
scale, design, or density.
Provisions for creek setback exceptions direct that a biological survey be prepared by a
qualified independent person to provide the basis for making the required findings (Zoning
§17.70.030(G)(4)(d)). A Biological Resources Assessment, along with a subsequent
Addendum, was prepared for the project by David Wolff Environmental, LLC, included as
attachments to the project IS/MND (see Attachments 3 and 4 (from pg. 225) within the
IS/MND attached to this report, Attachment H). As described by its author, the
assessment documents existing conditions of the site and evaluates the potential for any
direct or indirect significant impacts on biological, wetland, or riparian resources, or
adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or endangered plant or wildlife species
(Attachment H, pg. 225).
Page 15 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Minimize Impacts:
§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1): The location and design of the feature receiving the exception
will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including
opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement.
Staff Analysis: The Biological Resource Assessment prepared for the project provides a
summary description of the creek corridor, noting that it supports arroyo willow thicket
habitat dominated by arroyo willow, with occurrence of large and small coast live oak
trees, a leaf maple, and planted sycamore, and continues behind houses to its end near
Westmont Avenue (Attachment H, pg. 228). It can provide habitat for wildlife adapted to
urban environments although, being surrounded by urban development, “other wildlife
use is likely limited with generally low wildlife values” and “while depicted by the City as
a wildlife corridor, the project site does not represent any specific migratory or movement
corridor for wildlife” (Attachment H, pp. 228-229). Discussion of special status plant and
wildlife species is provided, describing the low potential for any to occur at the site, given
lack of suitable habitat conditions (see Attachment H, pp. 229-231).
It is noted that environmental review of the project (see Environmental Review, §4.0
below), as supported by the Biological Resources Assessment, indicates that installation
of the bridge would not, with incorporation of certain mitigation measures, have significant
impacts on scenic resources, water quality, or biological resources, as defined under the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). However, evaluation under CEQA focuses
on impacts to particular threatened species and species of concern, whereas the City’s
creek preservation policies and standards, and this required finding, are more broadly
concerned with minimization of impacts to riparian habitat and opportunities for habitati on,
rest, and movement of a range of wildlife that may take advantage of the habitat, including
those adapted to the urban environment, whether or not they are considered to be
threatened or endangered.
Interruption of this riparian corridor by the presen ce and use of the bridge can be
presumed to have some incremental impact on opportunities for habitation, rest, and
movement of wildlife. Where the existing riparian corridor is currently intact and
contiguous, the bridge structure will cross and interrupt it, involving clearance of riparian
vegetation to accommodate its twelve-foot width, fill soils in the setback area for the
support abutments, and ongoing use of this portion of the creek channel for access
between the primary residence and Accessory Dwelling Unit. As discussed in evaluation
of the remaining required findings below, it has not been conclusively demonstrated that
the access bridge is necessary for reasonable development of this property. If a bridge is
not necessary, then a project design that involves no access bridge is an alternative that
further minimizes, or practically eliminates, impacts to use of the riparian corridor by
wildlife. It is not clear the above finding can be made where there are alternatives to
develop the site in a manner that would not require an access bridge.
Page 16 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Special Circumstances
§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4): There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size,
shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same
zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the
vicinity with the same zoning.
Staff Analysis: The property is subject to substantially the same circumstances,
conditions, and privileges as land in the vicinity with the same zoni ng. This lot lies within
the northerly portion of Tract 1182 (Lots 1-78). As this property and those in the vicinity
are within an R-1 Zone, permitted land use is limited to a Single-Unit Dwelling (Zoning
§17.10.020, Table 2) and physical development must conform to the Development
Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.16, such as creek setbacks, floor area
ratio and lot coverage limitations, building height limits, and setbacks.
Certain characteristics of this property differ from those of “typical” lots in this area. This
lot is considerably larger and is more eccentrically shaped than nearby lots. It slopes
gradually on its east and west sides, down toward the creek channel which bisects the
site. A third of its “developable” area is separated on the east side of the property by the
creek channel and is encumbered by a sewer easement, presenting considerable
constraints to development of that portion of the site.
Nevertheless, the most accessible western portion of the site, connected to Patrici a Drive,
measures more than 24,000 square feet in area, much larger than the 10,000 to 15,000
square-foot lot size typical of surrounding lots, and four times larger than the 6,000
square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1 Zone (Zoning
§17.16.020(A)). Neither the creek channel nor sewer easement deprive the property of
development with a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, in the
manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity, and no other circumstances have been
identified that would deprive the owner the ability to develop the lot in a similar manner
as adjacent properties and in the vicinity.
Feasibility of Development
§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7): Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a
redesign of the project.
Staff Analysis: The proposed bridge provides access from the primary dwelling to an
Accessory Dwelling Unit planned for the eastern portion of the property, across the creek
channel, for vehicles and pedestrians. A redesign of the project wou ld most obviously
focus on the location of the ADU and the provisions for access to it from the primary
dwelling.
In response to Informational Notes regarding the required findings for creek setback
exceptions, which were provided to the applicant during review of the application for
completeness (see Attachment G), the applicant provided their explanation of their
justification for the exception request.
Page 17 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
As to the feasibility of site development with a redesign of the project, the applicant notes
natural topography constraints and argues that placement of the proposed ADU on the
western portion of the property and removal of the bridge from the project design would
render the project infeasible, as doing so would result in more site grading disturb ance
(cut and fill), and would affect other sensitive areas of the site (see Attachment G, pg. 13,
Item 4 (Statement--Exceptions)).
Staff notes that no evidence has been presented that clearly substantiates that the
eastern portion of the site is the only feasible location for the ADU or that a 12-foot wide
vehicle bridge is the only feasible means to provide access to the unit from the primary
dwelling. Nor has it been demonstrated that any additional site grading would be
necessary in order to incorporate the proposed ADU into the development proposed for
the western portion of the site, or that any additional grading required to do so would be
infeasible. No other sensitive areas of the site that would be affected by any such
additional grading have been identified or described. As discussed elsewhere in this
report, more than half an acre (24,000 sq. ft.) of the western portion of the site is
unencumbered by constraints from riparian habitat or utility easement, available for
residential site development, and there is no clear and substantiated evidence in the
application record demonstrating that development of this portion with a dwelling and
ADU would in fact be infeasible.
Reasonable Use (Redesign)
(§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8): Redesign of the project would deny the property owner
reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new
development may include less development than indicated by zoning .
Staff Analysis: Development of a single-family dwelling and associated accessory
structures (including an Accessory Dwelling Unit), consistent with applicable development
standards, represents reasonable use of property in the R-1 Zone. The applicant, in
response to Informational Notes during completeness review, argues that there would be
no reasonable use of the eastern portion of the site without an access bridge across the
creek (see Attachment G, pg. 8. par. 4 & pg. 17, par. 4), and that limiting access to, or
use of, this portion of the lot would conflict with recent legislation (i.e., California state law)
regarding establishment of ADUs (Attachment G, pg. 13, Item 4 (Statement--Exceptions).
Staff notes that this required finding is relative to reasonable use of the entire property,
not with use of particular portions of it. In addition, California law regarding ADUs directs
local agencies to permit establishment of such units, consistent with provisions of state
law, including relaxation of development standards where such standards would preclude
their establishment, but does not mandate that an ADU must be allowed on any or all
portions of a site. In this case, the half -acre western portion of the site is much larger in
size than other property in the vicinity, available to accommodate residential
development, including establishment of an ADU, and there is no evidence that redesign
of the project to achieve consistency with creek setback requirements would deny
reasonable use of the property as a whole.
Page 18 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Flood Control, Plan Implementation, Public Welfare:
The remaining required findings ((c)(2), (3), (6)) appear to be supported by plans and
information submitted with the application. The property is not located within any Flood
Hazard Zone, and project plans depict a proposed bridge structure designed in
conformance to flood control policies, providing adequate clearance above the 100 year
flood level. There are no characteristics of the property or project that would prevent the
implementation of any City-adopted plan, nor any hazardous condition or circumstance
that would cause the project to present a threat to the public or property in the area or
downstream from the site.
Summary for Required Findings
Based on staff’s analysis outlined above, four of the eight required findings necessary to
approve a creek setback exception cannot be met. Specifically, findings 1, 4, 7 & 8 that
relate to the minimization of impacts to riparian habitat, special circumstances that apply
to the site, feasibility of a redesign of the project, and reasonable use of the property.
3.3 Architectural Review
Development Standards
Project plans have been reviewed by staff for conformance to development standards
applicable to the project, as set out in Zoning Regulations §17.16.020 and Ch. 17.70, and
summarized in Table 1 below. Notwithstanding the request for exception to the creek
setback requirement described in Zoning §17.70.030, the proposed project conforms to
basic development standards including density, lot coverage limitations, building height
limits, and building setbacks.
Table 1 – Development Standards Summary
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Setbacks
Creek Setback, Min. (buildings)1 20 ft. 20 ft.
Front, Minimum. 27 ft. – 11 in. 20 ft.
Side, Minimum 5 ft. – 4 in. 5 ft..
Rear, Minimum (Primary Dwelling) > 150 ft. 20 ft.
Rear, Minimum (ADU) 15 ft. – 2 in. 4 ft
Maximum Building Height
Primary Dwelling 25 ft. 25 ft.
Accessory Dwelling Unit 16 ft. 16 ft.
Max Lot Coverage 16.2% 40%
Maximum Floor Area Ratio 0.1 0.4
Page 19 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
Minimum Lot Area 61,419 sq. ft. 6,000 sq. ft.
Parking Spaces 3 2
Table Notes
1. Creek Setback Exception requested for placement of access bridge across creek channel
Community Design Guidelines
5.3 - Infill Development
A.1. Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing, and
overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood...
B. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural
characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door
spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details.
F. Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider the colors of existing
houses in the neighborhood, to maintain compatibility.
Staff Analysis: As depicted in Sheets A10 through A15 of project plans (Attachment D)
and described in the summary provided above in this report, the proposed dwelling and
Accessory Dwelling Unit employ conventional residential exterior materials, roof forms,
window spacing, colors, and detailing to achieve compatibility with existing development
in the immediate neighborhood. The applicant provides further description of the
consideration given to the siting, layout, design, and detailing of the primary dwellin g,
towards achieving neighborhood compatibility, including use of step-backs, sloped roofs,
overhangs, and increased building setbacks to visually minimize the apparent height of
the two-story building and orientation of windows and activity areas to minim ize overlook
and privacy impacts to neighbors (see Attachment G, pp. 8 & 9).
Guidance is also provided for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1), which reiterates creek
setback requirements, supplemented by two relevant guidelines for proposed structures:
§7.1 Creekside Development
(B)(2) A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where biological and
habitat value will not be compromised; however, no other structure, road, parking
access, parking space, paved area, or swimming pool should be constructed within a
creek or creekside setback area. The surfacing of a path or trail may most
appropriately be permeable; the type of surface will be based on the need to protect
riparian resources and minimize runoff to the creek channel.
(B)(3) No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian plant species,
or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek or creekside setback area.
Page 20 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
The proposed project is inconsistent with the above guidelines since it introduces a bridge
structure with an impervious surface for vehicle access across the creek channel, which
exceeds “a path or trail” in scale and intensity of use. Installation of the bridge also
involves filling, to fit the abutments, along with removal of some of the existing riparian
vegetation, albeit with compensatory planting.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA Guidelines), projects which a public agency disapproves are statutorily exempt
from CEQA (Guidelines §15270 – Projects Which Are Disapproved). As staff is
recommending that the Commission deny this application, thereby denying the project,
this is the applicable environmental determination for the recommended a ction.
Notwithstanding the statutory exemption described above, staff notes that consistent with
CEQA Guidelines an Initial Study was conducted for the project, with particular focus on
the potential for significant environmental impacts from the project on biological
resources, given the presence of the creek and wildlife corridor features depicted in the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. The Initial Study
concluded that potential environmental impacts from the project would be reduced to a
“less than significant” level by incorporation of certain mitigation measures into any project
approval that might be granted. These mitigation measures are described in the Initial
Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration document, attache d to this report
(Attachments H & I). While staff recommends that the commission deny this project under
the statutory exemption described above, the mitigation measures described in the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project are provided with this report, to be
incorporated into any action approving the project, should the required findings be made
in support of such approval.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
Project plans were reviewed by Community Development staff (Building & Safety
Division, Engineering Division), the Natural Resources Manager, the Fire Department,
and the Utilities Department. The Natural Resources Manager assisted in confirmation of
the “edge of riparian vegetation” used to establish creek setback measurements and
review of information regarding potential impacts to biological resources. Engineering
Division staff gave particular attention to applicable Engineering standards and flood
control policies and regulations in regard to the design of the access bridge.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue consideration of the item, with direction provided to staff and the applicant.
Staff does not recommend this action because evidence provided with the application
does not adequately support the required findings for approval of a creek setback
exception, as discussed in this report. However, should the Commission decide that
such an exception could be approved, continuance of the item would allow an
opportunity to develop findings required for approval, along with recommended
conditions appropriate for any such approval action.
Page 21 of 427
Item 4a
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Planning Commission Report – January 25, 2023
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
A - Draft PC Resolution (ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia))
B - Conservation and Open Space Element: Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands)
C - Conservation and Open Space Element: Figure 3 (Wildlife Corridors)
D - Project Plans (841 Patricia)
E - Project Description (841 Patricia)
F - Tree Survey and Revegetation Plan (841 Patricia)
G - Incomplete Letter Responses (841 Patricia)
H - Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (Michaels Residence Project)
I - Public Comments on Initial Study/MND, and Responses to Comments (Michaels
Residence Project)
Page 22 of 427
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-23
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE CONSTRUCTION OF
A SINGLE-FAMILY DWELLING, ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT, AND
ACCESS BRIDGE, AND DENYING A REQUEST FOR AN EXCEPTION
FROM THE REQUIRED CREEK SETBACK, AS REPRESENTED IN THE
STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JANUARY 25, 2023
(841 PATRICIA DRIVE, ARCH-0040-2021)
WHEREAS, on January 25th, 2023, the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under application
ARCH-0040-2021, Eric and Julie Michaels, applicants, to consider construction of a
single-family dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit, and access bridge, and an exception to
creek setback requirements, proposed under this application; and
WHEREAS, notices of said 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; and
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:
1. The proposed project is not consistent with policies and programs of the City’s
General Plan for the preservation of wildlife habitat and corridors set out in the
Conservation and Open Space Element (Policy 7.3.3, Program 7.78) and for
the conservation and development of residential neighborhoods set out in the
Land Use Element regarding preservation of natural site features and respect
for site constraints (Policies 2.3.7, 2.3.9, & 2.3.10). A creek crosses the subject
property and a wildlife corridor travels through the vicinity of the project site, as
depicted in Figure 9 (Creeks and Wetlands) and Figure 3 (Wildlife Corridors) of
the Conservation and Open Space Element. The proposed project includes a
12-foot-wide access bridge crossing the creek channel for ongoing use by
pedestrians and vehicles to connect development on each side of the creek,
involving fill activities to install the bridge abutments and removal of riparian
vegetation to accommodate the bridge, disrupting the existing intact and
contiguous riparian corridor, impacting the opportunities for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement. As further described in Findings 2 through 6 , below, the
access bridge proposed under the current project design does not meet the
Page 23 of 427
PC Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 2
required findings for granting of an exception to the creek setback requirements
which implement the resource protection policies of the General Plan.
2. The location and design of the feature receiving the exception fro m creek
setback requirements requested under this application, the access bridge
proposed to be installed into and across the channel of the creek that traverses
the project site, will not minimize impacts to riparian habitat (Zoning
Regulations §17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1)). Interruption of the riparian by the
presence and use of the access bridge will impact opportunities for habitation,
rest, and movement of wildlife. Where the existing riparian corridor is currently
intact and contiguous, the bridge structure will cross and interrupt it, involving
clearance of riparian vegetation to accommodate its twelve -foot width, fill soils
in the setback area for the support abutments, and use of this portion of the
creek channel for access between the primary residence a nd Accessory
Dwelling Unit.
3. There is no evidence that there are circumstances applying to the site, such as
size, shape, or topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity
with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of privilege s enjoyed by
other property in the vicinity with the same zoning (Zoning
§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4)). The subject property lies within an R-1 Zone, in which
permitted land use is limited to a Single -Unit Dwelling (Zoning §17.10.020,
Table 2) and physical development must conform to the Development
Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.16. The most accessible
western portion of the site, wholly outside of the required creek setback area,
measures more than 24,000 square feet in area, four times larger than the
6,000 square-foot minimum lot area requirement applicable in the R-1 Zone
(Zoning §17.16.020(A)), and much larger than the typical area of surrounding
lots. The required creek setback does not deprive the property of development
with a single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures, including
Accessory Dwelling Units, in the manner enjoyed by properties in the vicinity
under applicable use limitations and development standards, and no other
circumstances have been identified that would deprive the property of such
development.
4. There is no evidence that site development cannot be feasibly accomplished
with a redesign of the project. (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7)). No evidence has been
presented that the eastern portion of the site is the only feasible location for the
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) proposed under this application, or that an
access bridge of the design proposed in project plans is the only feasible
means to provide access to the ADU from the primary dwelling. As described
in the staff report presented at public hearing for this item, there is no evidence
in the application record demonstrating that a project redesign to achieve
development of this site with a dwelling and ADU would in fact be infeasible.
Page 24 of 427
PC Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 3
5. There is no evidence that redesign of the project would deny the property owner
reasonable use of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8)). Development of a
single-family dwelling and associated accessory structures (including an
Accessory Dwelling Unit), consistent with applicable development standards,
represents reasonable use of property in the R-1 Zone. While development of
the eastern portion of the property is constrained by its location across a creek
channel from the western portion of the property and by a sewer easemen t,
and development of the central portion of the property is constrained by the
presence of a creek and required creek setback, the western portion of the site
provides a developable area of approximately half an acre (24,000 sq. ft.), and
is much larger in size to other property in the vicinity.
6. The information and materials provided with this this application do not provide
clear and substantiated evidence for conclusively and affirmatively making
several of the required findings for a creek setback exc eption set out in the
City’s Zoning Regulations, including findings regarding the minimization of
impacts to riparian habitat (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1)), existence of
circumstances that deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4)), feasibility of a redesign of the project to
accomplish site development (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7)), and the potential for
reasonable development of the property (§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8)).
7. The proposed project design is not consistent with the City’s Community
Design Guidelines (CDG) for Creekside Development (CDG §7.1), which direct
that no structure other than a path or trail may be located within a creek
setback, including a road, parking access or space, or paved area (CDG
§7.1(B)(2)), and that no grading or filling or removal of native vegetation shall
occur within a creek setback (CDG §7.1(B)(3)). The proposed project includes
a bridge structure designed in part for vehicle access within the required creek
setback, involving fill soils with installation of the bridge abutments and removal
of willow and oak trees, along with other vegetation, from the riparian corridor.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Planning Commission hereby finds that:
1. Denial of the proposed project is statutorily exempt from environmental review,
as a project which a public agency disapproves, as described in the Guidelines
for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA
Guidelines) §15270 (Projects Which Are Disapproved).
Page 25 of 427
PC Resolution No. _____ (2023 Series) Page 4
SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby deny application
ARCH-0040-2021, based on the findings set out in Section 1 of this Resolution .
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by
_______________________, and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 25th day of January 2023.
________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
Page 26 of 427
Chapter 6
Page 6-56FOOTHILLSANTA RO
S
A TANK FARMLOS OSOS VALLEYMADONNABROAD
SOUTHCALIFORNIAHIGUERAJOHNSONPALMFOOTHILLLAGUNALAKEFigure 9:Creeks and Wetlands0.500.510.25MilesCity LimitRiparian HabitatsWetland HabitatsCreeks Perennial creek with good riparian corridorIntermittent creek with good riparian corridorPerennial creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repairedIntermittent creek with degraded corridor but able to be restored or repairedPerennial creek with degraded corridor, high encroachment, and difficulty in restoringWaterwaysDrainage ditchOpen concrete swale or channelUnderground culvert or major bridgePage 27 of 427
Page 28 of 427
Chapter 6
Page 6-40 BUCKLEYHWY 1HWY 101LAGUNA LAKEHWY 101BROADFOOTHILLPRADOLOS OSOS VALLEYTANK FARMCity LimitGreenbeltCreeksWildlife ZonesFigure 3: Wildlife CorridorsWildlife CorridorsWildlife CorridorLinear BarrierPotential Wildlife Corridor0 1 2 3MilesPage 29 of 427
Page 30 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 7,7/(6+((70,&+$(/65(6,'(1&(352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5&/,(17 (5,&$1'-8/,(0,&+$(/60,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &/,(175(35(6(17$7,9( %5(77+$%$50,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 %5(77+$%$53+21( (0$,/ %*+$%$5#*0$,/&20352-(&73/$11(5 2$6,6$662&,$7(6,1&0,*8(/,72&28576$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 &$52/)/25(1&(3+21( (;7(0$,/ &0)#2$6,6$662&&20$5&+,7(&7 550'(6,*1*52836+,*8(5$675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 ('',(+(55(5$3+21( (0$,/ (0+(55(5$#550'(6,*1&20&,9,/(1*,1((5 &+$&21$662&,$7(6//&3$/20$5$9($7$6&$'(52&$ &217$&7 .(11(7+-&+$&213(3+21( (0$,/ .&+$&21#&+$&21$662&&20/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 )257,1,6+,*8(5$675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 :(6$52/$3+21( (0$,/ :(6#)257,1,/$1'6&$3(6&20352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7352326(6$1(: 648$5()227 6) 6,1*/()$0,/<&867205(6,'(1&(21$181'(9(/23(')/$*/27:,7+,1$&,5&$ 5(6,'(17,$/68%',9,6,21,1$'',7,217+(352-(&7,1&/8'(6$1648$5()227 6) '(7$&+('$&&(6625<':(//,1*81,77+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(+20(6 6 ,6&216,'(5('´&217(0325$5<&5$)760$1µ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·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6,'(·µ 6(($5&+6,7(5($5·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6)'2)%('52206$'82)%('52206 (;&(037)5203$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1765(48,5('6)'3$5.,1*&29(5('63$&(663$&(6)257+(),567%('52206$1'63$&(63(5($&+$'',7,21$/%('52207$%/(7+,63/$1+$6%('52206$1',65(48,5('72+$9(7+(0,1,08063$&(65(48,5('$'83$5.,1*63$&(6$'86'21275(48,5($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*727$/5(48,5('3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('3$5.,1*63$&(6%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5('63$&(6 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'('63$&(6),5(635,1./(565(46)' 1)3$'$'8 1)3$'$ 7,7/(6+((7$ (;,67,1*7232& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*3/$1& 75((6859(</ 0$67(5/$1'6&$3(3/$1/ 5($5<$5'/ )5217$872&2857$ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1$ 6,7(%8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7($5,$/0$3$ %$6(0(17/(9(/0$,15(6,'(1&($ *5281')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 6(&21')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 522)3/$10$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/60$,15(6,'(1&($ 3(563(&7,9(9,(:60$,15(6,'(1&($ )/225$1'522)3/$1$'8$ (/(9$7,216$'8$ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/6$'8727$/6+((76 352-(&7$5($65(6,'(1&(&21',7,21(' *5281')/225 6)(168,7( 6)6(&21')/225 6)727$/ 6)5(6,'(1&(81&21',7,21(' %$6(0(17 6)*$5$*( 6)287'225/,9,1* 6)*5((1+286( 6)&29325&+(175< 6)(168,7('(&. 6)%$/&21< 6)9(5$1'$ 6)87,/,7< 67$,56 6)$'8&21',7,21(' 6)$'881&21',7,21(' 3$7,2 6)'(&. 6)$&&(6625<%8,/',1* *$5'(16725$*( 6)" '!%# %
$"
$ $
$ # # !"# " # # !"# "
%!&$&$
#
&$%'!!!
"
"
&
*-.+%
*, )+ **)&
!$ "
! $ " #
yWƌŽũĞĐƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚϬϭͬϭϰͬϮϭ&203/,$1&(67$7(0(17)25067!7&(5<.56.7575 "
# && $*!$#'$ &%"" &!&"$! & ! !)&! " %&$'&! % %& &$&! ' -
% !&&&&%($&! !$ %!$$$ ! * !% !& &!%' &&)&&
$ &"" &! - $*!%$ &! &!&&& $*!#'$ &%-&( 9.5.64
$! &! &! #'$ & ! " ' 3 %&$'&! % )! %&$'&! '%& &&! !) ,
0
58-47-554+ $-6:;81 "
'#!$ (*'
%
" #"$! &% '%&"$!$ ""$!%")& &756< !$ $+!% '%&! ! %&$&&& $+ +%
& !& $!"!%' % !$&$& & $+ +%
& !$&& $'
!& $+%
& !& $!"!%' % %%& &!& $+%
& !&& $% ' +&! !) ' &$%! %=- $
"#<
$'&! $
"#<.9
$'&!
'% $
" #"$! &% $/$&' &! '1
&$!&
+1$#'$ &%.
$+! $!$ !$
)' !) &&& &% ! " & '! & *%&&& !&" %&.
&&'
$ &"" &! + ! %&$&! " )&& $*! "&! 6 &
$ &
%- $*! " %&% $"!$&% '%&%!)&&&"$! &% ! " )&& ! $*!+" '%&%&&)$#'$ &%-' ! " %)&&"$!$ %& $%& $*! %' "&! !$&
$!"!%% ' % !$&$& & $*'& ' &!$&& $% ' '% ! %%! /$&! " %!&)$ & ' $'&! % &-! " &!"*!&'
$ &$&&!! " !"*!&' $&&!! " % ' &" %&%)&& $*! " !' &&! -
%& %'$%% &! & $*! " "!$&)& &
$ &
%- * % '$ ! %&$'&! "& & $*! " "!$&%!' $(% $%' &&-' %"&! $&&!! " &""$!(" %% % "$!$&!&' -' &&! %"&! &(&%!'& &3%$2%'&!
$ &%3-:8
! &%&!& !$ $*!+&! 574-4- 574-5 !'
57-46-554-=2%$1%'&!
$ &%2)" %&"$ &"$!%% %& %! & %"&! "$!%%-%&&&*1%' 3&*
$ &!$ %3"" &! %("-9 $*% & /0%%! $* %&(!! "! &%,& $* *% & + &! $ &$ $&! ) &*% & -! $ &$: . &$' % ! &'$ %" ' %& (& &' '%% &$&*%&%!'$! $*!$ %"& +(&$& +!! "" %+ !&%$* "" %- . &$' *" ' !$&'%! &'$ %%' !$"" % ! $ & -;"" %&! ($% & ! %&$'&! ! ).' ' + ' $! %&$'&! ! ! %' ) ' ' &! % &$&! %! *&*"&&! !& && &! ! ! &! -<&1 $+! $!$ !$
)' %' %1!$ %&$'&! % $#'$%' && %.Page 31 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/(;,67,1*72326,7(3/$1(;,67,1*7232*5$3+,&6859(<6,7(3/$1 ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7
5h
'
/0h
'
/$#5+5«1(«$'#4+0)50h
'
/0h
9
/5h
9
/5 h
'
/5h
9
/
9,.99/9(E) WOOD FENCE(E) ENTRY GATE & COLUMNSEXISTING SHRUBS(E) 6' WD FENCEEDGE OF DENSE VEGETATION(E) BLOCK RETAINING WALLSEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTPUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTEDGE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATIONP A T R I C I A D R I V E (E) WATER METER(E) ELEC(E) FIRE HYDRANT(E) TOPOGRAPHYNYARD SETBACK20' - 0" MIN.Y A R D S E T B A C K
5 ' - 0 " M IN .YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN. BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSBUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKS(E) WATER MAIN(E) SEWER MAINYARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.(E) SHED TO BE REMOVEDEASEMENT30' - 0"EASEMENT15' - 0"EASEMENT20' - 0"EASEMENT
30' - 0"BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKCREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"9,&,1,7<0$3Page 32 of 427
340341342343344UPUP350350
SHALLOW
DEEP
SHALLOW
SHALLOWSHALLOW 335335335335340340340
345345345345345350350350350332332333333334334336336337337337337337337338
338338338
339
339339339339339
341341341342342342342343343343344344344346346346346346347347347347348348348348349349349349351351351
351352352352352353353353353 7600 Morro RoadAtascadero, CA 93422(805) 610-1714#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021Ch conPage 33 of 427
6
(
01
(
0%$6,62)%($5,1*61
(
01
:
06
:
06
(
0
6
:
06)+6:03$75,&,
$
'
5,
9
(6)+6:06 ( :22')(1&((;,67,1*6+58%6 (
:')(1&( ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(176859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 3$75,&,
$
'
5,
9
(<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
0,
1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($$$$5(6,'(1&(
$'8322/*$5$*(&29325&+*5((1+286(6+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(6625<6725$*(75$6+&217$,1(5/2&$7,21:35,9$&<6&5((1($6(0(17
$&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
( (175<*$7( &2/8016 ( :$7(50(7(5 ( (/(& ( ),5(+<'5$17 ( :$7(50$,1 ( 6(:(50$,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7
#5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$$6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$66)/27$5($6)/27$5($&5((.$5($12786(',1/27&29(5$*(&$/& ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
$'83$7,2678',2(+'(+',QF :HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$ S H HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP$60,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$13$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$BUHY
$6$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(Page 34 of 427
Page 35 of 427
TREESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNKARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD` DR. HURD COMMON MANZANITACERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNKCITRUS X LIMON `IMPROVED MEYER` MEYER LEMONCITRUS X SINENSIS SWEET ORANGEFEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAFICUS CARICA COMMON FIGFORTUNELLA MARGARITA `NAGAMI` KUMQUATLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKLAURUS NOBILIS `SARATOGA` SARATOGA BAY LAURELPLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNKSHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEACANTHUS MOLLIS BEAR`S BREECHALYOGYNE HUEGELII BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI `POINT REYES` POINT REYES KINNIKINNICKBACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSHCEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS CARMEL CREEPERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSHFESTUCA RUBRA `MOLATE` MOLATE RED FESCUEHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLSHYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF HYDRANGEALANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `SPREADING WHITE` WHITE TRAILING LANTANALAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA `HIDCOTE` HIDCOTE LAVENDERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASSORIGANUM VULGARE OREGANOPHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYROSE (SELECTED BY OWNER) --ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `IRENE` TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARYROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARYSALVIA NEMOROSA `BUMBLEBLUE` BUMBLEBLUE PERENNIAL SALVIASALVIA OFFICINALIS GARDEN SAGESALVIA X `WAVERLY` WAVERLY SAGESANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTONSESLERIA X `GREENLEE` GREENLEE MOOR GRASSSTACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB`S EARTEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDERTHYMUS VULGARIS COMMON THYMEWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` MUNDI COAST ROSEMARYWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `WYNABBIE GEM` WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARYVINESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEFICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIGTRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES CHINESE STAR JASMINEVITIS X `ROGERS RED` ROGERS RED CALIFORNIA GRAPEUPREFWUP337338339341342343344346347348349351352353336337338339341342343344340345350335340SFHSWM350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWMASTERLANDSCAPEPLANL-1PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE03.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATEPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREENED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3" OF BARK MULCHIRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATERCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.A WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THEIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THEMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE.ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES, SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BEREGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.ALL LAWN AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATIONOR HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY IRRIGATIONCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTTHE DESIGN WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FORWATER CONSERVATION THROUGH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPEIRRIGATION DESIGN. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMWELO_____________________WES AROLA - CA 5958( In Feet )1 inch = 20 feetGRAPHIC SCALE80402010020PATRICIAADUBRIDGE
GARAGERESIDENCEPRELIMINARY PLANT LISTSEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-2SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-3LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHRUB PLANTINGSSSSMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESEECLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEOVNED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAP" OF BARK MULCHAMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATERANTHE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORVAERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.TONTROLLER'WILLBE USED TO MONITORTHELLDAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THETECH HYDROZONE.ROOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ERHAT ONCE ESTABLISHED WATER CAN BEAPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. TTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATEA WEATHER SENSING 'SMARTCONIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO TPRELIMINARY WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONSPage 36 of 427
UP337338339341342343344346347348349351352340345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWCORELANDSCAPEPLANL-2PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101INFINITY POOL 16x38STONE PAVING WITH NATURALIZEDEDGENATURAL LAWNWITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATIONSTAGGERED CONCRETE STEPSDECKING WITH RAILINGRETAINING WALL, BOARD FORMCONCRETE OR SMOOTH STUCCONATURAL LAWN OR MOWED MEADOWSPA/GYM PATIOGROTTO STYLE SPAPLANTING AREA, TYPPAVER RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO ADUBRIDGELIGHTWEIGHT STEEL OVERHEAD SHADESTRUCTUREOUTDOOR KITCHENGRASS PAVINGGRAVITY BLOCK RETAINING WALLSTONE CLAD ACCENT WALLDESIGN KEY23456789101112131223445678910101010111213141415151516161610Page 37 of 427
UP346347348349351352353345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWLANDSCAPEPLANL-3PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101DRY STACKED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATELANDSCAPE TERRACESBLOCK RETAINING WALL COVERED IN VINESPERMEABLE LINEAR PAVERSACCENT TREES POSITIONED TO PROVIDE PRIVACYGAPPED STEPPERS WITH PLANTED JOINTSCONCRETE PORCH / STEPSPLANTING AREA, TYPADDITIONAL PARKING SPACETRASH STORAGEDESIGN KEY234567819233345667778991Page 38 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA4PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE SECTIONS1” = 20’-0” (24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 40’-0” (12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR350' -0"T.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE16' - 0"(E) AVG. FG 351.75AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(352.75+350.75)/2 = 351.75'(E) FG 352.75(E) FG 350.75PROPOSED 375.57ALLOWED 376.75BEDROOM 2KITCHEN(E) FG 339.00(E) FG 339.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(339.00+339.50)/2 = 339.25'(E) AVG. FG 339.25ALLOWED 355.25PROPOSED +/- 354.86GREENHOUSEVERANDAADUT.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"GARAGE FF348' -0"GARAGE FF348' -0"12' - 1"10' - 1"(E) AVG. FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 1(352.75+350.25)/2 = 351.50'(E) FG 350.25(E) FG 352.75PROPOSED 376.48ALLOWED 376.50M. BEDROOMM. BATHUTILITY 1GARAGEGROUND FLOOR350' -0"GROUND FLOOR350' -0"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"SUITE FF348' -0"SUITE FF348' -0"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"(E) FG 343.00(E) AVG. FG 346.75(E) FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 3(351.50+343.00)/2 = 346.75'MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"PROPOSED +/- 369.22ALLOWED 371.75PROPOSED +/- 365.31(E) F.G. TO RIDGE20' - 0"GREATROOMFOYEREN-SUITEW.I.C.BASEMENT1" = 10'-0"AS-1A4SITE SECTION 2 @ LIVING21" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 1 @ GARAGE11" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 3 @ EN-SUITE3Page 39 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA5PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE AERIAL MAPSITE AERIAL MAP1" =20’ - 0” (24 X 36 SHEET)11” = 40’-0” (24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 80’-0” (12X18 SHEET)VIEWS OF BISHOP PEAKVIEWS OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY1Page 40 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA6PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)BASEMENT FLOOR PLANYOGA13'-3"x14'-0"DRY SUANA7'-6"x12'-0"STORCAB.T.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A1FLOOR PLAN_BASEMENT1Page 41 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA7PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR PLANUPUPDWGREATROOM22'-6"x2'0"DINING15'0"x19'-6"KITCHEN22'-6"x24'-0"NOOKPWDRPANTRY6'-6"x11'-6"BUTLER8'-0"x6'-1"ELEV.5'-0"x6'-6"FOYERW.I.C.9'-6"x7'-6"BATH7'-0"x12'-0"EN-SUITE16'-0"x14'-6"MUD ROOM12'0"x9'-6"BBQ2-CAR1-CAR GARAGEOUTDOOR LIVINGGREENHOUSE30'-0"x13'-0"TOOLSCL.UTILITY 1PATIOsinkbenchpet washlinenseatingflex. stationhutchbuilt-inbuilt-inbuilt-incoatlinenpergolaprep stationentertainmentREFSTOVEMICRO9' - 6" MIN18' - 6" MIN19' - 0" MIN.18' - 6" MIN.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A2FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 11Page 42 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA8PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SECOND FLOOR PLANDWBEDROOM 312'-0"x11'-4"W.I.C 38'-0"x4'-8"BATH 2W.I.C. 28'-0"x4'-8"BATH 3M. BEDROOM15'-6"x14'-6"HIS5'-0"x6'-5"HERS6'-10"x6'-5"T.M. BATHOPEN TO BELOWGALLERY44'-0"x5'-9"BEDROOM 212'-0"x11'-4"VERANDABALCONYFAMILY ROOM15'-6"x14'-4"BALCONYLNDRY.7'-0"x10'-5"ELEV.benchentertainmentbuilt-in shelvingart nichestorage1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A3FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 21Page 43 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA9PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ROOF PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A4SITE _ROOF PLAN1Page 44 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA10PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALSAABCCFFFDEHGDGHHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 45 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA11PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGGHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 46 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCESECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLANA12PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGDDHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 47 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA13PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PERSPECTIVE VIEWS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGADAAHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 48 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA14PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - ADUUPKITCHEN/LIVINGBEDROOMBATHROOMW.I.C.PATIODECK3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-ROOF PLAN SCHEMATIC3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-FLOOR PLAN SCHEMATICPERSPECTIVE - FRONTPage 49 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA15PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ELEVATIONS - ADURIGHT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)REAR ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)LEFT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)FRONT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1111Horizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentABCCFEHGBEFAAFFGHCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 50 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA16PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS - ADUAGBEFFCHFHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20Page 51 of 427
Page 52 of 427
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f
www.oasisassoc.com
application supplement
to the
minor development review application
single family residence & accessory dwelling unit (adu) development
841 Patricia Drive
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
15 January 2021
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project consists of a new 4,900± square foot (SF) single-family residence
and an 825 SF accessory dwelling unit. The siting of the house compl ies with the
requisite development standards while responding to the existing topography, on-site
creek-riparian corridor, and views of the surrounding hillsides and City below.
Extensive landscape architectural design completes the overall aesthetic and functional
approach to the project.
II. PROPERTY INFORMATION & EXISTING CONDITIONS
Owner Eric & Julie Michaels
Project Address 841 Patricia Drive
APN 052-520-063. (Lot 63 of Tract 1182)
Parcel Size 1.41 acres
Zoning Designation Low Density Residential- Planned Development (R-1-PD)
Planned Development Established with annexation into City and amended Tract 1182, circa 1985
The subject property, a flag lot
accessed via an existing gated driveway
on Patricia Drive, is surrounded on all
sides by other single-family homes
built in the tract since its approval in
the mid-1980s. The City identifies an
unnamed and mapped creek running
through the property. There is an
existing small storage shed on the
property which is to be demolished as
part of the proposed development.
III. PERMIT PROCESSING
The Zoning Regulations identify
thresholds for the level of development
review required for the project. The
proposed project is an allowable use but does require a minor development review as the
new single-family residence is located on a site with a creek. Minor development review
Figure 1
Page 53 of 427
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
Page 2 of 5
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f
www.oasisassoc.com
is a staff-level review with no public hearing. Once the review is completed and the
project is approved, the property owner can apply for building permit(s).
IV. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS & ZONING REGULATIONS
A. Planned Development & Tract 1182
The subject property is within a Planned Development (PD) zoning overlay. The PD
overlay established specific development standards that may deviate from the Citywide
zoning regulations. In this case, the PD overlay was established as part of the area’s
annexation into the City in 1978 and was further refined with the subdivision
(circa 1985). The City provided records that relate to the PD and tract approval.
The majority of the conditions of approval and PD requirements pertained to
development of the tract and related improvements. The subject property is not
identified for specific requirements however, the following items are of note.
1) The tract map conditions of approval specified a minimum drainage
easement be established for all-natural drainage ways from top bank to
top of bank (with a minimum of 10 feet). 1
2) Per the tract approval, homes and driveways shall drain to the street or
natural drainage ways. And cross lot drainage shall not be increased with
development of lots. If drainage does cross property lines, private drainage
easements would need to be established. 2
3) Drainage structures are to be designed for a 100-year storm, however this
condition notes, “Exceptions to the subdivision ordinance shall be
provided for lot which do not have adequate frontages.”3
Figure 2 identifies the 1984/85 tract map noting the drainage and sewer
easements.
City Standards & Specifications 1010 of the Uniform Design Criteria also apply to the
project, most notably.
• §1010 5.1.2 Alignment of Drainage Facilities (C) Easement Width
• §1010 5.1.10 Fencing
• §1010 7.1.3 Pipe (D) Sewer Lines within Easements
See Sheet C-1 Preliminary Grading & Utility Plan (Chacon & Associates) for the proposed
grading, drainage, and utility concepts and the completed Stormwater Control Plan for
Post Construction Requirements form.
1 Resolution 5428 (1984 series) Condition 2
2 Resolution 5428 (1984 series) Condition 3 and 4
3 Ordinance 479 (1978 series) Condition 11
Page 54 of 427
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
Page 3 of 5
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f
www.oasisassoc.com
B. Development Standards & Creek Setback
The development standards applicable to the subject property are provided in the table
below. The proposed project complies with the applicable development standards. See
Sheet A1, RRM Design Group, for the project statistics – lot coverage, building height,
setbacks, parking, and related project information.
The City’s creek setback requirements are also applicable to the project. In this location,
a 20-foot setback from top of bank or edge of riparian habitat is applicable. (§17.70.030).
The location of the riparian setback has been established by Freddy Otte, City Biologist.
The setback has been surveyed and noted on the plan set accordingly. Encroachments
into the riparian corridor consist of a bridge to access the proposed accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) and related utility connections. Other agency permits (e.g., Army Corp., US
& CA Fish & Wildlife, Regional Water Quality Control Board) will be applied for, as
necessary, for any encroachment into their jurisdiction. David Wolff, Sage Institute, Inc.
is the project biologist and is familiar with the site, proposed project, and agency
permitting requirements.
The proposed development has been carefully designed in response to the topography
of the site. Building height calculations are provided on Sheet A4-Site Elevations. The
main portion of the structure is a rectilinear configuration with the average grade
elevation calculated based on the extents of this portion of the building (see Sections 1
& 2 on sheet A4). The en-suite wing of the structure is calculated separately as the wing
is a relatively small portion of the building mass (see Section 3 on sheet A4). T he 588
Figure 2
Page 55 of 427
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
Page 4 of 5
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f
www.oasisassoc.com
SF en-suite wing is one-story structure (with basement) with a lower finish floor
elevation created in response to the increased slope in this area of the property. While
the average slope of the overall property does not exceed 15% and thus §17.70.080.B
“Building Height on Slopes with Sixteen Percent Grade or Greater” is not automatically
applicable, the calculation provided is consistent with the development standards for a
sloping site. The main structure and the en-suite’s exposed façades and building height,
located on the downward slope, are consistent with the intent of the development
standards to control building height, while responding to the site topography and in the
context of neighborhood and surrounding homes.
ZONING REGULATIONS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-1) ZONE
17.16.020 Development Standards; Table 2-4: R-1 Zone Development Standards.
STANDARD ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS PROJECT COMPLIANCE
Maximum Residential
Density: 7 units/net acre
See also Section 17.70.040 (Density) One (1) residential single-family
dwelling on one (1) legal lot.
Density is not applicable to ADU.
Maximum FAR: 0.4 Maximum FAR may be increased up to 0.50 if
consistent with Section 17.16.030(A) (Requirements
and Findings for FAR Increase in R-1 Zone). See also
Section 17.70.060 (FAR Measurement and Exceptions)
0.12 (7,857 SF gross floor area
(conditioned and non-conditioned
space) / 61,419 SF)
Minimum Setbacks
Front: 20 feet
Interior Side and Rear:
See Table 2-5 below
Corner Lot—Street Side:
10 feet.
See also Section 17.76.030 (Front Yard
Paving)
See Figure 2-1: Street Side Setback on
Corner Lots
Front: 25
Side: 5 feet (with building height
of 10’6”) to 15 feet (with building
height of 15’6”)
Rear: 15 feet (to ADU building
height of 20 feet)
Maximum Building Height:
25 feet
Roof pitches with a slope of at least 30
degrees above a horizontal plane may extend
beyond the maximum height no more than
30 inches. See also Sections 17.16.020(B)
(R-1 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear
Setbacks) and 17.70.080 (Height
Measurement and Exceptions)
Main building: 25 feet
En-suite wing: 20 feet
Accessory Dwelling Unit: 20 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage:
40%
See also Section 17.70.120 (Lot Coverage) 11% (6,876 SF)
Minimum Lot Area: 6,000
SF
See also Section 16.18.030 (Lot Dimensions) Existing lot of 61,419 SF
Page 56 of 427
Oasis Associates, Inc.
15 January 2021
ARC-MII Application Supplement – Michaels Residence, 841 Patricia Drive, SLO
Page 5 of 5
3427 Miguelito Court San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 805.541.4509 p 805.546.0525 f
www.oasisassoc.com
Table 2-5: R-1 Zone Minimum Interior Side and Rear Setbacks
Maximum Building Height
A point this high on the roof of a building:
Minimum Required Setback
Must be at least this far from the property line:
1—12 feet 5 feet (minimum setback)
13—15 feet 6 feet
16—17 feet 7 feet
18—19 feet 8 feet
20—22 feet 9 feet
23—24 feet 10 feet
25 feet 11 feet
C. Accessory Dwelling Unit
Based upon Municipal Code §17.86.020, detached ADUs shall not exceed 850 square
feet for a studio or one-bedroom unit or one thousand (1,000) square feet for a unit
containing at least two bedrooms. Performance standards should be reviewed and are
not unnecessarily prohibitive. The proposed one-bedroom ADU, located across the creek
from the proposed single-family residence, is 825 square feet.
D. Clean Energy Choice Program (CECP)
Based upon the criteria in the CECP, new buildings, including single -family residences
are subject to the new energy requirements, as well as the State Energy Code
Requirements. The A1 Title Sheet contains the requisite planning phase CECP
acknowledgment. Additional compliance with these requirements will be part of the
building permit application process and construction inspection phase.
Page 57 of 427
Page 58 of 427
Page 59 of 427
Page 60 of 427
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE – 12 March 2021 – digitally via email woetzell@slocity.org
February 12, 2021
C.M. Florence, AICP
Oasis Associates, Inc
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Subject: Application ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Determination of application completeness:
Dear Ms. Florence:
I write to inform you that after review of the materials submitted with your client’s Architectural
Review application for development of the property at 841 Patricia Street with a single-family
dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit has been determined to be incomplete, pending receipt of
additional information or materials needed to complete the application. Additionally, we note, in the
Information Note at the end of this letter, several areas of concern about consistency of the proposed
project with applicable policies and guidelines related to protection of creeks and wildlife corridors,
and the design of new construction within existing residential neighborhoods which should be
considered prior to submitting information and materials in response to this letter.
Planning
1. Creek Setback. Depict and clearly label the Creek Setback applicable to the site, as
provided in Zoning Regulations (§ 17.70.030 (C) Measurement of Creek Setbacks). Show
the location of the top of bank and the edge of predominant pattern of riparian vegetation
and provide the dimension of the creek setback.
RESPONSE: See sheet A2 & A3. The location of the edge of predominant pattern of
riparian vegetation is depicted on the existing topographic survey, as delineated in the field
by Freddy Otte, Biologist. The “biological setback” is synonymous with the edge of
riparian habitat, as there is no clearly defined top-of-bank. The twenty (20)-foot building
setback is noted as the shaded “Allowable Building Area” nonetheless, we will add a 20-
foot dimension to the plan for additional clarity.
Accessory structures located within the setback area comply with §17.70.030 G.2.
2. Waterway (Creek). Provide on the Site Plan the location and width of all waterways on
the site (i.e. the creek).
RESPONSE: The location and width of the “waterway” is depicted on sheet A2 & A3
as a recorded thirty (30) foot easement. A cross section has been added to sheet C1 to
help show the width of the existing “waterway.”
Page 61 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 2 of 10
3. Biological Setback. The Biological Setback Limits depicted on Site Plans do not appear to
be relevant to the proposed project. Omit the Biological Setback Limits from the site plan
(note that a depiction of the edge of riparian vegetation is appropriate in its place, as
described in Comment #1 above).
RESPONSE: See response to comment no. 1.
4. Allowable Building Area. Clarify the “Allowable Building Area” depicted on Site Plans.
Note that this is not recognized as an applicable development standard. Unless relevant to
development standards or creek and wildlife corridor protection, consider omitting
depiction of this area from Site Plans. Instead, verify that relevant setbacks, easement
lines, and other features that constrain “buildable area” are properly depicted and
dimensioned in plans.
RESPONSE: The noted allowable building area represent the requisite 20-foot setback
from the edge of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation. See response to comment
no. 1, as we will add the setback dimension to sheet A2, accordingly. The language used on
the site plan has been changed from “Allowable Building Area” to “Allowable limits of building
envelope” on sheets A2 & A3
5. Statement (Exceptions). Clearly describe any exceptions or variances from the Property
Development Standards set out in Zoning Regulations Ch. 17.70, including any Creek
Setback Exception requested. Provide discussion and evidence in support of any requested
exception to assist in consideration of required findings that must be made. For example,
any Creek Setback exception must be based on findings concerning minimization of
impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for
wildlife habitation, rest, and movement; consistency with flood control measures; and
presence of special circumstances applicable to the site and infeasibility of alternative
designs (see Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)).
RESPONSE: While structural creek crossings on many other discretionary approvals in
the City did not require an exception, an interpretation could be made that requires an
exception 1 for the bridge to access the other side of the creek and the proposed ADU. If
that is the case, the bridge will ultimately be designed to allow the Director to make the
required findings noted in §17.70.030 G.4.(c).
6. Accessory Structures and Uses (Creek Setback). Identify any Accessory Structures and
Uses located within the required Creek Setback, as provided in Zoning Regulations
§ 17.70.030(G)(2). Verify that they do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek
channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; and will not reduce any
flooding capacity in compliance with the City’s flood damage prevention regulations.
Calculate the amount of the required creek setback area occupied by such structures and
uses (note that they may not, in total, occupy not more than one-half of the total setback
area).
RESPONSE: See response to no. 5 above.
1 See §17.70.030 G. 2. Accessory Structures and Uses – The following items may be located within the required creek setback without
obtaining a discretionary exception unless otherwise noted, provide that they do not extend beyond the top of bank int the creek channel; will
not cause the removal of native riparian vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity in compliance with the City’s flood damage
prevention regulation; in total occupy not more than one-half of the total required creek setback areas; and are consistent with other property
development standards of the Zoning regulations.
Page 62 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 3 of 10
7. Bridge Details. Provide details about the design of the bridge proposed to cross the creek
channel, including colors and materials, dimensions, and supporting structures
(abutments, footings, etc.). Include in these details the relationship of the bridge to the
required Creek Setback. Provide cross-section drawings depicting the portion of the
bridge crossing the creek channel.
RESPONSE: A cross section of the bridge crossing has been added to sheet C1. We have
also included a similar bridge type to represent the general style and size of the bridge. See
sheet A3.
8. Effected Vegetation. Describe the nature and extent of work affecting trees and
vegetation within the creek setback and creek channel, such as soil work, plantings,
trimming, weed abatement, or vegetation removal. Include a depiction of all areas in the
creek setback and creek channel in which vegetation removal will be undertaken (e.g. to
accommodate the proposed bridge).
RESPONSE: The proposed bridge/creek crossing has been located in an effort to
minimize the disturbance to the creek channel and adjacent vegetation. See sheets A3, C-
1 and C-2, and the description below in our response to the section called Informational
Notes.
9. Lot Coverage Calculation. Verify that lot coverage has been calculated consistent with
Zoning Regulations § 17.70.120, which describes lot coverage as the ratio of the total area
of a lot covered by the footprint of all structures to the net lot area. Note that Net Lot Area
is described in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.110 (B), and that Net Lot Area excludes area
between the tops of banks of creeks. Show the components of the Lot Coverage
Calculation on the Title Page of plans, including the areas excluded from the lot area (i.e.
creek area) and the Net Lot Area itself. Consider, for clarity, indicating the excluded area
on Site Plans.
RESPONSE: An area plan showing the allowable lot coverage in the lot coverage
calculation has been added to sheet A3. The lot area, allowable lot area for lot coverage,
max lot coverage, and proposed lot coverage have been added to the title sheet with the
code reference 17.70.120.
10. Solid Waste Collection. Show the dimension of the solid waste collection area,
consistent appropriate number of waste containers), and provide details of the area screening
(see also Utilities items below concerning solid waste collection service).
RESPONSE: Dimensions of the fenced enclosure for the trash receptacles have been
added to the Schematic Site Plan on sheet A3, and are consistent with the appropriate
number of waste containers. Our trash enclosure is not within any required front or side
setback per 17.70.200. The fence/screen height will be under 60-inches.
11. Parking. Verify the dimensions of parking spaces provided in the garage. One of the
spaces does not appear to meet minimum dimensions. Clearly depict the location and
dimension of the “third parking space” provided for the development. Depict the location
Page 63 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 4 of 10
and dimensions of two long-term bicycle parking spaces. Provide in the Project Data on
the Title Sheet of plans a calculation of required parking (which for single-family
dwellings is determined by the number of bedrooms).
RESPONSE: Parking dimensions have been added to the floor plan sheet A7. The
required parking requirements, 2 spaces, have been added to the title sheet A1 and are
satisfied by the 2-car garage. The third car garage has updated to reflect the minimum
18’-6” x 9’-6” required clear space. These sizes are based on the City’s own interpretations
of section 17.16.070. Please see attached City memo.
12. Dwelling Information (Project Data). Indicate in the Project Data on the Title Page of
plans the number of new dwellings, by bedrooms (describing the number of bedrooms).
RESPONSE: The bedroom breakdown for the single-family residence (SFD) and the
accessory dwelling unit (ADU) have been added to the title sheet A1 under project
statistics.
13. Elevation Drawings (Building Height). Show on Elevation Drawings dimensioned
maximum height of building from average natural grade.
RESPONSE: See sheet A4 for the site sections and maximum height from the average
natural grade. §17.70.080 has been used to calculate height limit. The height of the
building is measured as the vertical distance from the average level of the highest and
lowest existing grade of that portion of the site covered by the building to the topmost of
the roof. Requirements from §17.16.020 Table 2-5: Minimum Interior Side and Rear
Setbacks have been shown at applicable locations on site plan sheet A3.
14. Elevation Drawings (Colors and Materials). Provide on each Elevation Drawing a key
noting corresponding colors and materials for building surfaces.
RESPONSE: Sheet A10 provides the colors and materials on the perspective. For
clarity, we have added the same key notes to sheets A11 – A13.
15. Accessory Structure. Include Elevation Drawings of the Accessory Structure at the north
end of the property. Clearly indicate colors and materials for the structure.
RESPONSE: Sheet A16 depicts the ADU in perspective with key noted material/colors.
For clarity, the color/material key notes have been added to sheet A15.
16. Exterior Lighting. Show on Site Plan and Elevation Drawings, and on Landscape Plans
where appropriate, proposed exterior lighting, sufficient to evaluation conformance to
Night Sky Preservation standards and potential impact to the wildlife corridor along the
creek course. Building (Lizzandro Diaz (805) 781-7157 | ldiaz@slocity.org)
RESPONSE: Lighting examples and code language have been added to sheets A11, A12,
A13 & A15. A statement has been included that notes all exterior doors will have lighting,
and any additional lighting will be code compliant.
Page 64 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 5 of 10
17. Provide proposed Occupancies in compliance with Ch. 3 of the California Building Code. Engineering
(Hal Hannula (805) 781-7201| hhannula@slocity.org)
RESPONSE: R-3/U Occupancy has been added to the title sheet.
18. Provide a preliminary drainage report if warranted to clarify drainage in the channel and
to verify that all improvements, including the bottom girder of the bridge are at least 1’
above the 100-year flood. Drainage calcs for the subdivision were not available at the
time of this review.
RESPONSE: See attached Design Memorandum, Chacon Associates, 03 March 2021.
19. Provide a preliminary utility plan showing the existing public water, sewer, and storm
drain lines for reference. City record drawings for Tract 1182 are available upon request.
Include the depth and alignment for the public sewer located within the easement. Include
additional information on the storm drain with an outlet to the channel. Show and label
any existing or proposed erosion protection at the storm drain outlet.
RESPONSE: The existing utilities have been added to sheet C1.
20. Show and label the bearings and distances for all property lines and easements for
reference.
RESPONSE: The bearings and distances of the property lines are depicted on sheets
A2 & C1.
21. Unless otherwise approved by the Utilities Department, revise the ADU plans so that the
roof overhang does not encroach into the easement.
RESPONSE: The roof overhang on the “rear elevation” of the ADU has been removed.
The change is reflected on the site plan, as well as ADU sheets A14 & A15.
22. Include a tree inventory for the area of the proposed bridge crossing. Trees with
canopies/root zones located within the work zone should be included. Provide the tree
diameters and species for trees included in the inventory. Tree canopies should be
generally shown to scale for any impacted trees. Show and label the trees to be removed
and the trees to remain. Fire (Rodger Maggio (805) 781-7386 | rmaggio@slocity.org)
RESPONSE: Vegetation at and adjacent to the proposed bridge structure has been
identified and inventoried. Tree canopies have been estimated. See sheet L-1.
23. Fire Sprinklers conforming to NFPA 13D standards are required for the residence and
ADU, and at least one sprinkler in each attic space.
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed on the construction documents. For
clarification, NFPA 13D fire sprinklers have been added to project statistics on Sheet A1
for both the SFD & ADU.
24. Exterior construction materials shall conform to the requirements of the California
Page 65 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 6 of 10
Residential Code R337 for ignition resistant construction. No combustible exterior siding
is permitted inclusive of wood lap siding and shingles. Roof assembly shall be class A.
Attic and subfloor venting shall be designed to inhibit ember intrusion. Utilities (Cori
Burnett (805) 781-7208 | mbarcenas@slocity.org)
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed on the construction documents.
Ignition resistant and non-combustible code language has been added to the colored
elevations and perspectives, on sheet: A10, A11, A12, A13, A15 & A16
25. The project is located within a capacity constrained area and shall meet the wastewater
flow offset requirements per Chapter 13.08.396 of the City’s Municipal Code prior to
building permit issuance. Please submit the Wastewater Offset Flow Application and a
PDF version of the project plans to Cori Burnett, Utilities Engineer, to complete this
requirement, cburnett@slocity.org. Wastewater Offset Program information can be found
at https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-
department/wastewater/wastewater-offset-program.
RESPONSE: Comment noted and will be addressed with submittal of the construction
documents.
26. Label the size of the existing water meter.
RESPONSE: The existing water meter size has been labeled on sheet C1.
27. Show the mainline that the sewer lateral to which the proposed Accessory Dwelling Unit
would connect.
RESPONSE: The existing utilities have been added to sheet C1.
28. Revise the Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) and Estimated Total Water
Usage (ETWU) calculations, using the City’s calculator, available online at:
www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/documents-and-
files. Include the revised tables in the plans.
RESPONSE: The City’s MAWA and ETWU forms are now completed and located on
sheet L-1.
29. Provide evidence of confirmation of service for the project from the City’s franchise
waste hauler (San Luis Garbage Company).
RESPONSE: See attached correspondence from the San Luis Garbage Co. (P. Cron,
15 February 2021).
Preliminary review is intended to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your project
and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The above list includes all of the items
identified as necessary to find your application complete for further processing. Your application
will remain in an incomplete status until those items are received. Upon resubmittal, please provide
a narrative response indicating where these items can be found in your plans or application materials.
Page 66 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 7 of 10
The City may ask for further clarification or amplification of information after an application
accepted as complete. Feel free to contact me anytime at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at
woetzell@slocity.org) if you have any questions regarding this letter, or about the status or
processing of your applications.
Informational Note: Figure 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element depicts a wildlife
corridor over the site area, and a creek depicted in Figure 9 traverses the site. Supporting policies
for the protection and enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors are found in the
Land Use Element and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g., see
LUE §§ 2.3.7, 6.6.3, & 6.6.4; COSE §§ 7.3.3, 7.7.8, & 7.7.9). These policies require that residential
development respect natural features such as creeks and wildlife corridors, preserve and protect these
important features, respect the separation from creek banks and natural features, and keep open
channels open and free of structures in or over their banks.
Information requested above, relevant to the creek and wildlife corridor, will inform consideration of
whether the proposal is consistent with those General Plan policies, and whether project may impact
on the wildlife corridor or creek habitat. The proposed new construction may not be considered
exempt from CEQA Environmental Review, requiring preparation of a CEQA Initial Study, to
determine if the project may have a significant impact on the environment. Furthermore, where a
Creek Setback exception may be necessary, the information provided does not support the restrictive
findings set out in Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c), required to approve such an exception,
particularly those regarding the presence of special circumstances, and feasibility of alternate
designs allowing for reasonable use of the property.
RESPONSE: We note the findings in §17.70.030(G) (4) (c) below and provide the related response.
G.4.c. Findings. Each Director’s Hearing or other discretionary application to grant an
exception to a required creek setback shall be subject to each of the following findings, in
addition to any other required findings associated with the project application under which the
request is considered:
(1) The location and design of the feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic
resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement; and
(2) The exception will not limit the City’s design options for providing flood control measures
that are needed to achieve adopted City flood policies; and
(3) The exception will not prevent the implementation of City-adopted plans, nor increase the
adverse environmental effects of implementing such plans; and
(4) There are circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do
not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property
of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(5) The exception will not constitute a grant of special privilege—an entitlement inconsistent
with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity with the same zoning; and
(6) The exception will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to other property in
the area of the project or downstream; and
(7) Site development cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project; and
(8) Redesign of the project would deny the property owner reasonable use of the property.
“Reasonable use of the property” in the case of new development may include less development
than indicated by zoning. In the case of additional development on an already developed site,
“reasonable development” may mean no additional development considering site constraints
Page 67 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 8 of 10
and the existing development’s scale, design, or density.
The proposed bridge has been located in an area less densely vegetated than the balance of the
corridor in order to avoid impacts to existing vegetation. (See sheet L-1) Upstream of the section of
corridor located on the subject property, there is a confluence of two drainage swales – one taking
concentrated flows from the hillside and culverted
under Patricia Drive and the other taking
concentrated flows from a swale located between
Anacapa Circle and Twin Ridge Drive and, again,
culverted under Patricia Drive. See aerial
photograph. Given the existing improvements (i.e,,
culverts, roadways, buildings, etc.) that have
impacted the riparian corridor, the addition of the
proposed bridge carries a light footprint on the land.
Flooding concerns have analyzed by the project civil
engineer, Ken Chacon, PE and memorialized in the
attached design memorandum regarding the
preliminary hydrology. This analysis established the
locations and requisite bridge clearance of 2.5 feet
above the creek bottom, which will provide the 100-
year depth of flow plus 2-feet of freeboard. A section
through the bridge can be seen on sheet C-1.
With its careful placement and analysis, the proposed bridge will not limit the City’s design options
for providing flood control measures (it is noteworthy, that we worked with the City’s biologist,
Freddy Otte, as he is responsible for managing the appropriate level of flood control measures and
provided guidance for some judicious pruning and deadwood removal within the corridor); nor
adversely impact the environmental setting and/or conditions of the corridor. The project biologist
will be responsible for coordination with and lodging permits with other agencies (i.e., Army Corps,
US & CA Fish & Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality Control Board ), as required.
Approval of the proposed bridge cannot be considered a special privilege, as many bridges have
been approved for similar purposes throughout the City. Without the ability to cross the creek, the
applicants have no access or reasonable use of the balance of their property. In addition, recent
legislation has paved the way for the streamlined addition of accessory dwelling units. With that
said, both the technical and environmental aspects of the proposed bridge have been analyzed, its
location determined based upon those factors, and this location will minimize impacts, accordingly.
In addition, the City’s Community Design Guidelines for Infill Development encourage compatible
scale, siting, and overall character with adjacent buildings, particularly when a new house is
proposed to be larger than others in a neighborhood. Architectural Review will include consideration
of these design elements.
RESPONSE: We have provided a study of the neighboring properties. The average FAR of the
neighboring properties is approximately 19.3%. Our proposed FAR is 10%. This represents just
over half of the FAR of the average neighboring property, yet most of the neighboring properties
are ¼ acre in size. The home has been designed with the neighboring properties in mind, with the
scale of the home, as you approach from the leg of the flag lot, appearing to be one-story. Our
Page 68 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 9 of 10
setbacks along the driveway side (west side of the home) have much greater setbacks than any of
the surrounding yards, and steps down from fence, to planting area, to rockery, to permeable
naturally meandering paved driveway. Even the elements on the second story façade are set back
behind decks and coverings. The setbacks on the north and east side of the home are greater than
any home in the immediate neighborhood.
In order to facilitate review of these primary concerns, we request that you provide a narrative
statement and supporting material describing the elements of the project design which address the
policies, standards, and guidelines set out in those documents, and demonstrating consistency and
compliance with them. Of particular importance are:
Building Scale and Windows: Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting,
detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the
neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the
new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings (CDG §5.3). Also,
the proposed window pattern appears to orient a large amount of glass window areas in the direction
of neighboring properties.
RESPONSE: By design, a flag lot has four (4) sides that face neighboring properties and, therefore,
a structure would necessarily have windows facing a neighboring yard. While the lot was legally
designed and approved for a single-family residence, the proposed home is situated in the only
allowable area legally available on the site. The applicant and design team have taken great care to
focus the view of the home towards high views of Bishops Peak, distant views of hills to the east,
and out into the expansive yard that creates the balance of the lot. Egress windows and non-egress
windows provide natural light and ventilation on all sides of the home.
The design intent of the home focuses most of glazing towards the northeast – the largest part of the
site to accommodate the home and related exterior amenities. With that said, the home is shielded,
for the applicant’s privacy and the neighboring property(s), by layers of landscaping, including a
lawn, patio, then a pool, rockery, hillside, creek, trees, and additional side yard beyond. All
bedrooms are required to have a minimum of one (1) egress, and the master bedroom is the only
bedroom with a western view towards a neighboring property. All of the higher windows in the
great room are clear story windows and provide no view that is not sky or hillside, which allows for
additional light into the space. The majority of the windows along the west side of the building (in
the hallway and staircase) provide natural daylight into these circulation spaces, where people move
from room to room and do not congregate. The greenhouse on the west side of the building has a
large extent of glass, but sits about 8-feet below the neighboring property and is shielded by both a
natural rock wall and a 6-foot fence, currently constructed on the neighboring yard.
Creek and Wildlife Corridor: Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human
disruption, shall be preserved and where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife
habitat and corridors. To accomplish this, the City will require private developments to evaluate
animal species and their movements within and through development sites and create habitats and
corridors appropriate for wildlife (COSE 7.3.3). Development approvals should respect the
separation from creek banks and protection of floodways and natural features. Features which
normally would be outside the creek setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no
Page 69 of 427
12 March 2021
Applicant’s Response to Application Completeness
Page 10 of 10
practical alternative, to allow reasonable development of a parcel, consistent with the Conservation
and Open Space Element. Existing bridges may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in
this Element. Removal of any existing bridge or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions
will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent
properties (COSE 7.7.9).
RESPONSE: See response to Information Note, paragraphs 1 and 2.
Sincerely, Respectfully submitted,
OASIS ASSOCIATES, INC., et al.
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Development Review C.M. Florence, AICP Agent
E. & J MICHAELS
Attachments – Full Plan Set – revised
Design Memorandum, K. Chacon, 03 March 2021
Correspondence, San Luis Garbage Co.,15 February 2021
c: E. & J. Michaels
E. Herrera & B. Walker/RRM
K. Chacon/Chacon Associates, LLC
W. Arola/Fortini Landscape
20-0060
Page 70 of 427
APPLICANT’S RESPONSE – 04 June 2021 – digitally via email woetzell@slocity.org
April 9, 2021
Carol Florence
Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Subject: Application ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Determination of application completeness:
Dear Ms. Florence:
I write to inform you that after review of the materials submitted with your client’s Architectural
Review application for development of the property at 841 Patricia Street with a single-family
dwelling and Accessory Dwelling Unit, and additional information and materials submitted in
response to our first “Incomplete Letter” dated February 12th, 2021, it has been determined that the
application remains in an incomplete state, pending receipt of additional information or materials
needed to complete the application.
Additionally, we note, in the Informational Notes at the end of this letter, several areas of concern
about consistency of the proposed project with applicable policies and guidelines related to
protection of creeks and wildlife corridors, and the design of new construction within existing
residential neighborhoods which should be considered at this early stage of application review. The
informational section also describes technical background materials, including a biological report
and Archaeological Resources Inventory (ARI) that are requested in order to inform our preliminary
review for potential significant environmental impacts.
Planning
1. Creek Setback. It is noted from your response to this request that you have depicted the
edge of riparian vegetation on the Site Plan, labeled as “Edge of Dense Vegetation,” and
have indicated that “there is no clearly defined top-of-bank.”
RESPONSE: Plans have been updated to identify “Edge of Riparian Habitat” as surveyed.
The vegetation line work remains on the existing topography plan (A2), but has been
removed from the Architectural Site Plan (A3) as this vegetation line is an independent
feature from the edge of riparian habitat and not related to regulatory setbacks.
Riparian vegetation - For clarity and to remove ambiguity about the nature of the extent of
vegetation depicted, please label the feature depicting extent of vegetation as “Extent of
Riparian Vegetation” to more clearly indicate that it is the extent of the riparian vegetation
associated with the creek.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation”, see revised
sheets A2, A3 and C1.
Top of Bank and Setback - Guidance from the City Biologist indicates that the “creek
Page 71 of 427
Page 2 of 9
setback limits” depicted on the plan correspond to an approximate location of the top of
bank, as discerned during a November site visit with you. As such, please label this feature
accordingly (i.e. “top of creek bank” or “top of creek bank (approximate)”) and for clarity,
omit from plans the reference to the City Biologist. Further description of this feature may
be provided elsewhere (i.e. discussion of the November site visit in separate narrative
discussion) if necessary. The location of this feature is subject to confirmation by the
Community Development Director.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” with the “20-foot
creek setback” line also labeled, see revised sheets A2, A3 and C1.
Review and verify the location of the Creek Setback depicted and correct the setback line as
appropriate. It is noted that the Creek Setback depicted is not consistent with the provisions
for Measurement of Creek Setbacks described in Zoning Regulations (§17.70.030 (C)),
which provide for the measurement of Creek Setbacks from the “top-of- bank” or the edge
of the predominant pattern of riparian vegetation, whichever is farther from the creek flow
line. Based on the plans provided, it appears that the extent of riparian vegetation is farther
from the creek flow line than the (approximate) top-of-bank and is the feature from which the
Creek Setback should be measured. Label the dimension of the setback.
RESPONSE: Callout has been updated to “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” with the “20-foot
creek setback” line also labeled, see revised sheets A2, A3 and C1.
2. Waterway (Creek). It is noted from your response that the depiction of the 30-foot drainage
easement across the property is intended to also depict the location of the creek (waterway).
However, these are two distinct features. For clarity, revise plans as necessary to, at
minimum, depict and label the location of the waterway (e.g. by depiction of a creek flow
line).
RESPONSE: As the creek is braided, there is no distinct flow line to depict on the plans, the
creek flow area is contained within the extents of the drainage easement.
3. Allowable Building Area. It is noted from your response to this request that the “Allowable
Building Area” depicted on Site Plans is intended to depict the required Creek Setback, as
measured from the edge of riparian vegetation.
For clarity, label the required Creek Setback, where depicted, as such, rather than as
“Allowable Building Area” (see also Item 1, above). If it is found necessary to depict an
“allowable building area,” depict this as a feature separate from the Creek Setback. However,
“allowable building area” is not recognized as an applicable development standard and need
not be depicted in plans if Creek Setback and building setback lines are already depicted.
Review the Creek Setback depicted (see also Item 1, above) and verify that it has been
accurately measured and depicted, as described in Zoning Regulations § 17.70.030 (C)
(Measurement of Creek Setbacks). While it appears that, according to Zoning Regulations,
the Creek Setback is to be measured from the edge of riparian vegetation, as it is further from
the creek flow line, the course of the feature you have depicted does not follow that of the
edge of vegetation you have shown on the Site Plan. Correct the course of the Creek Setback
depicted, as necessary.
RESPONSE: The “buildable area” shading has been removed. Applicable setbacks are
Page 72 of 427
Page 3 of 9
shown; the “20-foot creek setback” line has been clearly labeled, see revised sheets A2, and
A3.
4. Statement (Exceptions). It is noted from your response to this request that you intend to
seek an exception from Creek Setback standards described in Zoning Regulations §
17.70.030, and have provided preliminary information in support of this request.
Required findings - To complete your preliminary discussion in support of the required
findings for such an exception, provide discussion of the feasibility of site development with
a redesign of the project, and the manner in which redesign of the project would deny the
property owner reasonable use of the property, in support of the remaining two required
findings that must be made in order for such an exception to be granted (see Zoning §
17.70.030 (G) (4 (c) (7) & (8)). This information in support of the required findings is best
provided as a separate narrative statement that can be attached to staff reports for
consideration by the Administrative Hearing Officer at the Director’s Hearing.
RESPONSE: From a City-wide perspective, bridges have been and will continue to be
designed, permitted, and constructed to enable crossing of one of our most precious assets –
our creeks! Specific to the project, the request for an exception to allow a residential
service/access bridge to encroach into the creek setback helps minimize the impacts of the
site by placing the proposed accessory dwelling unit at the NE corner of the site which is a
much lower contour level of the site. Limiting this area of the lot would deny the property
owner less development than indicated by City’s zoning standards and recent legislation
regarding ADUs.
The single-story design and lower elevation placement of the ADU within this allowed
developed area of the site helps to maintain neighboring views from yard areas capturing
solar access and views of Bishops Peak. The neighboring homes at this end of the lot have
yards elevated a minimum of 6-feet or more above the proposed ADU finish floor elevation
which allow views to overlook beyond the top of the proposed ridge line. Placement of the
ADU on the opposite side of the creek towards the SW denies overall development allowed
by zoning and would force more extensive site grading disturbance resulting in more grading
cut and fill quantities. The goal is to place proposed structures in site locations where
buildings are allowed, while taking into consideration the natural topography constraints.
While the proposed bridge minimally encroaches into the creek setback, the bridge design
purposefully minimizes site area disturbance to the start and end of the bridge crossing. All
other areas of the bridge are suspended above the creek minimize long term disturbance to
water quality, creek habitat and other wildlife. Removing the bridge would create much more
site grading disturbance and affect other sensitive areas of the site rendering the project
infeasible.
Biological survey - Also provide a biological survey by a qualified, independent person to
provide the basis for making the required findings (Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (d)) (see also
Informational Note regarding Environmental Review, below).
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia
Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021.
5. Bridge Details. It is noted that details about the design of the bridge proposed to cross the
Page 73 of 427
Page 4 of 9
creek channel, and representative views of the type of bridge proposed, have been provided.
Additional details about the creek area that will be disturbed by bridge construction
activity will be required, in order to evaluate the physical impact to the creek area,
including a plan depiction of disturbed area, description of construction equipment
required, and amounts of cut and fill (see also Informational Note regarding
Environmental Review, below).
RESPONSE: This type of bridge was specifically selected based on cost of installation, low
impact site disturbance, and low visual impact to the site. The bridge is a pre-manufacture
bridge system composed primarily of welded top plates and supported by continuous steel
beams running the length of the bridge span. Each end of the bridge is supported by concrete
bridge abutments designed to support bridge bearing. This bridge system minimizes site
disturbance solely to the concrete abutment supports only. No cut and fill quantities
anticipated other than the soils excavated for the abutment footings. When excavating for
the footings, the spoils will be placed uphill of the abutments to avoid impacts to the creek.
The equipment used to install the bridge in place would be a crane. The use of a crane would
avoid vehicle disturbance within the creek and limit pedestrian disturbance, accordingly.
6. Affected Vegetation. It is noted in the information provided in response to this item that
work associated with the project includes removal of trees. Tree removal is governed by the
provisions set out in Municipal Code § 12.24.090 (Tree Removal).
Application Requirements (Tree Removal) - Provide the materials for an application for tree
removal, as described in Municipal Code § 12.24.090 (D) (2). Note that in addition to plans,
diagrams, photographs, etc., an arborist report that identifies and discusses each tree within
the development footprint, including those trees proposed for removal and those trees that
Page 74 of 427
Page 5 of 9
will remain, is required. Ensure that tree removal information is comprehensive, covering
all tree removals proposed on the site.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia
Drive Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021, Section 5.0 Project Impacts
and Recommended Mitigation Measures.
7. Lot Coverage Calculation. It is noted that a lot area calculation and depiction of
corresponding site areas has been provided.
Corrections - The “Lot Coverage Available Area” provided on the Title Sheet of plans
appears incorrect (the sum of the two area values given is 38,262, and not 42,262). Review
and, where necessary, correct the lot coverage calculation provided on the Title Sheet.
Components of Calculation - For clarity, show in the Lot Coverage Calculation on the Title
Page of plans each of its components, including the total lot area (i.e. gross lot area), the total
area subtracted from the gross lot area (i.e. the creek area), and the Net Lot Area (i.e. gross
area minus creek area). Ensure that the proposed lot coverage (expressed as percentage) is
updated to reflect any corrections made in the calculation.
RESPONSE: See attached revised Title Sheet that includes the lot coverage calculation;
proposed coverage is 16.2% of net lot area.
Preliminary review is intended to ensure that staff has adequate information to evaluate your
project and identify any conflicts with City standards or guidelines. The above list includes all of the
items identified as necessary to find your application complete for further processing. Your
application will remain in an incomplete status until those items are received. Upon resubmittal,
please provide a narrative response indicating where these items can be found in your plans or
application materials.
Informational Notes:
In order to facilitate review of this application, we draw attention to the following primary areas of
concern with the proposed project. Clarification and amplification of the information and supporting
material provided will be requested through the course of application review, describing the elements
of the project design which address and demonstrate consistency with relevant City policies,
standards, and guidelines.
Environmental Review
Consistent with Guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act, we
are conducting preliminary review of the project for environmental issues that may require additional
explanation, to inform a determination of the appropriate level of environmental review.
Biological Report. To facilitate the evaluation of the potential for significant effects to the
environment, we request that you provide a biological report by a qualified, independent person to
provide information about the biological resources supported by the project site and the potential for
sensitive biological resources to occur on the site. Attached is a brief listing of topics to be addressed,
at minimum, in this report. Please contact me at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at
woetzell@slocity.org) for further information about the preparation and submittal of this report. We
note that the “blooming season” is underway and thus we encourage that this report be initiated as
Page 75 of 427
Page 6 of 9
soon as possible in order to facilitate the observation of plant species.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive
Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021.
Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI). Pursuant to the §2.20 of the City’s Archaeological
Resource Preservation Program Guidelines implementing policies of the General Plan (see
Conservation and Open Space Element §3.5), an Archaeological Resource Inventory (ARI) is
required when a project site is vacant and one acre or larger in size. We request that you provide
this inventory, to be used to determine if archaeological resources may be present on the site.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence
Project, Terry Joslin Azevedo, Ph.D, RPA Archaeologist, May 2021.
Creek and Wildlife Corridor
Figure 3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) depicts a wildlife corridor over the site
area, and a creek depicted in Figure 9 traverses the site. Supporting policies for the protection and
enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors are found in the Land Use Element and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan (e.g. see LUE §§ 2.3.7, 6.6.3, & 6.6.4;
COSE §§ 7.3.3, 7.7.8, & 7.7.9). These policies require that residential development respect natural
features such as creeks and wildlife corridors, preserve and protect these important features, respect
the separation from creek banks and natural features, and keep open channels open and free of
structures in or over their banks.
Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and
where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors. To
accomplish this, the City will require private developments to evaluate animal species and their
movements within and through development sites and create habitats and corridors appropriate for
wildlife (COSE 7.3.3). Development approvals should respect the separation from creek banks and
protection of floodways and natural features. Features which normally would be outside the creek
setback may be permitted to encroach where there is no practical alternative, to allow reasonable
development of a parcel, consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. Existing bridges
may be replaced or widened, consistent with policies in this Element. Removal of any existing bridge
or restoration of a channel to more natural conditions will provide for wildlife corridors, traffic
circulation, access, utilities, and reasonable use of adjacent properties (COSE 7.7.9).
Information requested above, relevant to the creek and wildlife corridor, will inform consideration of
whether the proposal is consistent with those General Plan policies, and whether project may impact
on the wildlife corridor or creek habitat.
RESPONSE: Please see the attached Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive
Project, David Wolff Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021
Creek Setback Exception. At this time, the information provided in support of a Creek Setback
Exception does not support the restrictive findings set out in Zoning § 17.70.030 (G) (4) (c), required
to approve such an exception, particularly those regarding the presence of special circumstances, and
feasibility of alternate designs allowing for reasonable use of the property. To ensure a complete
application for this request, please ensure that the supporting information provided is supplemented
with the additional information described in Item 4 of this letter, and consider how the information
may be enhanced to provide compelling support for your request.
Page 76 of 427
Page 7 of 9
RESPONSE: The proposed bridge has been located in an area less densely vegetated than the
balance of the corridor in order to avoid impacts to existing vegetation. (See sheet L-1) Upstream of
the section of corridor located on the subject property, there is a confluence of two drainage swales
– one taking concentrated flows from the hillside and culverted under Patricia Drive and the other
taking concentrated flows from a swale located between Anacapa Circle and Twin Ridge Drive and,
again, culverted under Patricia Drive. See aerial photograph. Given the existing improvements (i.e.,
culverts, roadways, buildings, etc.) that have impacted the riparian corridor, the addition of the
proposed bridge carries a light footprint on the land.
Flooding concerns have analyzed by the project civil engineer, Ken Chacon, PE and memorialized
in the provided design memorandum regarding the preliminary hydrology. This analysis established
the locations and requisite bridge clearance of 2.5 feet above the creek bottom, which will provide
the 100-year depth of flow plus 2-feet of freeboard. A section through the bridge can be seen on sheet
C-1.
With its careful placement and analysis, the proposed
bridge will not limit the City’s design options for
providing flood control measures (it is noteworthy,
that we worked with the City’s biologist, Freddy
Otte, as he is responsible for managing the
appropriate level of flood control measures and
provided guidance for some judicious pruning and
deadwood removal within the corridor); nor
adversely impact the environmental setting and/or
conditions of the corridor. The project biologist will
be responsible for coordination with and lodging
permits with other agencies (i.e., Army Corps, US &
CA Fish & Wildlife and the Regional Water Quality
Control Board ), as required.
Approval of the proposed bridge cannot be
considered a special privilege, as many bridges have
been approved for similar purposes throughout the City. Without the ability to cross the creek, the
applicants have no access or reasonable use of the balance of their property. In addition, recent
legislation has paved the way for the streamlined addition of accessory dwelling units. With that said,
both the technical and environmental aspects of the proposed bridge have been analyzed, its location
determined based upon those factors, and this location will minimize impacts, accordingly.
In addition, the project was designed “around” the existing sewer lateral and related elevation
constraints. The building pad elevations are set to provide gravity flow and eliminate the need for
mechanical assistance devices (i.e., a pump station). The ADU is proposed to be near the existing
utility infrastructure to reduce project impacts surrounding the creek and grading limitations.
Keeping the ADU separate from the main residence addresses the City’s design recommendations to
be mindful of overall building scale compatibility. The size and placement of the ADU reduces the
visual impact from right-of-way views and most of the neighboring residences. Grading cut/fill
quantities are reduced by designing relative to the existing topography, which is also encouraged by
the City’s design guidelines.
Page 77 of 427
Page 8 of 9
Architectural Review
The City’s Community Design Guidelines for Infill Development encourage compatible scale, siting,
and overall character with adjacent buildings, particularly when a new house is proposed to be larger
than others in a neighborhood.
RESPONSE: We have studied the neighboring properties and found the surrounding neighborhood
has a Floor Area Ratio (FAR) of approximately 0.19. This project’s proposed FAR is 0.10. The
neighborhood and proposed project are under area zoning maximum FAR of 0.40. While the size of
the subject property at 1.41 acres provides overall greater development opportunity than the
surrounding parcel size with an average size of 0.25 acres, the home has been designed with the
neighboring properties in mind. The portion of the residences visible from the driveway approach is
designed with a single-story appearance. The setbacks along westerly property line exceed the
development standards and existing neighboring setbacks and steps down from the existing fence
with planted low terraces and rockery. The secondary story design has been visually minimized with
step-backs, sloped roofs, and overhangs. The setbacks on the north and east side of the home are
greater than any home in the immediate neighborhood.
Careful consideration to the building form and massing layout helps maintain a compatibility to the
existing neighborhood character. The building footprint was designed with a composition of smaller
building segments more linearly elongated rather than designing one larger concentrated building
footprint. The overall depth of the building footprint has been designed to minimize the roof spans
thereby reducing the overall height of the roof line. Smaller building segments and reduced roof
spans are intentional design considerations in reducing overall visual mass and scale of the building
which follow the building form of the surrounding neighborhood structures.
Building Scale and Windows: Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting,
detailing, and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate neighborhood.
This is crucial when a new or remodeled house is proposed to be larger than others in the
neighborhood. When new homes are developed adjacent to older ones, the height and bulk of the
new construction can have a negative impact on adjacent, smaller scale buildings (CDG §5.3). Also,
the proposed window pattern appears to orient a large amount of glass window areas in the direction
of neighboring properties.
RESPONSE: By design, a flag lot has four (4) sides that all face neighboring properties and,
therefore, the structure will have windows facing neighboring yards. The lot was legally designed
and approved for a single-family residence; however the available buildable areas are defined by
setback requirements and responding to site topography. The applicant and design team have taken
great care to focus the view of the home towards high views of Bishops Peak, distant views of hills
to the east, and across the width of the property. Egress windows and non-egress windows provide
natural light and ventilation on all sides of the home.
The design intent of the home focuses most of glazing towards the northeast – the largest part of the
site to accommodate the home and related exterior amenities. This minimize any direct visual or
overlook to neighboring properties as there is over a 120 feet of landscaping, lawns, patio, rockery,
sloping topography, riparian vegetation, and neighing retaining walls and landscaping between the
proposed home and neighbors. All bedrooms are required to have a minimum of one (1) egress, and
the master bedroom is the only bedroom with a western view towards a neighboring property. All of
the higher windows in the great room and along the interior hall circulation areas are clear story
windows (above eye level) and provide only sky or hillside views, which allows for additional light
Page 78 of 427
Page 9 of 9
into the space. The majority of the windows along the west side of the building (in the hallway and
staircase) provide natural daylight into these circulation spaces, where people move from room to
room and do not congregate. The greenhouse on the west side of the building has a large extent of
glass, but sits about 8-feet below the neighboring property and will be shielded by both rockery walls
and the existing 6-foot fence.
The City may ask for clarification or amplification of information after an application is accepted as
complete. Contact me anytime at (805) 781-7593 (or by email at woetzell@slocity.org) if you have
any questions regarding this letter, or about the status or processing of your applications.
RESPONSE: We welcome your questions about our response, Walter, and look forward to
acceptance of the project and moving it through the process.
Sincerely,
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Development Review
att: Biological Report details, Tree Removal Application Information
Attachments:
• Revised Plan Sheets A1, A2, C1, & A3, RRM, 01 April 2021
• Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project, David Wolff
Environmental, LLC, May 13, 2021
• Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, Central Coast Archaeological
Research Consultants, May 2021
Page 79 of 427
Page 80 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For EID 0547-2021
1. Project Title:
Michaels Residence (ARCH-0040-2021)
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:
Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
(805) 781-7593
4. Project Location:
841 Patricia Drive (APN 052-520-063), San Luis Obispo, California
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Eric and Julie Michaels
c/o Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Ct
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Attn: Carol Florence
6. General Plan Designations:
Low Density Residential
7. Zoning:
Low Density Residential with Planned Development Overlay (R-1-PD)
8. Description of the Project:
The proposed Michaels Residence project (project) includes construction of a new 4,941-square-foot (sf) two-story
single-family residence and an 825-sf accessory dwelling unit (ADU) on a 1.41-acre parcel. The proposed project
site is a flag lot that was created as part of a subdivision approved by the City in 1985 (Tract 1182). The lot is in
the northwestern portion of the city of San Luis Obispo at Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 052 -520-063. The
proposed project would be accessed from Patricia Drive by a private, gated driveway. The project site is surrounded
by low-density residential development associated with the Tract 1182 subdivision. Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop
trailhead are located to the west. Figure 1 below shows the project location.
In addition to the residence and the ADU, the proposed project includes a three-car garage, a 128-sf storage shed,
and a small access bridge over Twin Ridge Creek, a portion of which traverses the site. The bridge access would
be a maximum of 55 feet long and 12 feet wide and is envisioned to accommodate small vehicles (e.g., electric
Page 81 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
cart) to allow access to the ADU. Proposed site amenities include an infinity pool, an outdoor kitchen, outdoor
decking, a gym/spa, and outdoor shade structures. Figures 2 through 4 show, respectively, a site plan map, a
conceptual design plan of the residence, and a conceptual design plan of the ADU (RRM Design Group 2021).
New development would be in a contemporary craftsman architectural style, which includes a covered front porch,
exposed rafter tails, overhanging eaves, and shingle roofs and siding. Other design features include concrete steps,
stone paving, grass paving, and a stone-clad wall. The project would include landscaping surrounding and
throughout the proposed development, including a variety of trees and shrubs and a natural lawn.
The property has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential. Consistent with this General
Plan land use designation, the property is zoned as Low Density Residential within a Planned Development Overlay
zone (R-1-PD). The Planned Development Overlay was established as part of the area’s annexation into the City
in 1978 (Ferrini Annexation Prezone, file PD 0632) and was further defined with the subdivision of Tract 1182 in
1985. The Planned Development Overlay provides for deviations from development standards of Municipal Code
Title 17, where determined necessary and justifiable to accommodate the development of a project (17.48.030.D).
The new single-family residential unit and the ADU combined would cover 11 % of the existing 61,419-sf (1.41-
acre) lot. The proposed project includes a floor area ratio (FAR) of 0.10 (6,320 sf/61,419 sf). The primary residence
would be 25 feet in height and the detached ADU would be 16 feet in height. The project, as proposed, would
provide a minimum setback of 5 feet from the interior side yards, 15 feet from the rear property line, and 20-feet
from a line representing the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek.1 Table 1 shows major elements
of the development program for the proposed project and how they compare to the applicable requirements.
Table 1. Project Development Program
Site Details Proposed Allowed/Required
Maximum Residential Density 1 residential single-family unit
(density is not applicable to ADU) 7 units per acre
Maximum FAR 0.10 0.40
Minimum Setbacks
Interior Side: Primary Residence 5 feet 5 feet
Rear: ADU 15 feet 4 feet2
Creek Setback 20 feet 20 feet
Maximum Height: Primary Residence 25 feet 25 feet
Maximum Height: ADU 16 feet 16 feet
Maximum Lot Coverage 11% 40%
Minimum Lot Area 61,419 square feet 6,000 square feet
The size of the proposed ADU would be consistent with the City’s Municipal Code Section 17.86.020, which
requires that detached ADUs do not exceed 850 square feet for a one -bedroom unit.
The project includes a proposed Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception to the creek setback requirement
for the placement of the bridge and associated footings and supports within this setback area, and for any
encroachment of associated paving and vehicle parking area into the required Creek Setback area (including, e.g.,
the internal access road and 5.5-foot-tall retaining wall; refer to Figure 2). The requested exception would thus
1 The City Biologist established the location and course of the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek based on conditions
observed during a site visit conducted in November 2020 and verified this as the edge of riparian vegetation during a subsequent site visit
conducted June 30, 2022. This line is depicted and labeled in plans as “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” (Sheet A2) and “Surveyed
Vegetation Line” (Sheet AS-1). The distances noted in Table 1 are to the nearest residential structure; the project includes a proposed
Creek Setback Exception.
2 Municipal Code 17.86.020 (B) (5) (a).
Page 82 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
allow the use of the eastern portion of the site for the ADU residential unit and associated improvements. Without
the bridge crossing, this eastern portion of the site would not be accessible by vehicle. In order to approve the
requested creek setback exception, the City must make the required findings described in Zoning Regulations
§ 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c).
The project site is characterized by relatively flat topography in an area of prior disturbance at the western portion
of the property and is mostly undeveloped except for a gated driveway and shed structure, which is estimated to
have been placed or constructed on the site in 2016. A portion of Twin Ridge Creek runs north to south through
the eastern portion of the site, and the property slopes down from either side of the creek toward a shallow creek
channel. The creek begins at a culvert that is located in the northern portion of the project site; the culvert conveys
runoff from Bishop Peak. It supports riparian vegetation including arroyo willow thicket, coast live oak, big leaf
maple, and planted sycamore. The riparian corridor associated with Twin Ridge Creek is considered a wildlife
corridor in the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE). Other
habitats on-site include annual grassland, semi-annual brome grassland, non-native annual grasses, broadleaf plant
species, and a few native forbs and wildflowers.
The project site is located within the Upper San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The project is in Watershed
Management Zone 1 (WMZ1) per the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Post-Construction
Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region . As such, it would
be required to meet Performance Requirements 1 through 4 of the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) Post-Construction Stormwater Requirements for development projects. Proposed stormwater
reduction measures include retaining natural pervious surfaces, implementing grass lawns and landscaping, and
using pervious pavers where feasible.
Water service for the proposed project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would
require an additional water demand of approximately 0.8 acre-feet per year (af/yr), with 0.491 acre of that estimate
being landscaping. The project would be serve d by the City’s sewer system and would generate approximately
255 gallons of wastewater per day. The project would be served by San Luis Garbage Company for solid waste
pick-up and disposal. Electricity for the project would be provided by Central Coast Community Energy (3CE).
The project site includes existing utility infrastructure from the Tract 1182 subdivision within existing driveway
easement and along Patricia Drive including sewer lines, water lines, and electricity lines. The project would
include the installment of expanded infrastructure to connect new development to existing City facilities. Utilities
serving the ADU would need to cross the on-site portion of Twin Ridge Creek. The project’s development plans
include two potential approaches for the necessary extension of utilities to the ADU: 1) trenching/undergrounding
the utilities below the creek, or 2) including the utilities in the bridge span, either hanging from the bridge or within
the bridge decking/enclosure. Because both possibilities are shown on the project plans, this environmental
assessment assumes that the project proposal could include the trenching/undergrounding of the utilities below the
creek as this approach would be the most environmentally impactful due to additional undergrounding, trenching,
and/or ground disturbance below the riparian corridor and /or within the creek that would be required.
Project construction would require approximately 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill , for a total of
2,582 cy total cut/fill. Construction is anticipated to last approximately 24 months. Construction would result in
approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance and would replace approximately 12,540 square
feet of pervious surface area.
9. Project Entitlements:
Architectural Review (Minor Development Review)
Creek Setback Exception
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:
• North: single-family residential development
• South: single-family residential development
• East: single-family residential development
Page 83 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
• West: single-family development between Patricia Drive and the portion of the site proposed for
development; to the west of Patricia Drive, Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop trailhead
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 cult ural
resources, procedures regarding confidentiality, etc.?
Native American Tribes were notified on August 17, 2021, about the project consistent with City and State of
California regulations, including, but not limited to, Assembly Bill 52 . As of November 23, 2021, responses have
been received from three tribes: the Northern Chumash Tribe, the Northern Chumash Tribal Council, and the
Salinan Tribe.
12. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District
Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast)
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
Page 84 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Figure 1. Project location map.
Page 85 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Figure 2. Site plan map.
Page 86 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Figure 3. Conceptual design plan – residence.
Page 87 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Figure 4. Conceptual design plan – ADU.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected Page 88 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a
“Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
☐ Aesthetics ☐ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ☐ Public Services
☐ Agriculture and Forestry
Resources ☒ Hazards and Hazardous Materials ☐ Recreation
☒ Air Quality ☒ Hydrology and Water Quality ☐ Transportation
☒ Biological Resources ☒ Land Use and Planning ☒ Tribal Cultural Resources
☒ Cultural Resources ☐ Mineral Resources ☒ Utilities and Service Systems
☐ Energy ☒ Noise ☐ Wildfire
☐ Geology and Soils ☐ Population and Housing ☒ Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND WILDLIFE FEES
☐
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat
(see attached determination).
☒
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and
Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated
to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
☒
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g., Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and Community
Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).
Page 89 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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.
☐
July 15, 2022
Signature Date
Brian Leveille, Senior Planner
For: Michael Codron
Printed Name Community Development Director
Page 90 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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
Page 91 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
1. AESTHETICS
Except as provided in Public Resources Code Section 21099,
would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 2, 3 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
2, 4 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
c) In non-urbanized areas, substantially degrade the existing
visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings? (Public views are those that are experienced
from publicly accessible vantage point.) If the project is in
an urbanized area, would the project conflict with applicable
zoning and other regulations governing scenic quality?
1, 2,
3, 4, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1, 5 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The proposed project site is a mostly undeveloped flag lot from a previous subdivision (Tract 1182) located in the
northwestern portion of the city of San Luis Obispo. The site is surrounded by existing single-family residential homes
associated with the previous Tract 1182 subdivision. The site is accessed from a private, gated driveway off Patricia Drive.
Existing development on the project site is limited to a storage shed and gated driveway. Natural features of the site include
a creek and associated riparian corridor that bisects the project site, non -native annual grassland, and gently sloping
topography.
The topography of the city is generally defined by several low hills and ridges, such as Righetti Hill, Bishop Peak, and Cerro
San Luis. These are three of the nine peaks known as the Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the city. In the
project vicinity, intermittent views of nearby natural landmarks are available, including views of Cerro San Luis and Bishop
Peak. The project area and surrounding areas are characterized by relatively flat to slightly sloping topography. Elevation
at the project site is approximately 340 to 350 feet above mean sea level.
Based on the COSE map of scenic roadways and vistas, the project site is not located near a designated scenic roadway or
vista. The project site is in the Low Density Residential land use designation. The site is also within a Low Density
Residential zone with a PD Overlay (R-1-PD). The PD Overlay provides for deviations from development standards of
Municipal Code Title 17 as determined necessary and justifiable to accommodate the development of a project
(17.48.030.D). The project’s consistency with the applicable development standards is evaluated in Table 1 in the Project
Description.
a) A scenic vista is generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good aesthetic and compositional values that can
be seen from public viewpoints. Based on the City’s COSE, the project site is not located within or within close
proximity to a designated scenic vista. Development of a single-family residence and ADU on the project site would
therefore not change existing views within a designated scenic vista. In addition, due to the site’s topography and
natural vegetation, as well as existing development in the project area, implementation of the project would not result
in development that would significantly change or impede any scenic views of Bishop Peak, located directly west of
the project site. The project would comply with the City’s zoning standards, including maximum height requirements,
and would be consistent with the height and level of surrounding development in the area .
In addition, the project site is not located near any scenic roadways designated by the City’s COSE. The n earest
designated roadway with high scenic value is the portion of State Route (SR) 1 within the city, approximately
0.75 mile southeast of the project site, and the nearest designated roadway with moderate scenic value is Foothill
Boulevard, located 0.7 mile south of the project site. The project site is not visible from SR 1 or Foothill Boulevard
Page 92 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
due to distance and intervening residential and commercial development. Therefore, the project would not be visible
to travelers along those routes. The project would not block or result in significant adverse change in a scenic vista;
therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is located approximately 1.7 miles northwest of U.S. Highway 101 (US 101) and 0.75 mile northwest
of the portion of SR 1 that is within the city and 0.35 mile west of the portion of SR 1 outside of the City’s limits.
Based on the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) California Scenic Highways online mapping tool,
the section of US 101 and SR 1 within the city are eligible for State of California (State) scenic highway designation
but is not officially designated and the portion of SR 1 outside of the City’s limits is an officially designated State
scenic highway. The City’s COSE also identifies Foothill Boulevard, located approximately 0.7 mile south of the
project site, as a roadway with moderate scenic value. The project site would not be visible to viewers traveling along
US 101, SR 1, or Foothill Boulevard due to the distance from the project site and intervening commercial and
residential development. Further, there are no scenic resources in the project area that would be damaged because of
the proposed project. Therefore, the project would not substantially damage any of these resources and there would
be no impact.
c) The project site is in an urbanized area of the city in the R-1 land use designation and has a PD Overlay (R-1-PD).
The project is subject to the R-1 zone design standards identified in City Municipal Code 17.16.020. The project is
also subject to other applicable building standards identified in City Municipal Code 17.70 and COSE Policy 9.1.2,
which outlines view guidelines regarding urban development. The COSE states that urban development should reflect
its architectural context. This does not necessarily prescribe a specific style, but requires deliberate design choices
that acknowledge human scale, natural site features, and neighboring urban development, and that are compatible
with historical and architectural resources. The project site’s PD Overlay provides for deviations from development
standards of Municipal Code Title 17 that were determined necessary and justifiable by the City.
Construction views associated with the project would be temporary in nature and similar to other projects within the
city and would not result in permanent alteration of the existing visual character of the area. Project construction
requires the removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees
within the riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek for construction of the proposed span bridge and
associated footings and supports; however, none of the trees that would be removed have unusual or historical value.
Additionally, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees (10 on each side of the creek
corridor), four California bay laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of the creek corridor), four California sycamore
one-gallon trees (two on each side of the creek corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees (throughout the creek channel).
Therefore, long-term views associated with vegetation removal at the project site would not occur.
The proposed single-family residence and ADU would be consistent with the maximum standard building height for
the R-1 zone, which is 16 feet for an ADU and 25 feet for a dwelling or other structure . In addition, the proposed
project would also be similar in nature to the density and style of surrounding low-density residential development.
As described in threshold (a) above, the project would not result in adverse views from designated scenic areas
because the site is not within a designated scenic vista and is not visible from designated scenic roadways identified
in the City’s COSE. For these reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the existing visual character or
quality of public views of the site, nor would the project conflict with regulations that have been established for the
purpose of preserving scenic quality or resources. Thus, the project would be consistent with zoning regulations and
impacts to visual character would be less than significant.
d) Existing sources of nighttime lighting near the project site include residential street lighting and intermittent vehicle
lighting from vehicles traveling along Patricia Drive. Construction activities would only occur during daylight hours
and would not require nighttime lighting. Nighttime lighting for the residence is required to comply with the Lighting
and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new development, which
include, but are not limited to, requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded and directed away from
adjacent properties and public rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting consistent with public
safety standards, and limits to hours of lighting operation. Therefore, impacts from new sources of light or glare would
be less than significant.
Page 93 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project site is not a scenic vista, does not include scenic resources, nor is it within the viewshed of a designated scenic
highway. The project site is within an urbanized area and is not subject to public vantage points. The project does not conflict
with City of San Luis Obispo regulations that have been established to preserve scenic quality or resources and would not
result in a significant source of additional nighttime lighting. No potentially significant impacts associated with aesthetic
resources would occur and mitigation measures are not required.
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 Conservati on
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?
6 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract? 7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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))?
7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land
to non-forest use? 1, 7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
7 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The California Department of Conservation (DOC) classifies and maps agricultural lands in the state in the Farmland
Mapping and Monitoring Program (FMMP). The FMMP identifies five farmland categories: Prime Farmland, Farmland of
Statewide Importance, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Local Importance, and Farmland of Local Potential. The project site
Page 94 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
is designated as Urban and Built-Up Land by the FMMP. The project site is not located on local Prime Farmland, Farmland
of Local Importance, Farmland of Local Potential, Farmland of Statewide Importance, or Unique Farmland according to
Figure 10 of the City’s COSE.
The project site is zoned as R-1-PD within the northwestern portion of the city. The project site is not located within or
immediately adjacent to land zoned for agricultural uses, land under an active Williamson Act contract, or land currently
supporting agricultural uses.
According to California Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 12220(g), forest land is defined as land that can support 10%
native tree cover of any species, including hardwoods, under natural conditions, and that allows for management of one or
more forest resources, including timber, aesthetics, fish and wildlife, biodiversity, water quality, recreation, and other pu blic
benefits. Timberland is defined as land, other than land owned by the federal government and land designated by the State
Board of Forestry and Fire Protection as experimental forest land, which is available for, and capable of, growing a crop of
trees of a commercial species used to produce lumber and other forest products, including Christmas trees. The project site
does not support any forest land or timberland and is not surrounded by forest land or timberland.
a) According to the FMMP, the project site and surrounding land uses are designated as Urban and Built-Up Land. Since
the project site is not located on or adjacent to designated Prime Farmland, the project would not result in the
conversion of Prime or other Farmland to non-agricultural use, and no impacts would occur.
b) The project site is not located within or adjacent to land zoned for agriculture or under an active Williamson Act
contract. Therefore, the project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning or a Williamson Act contract, and
no impacts would occur.
c) The project site does not include land designated or zoned for forest land or timberland. Additionally, the project site
does not contain 10% tree cover that would classify the site as forest land. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with zoning for forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production , and no impacts would occur.
d) The project site does not include land designated for forest land and does not support 10% tree cover that would
classify the project site as forest land. Therefore, the project would not result in the conversion or loss of forest land
to non-forest use and impacts, and no impacts would occur.
e) The project includes the development of a 4,941-sf single-family residence and detached 825-sf ADU. The site is
directly adjacent to existing single-family residences in all directions. The nearest agricultural uses are approximately
1 mile west of the project site, beyond Bishop Peak. The proposed project would be consistent with surrounding uses
and with existing zoning designated for the project site and would not adversely affect agricultural water supplies or
other agricultural support facilities. Therefore, the project would not result in substantial changes in the environment
that could result in conversion of nearby agricultural land or forest land to non-agricultural or non-forest use, and no
impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project site is in an urbanized area and is not within or adjacent to Farmland, land zoned for agricultural or forest land
use, or land under a Williamson Act contract. No potentially significant impacts to agriculture or forest land would occur ,
and mitigation measures are not required.
Page 95 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
1, 8, 9,
10, 11,
64
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
1, 8,
10, 13 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
1, 10,
13, 14 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Result in other emissions (such as those leading to odors)
adversely affecting a substantial number of people?
1, 10,
14 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which also includes Santa
Barbara and Ventura Counties. Air quality within the SCCAB is regulated by several jurisdictions , including the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), California Air Resources Board (CARB), and San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD).
San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as “nonattainment” for the State standards for ozone, partial nonattainment
for federal ambient standards for ozone (in eastern San Luis Obispo County, outside of the project area), and nonattainment
for the State standards for particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter (PM10). The City’s COSE identifies goals and
policies to achieve and maintain air quality that supports health and enjoyment for those who live in, work in, and visit the
city. These goals and policies include meeting federal and State air quality standards, reducing dependency on gasoline- or
diesel-powered motor vehicles and to encourage walking, biking, and public transit use.
The SLOAPCD has developed a CEQA Air Quality Handbook (most recently updated with a November 2017 Clarification
Memorandum) to evaluate project-specific impacts and determine if potentially significant impacts could result from a
project. To evaluate long-term emissions and cumulative effects and to establish countywide programs to reach acceptable
air quality levels, the 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan (2001 Clean Air Plan) was prepared and adopted.
Some land uses are considered more sensitive to changes in air quality than others, depending on the population groups and
the activities involved. The CARB has identified the following groups who are most likely to be affected by air pollution
(i.e., sensitive receptors): children under 14, the elderly over 65 years of age, athletes, and people with cardiovascular and
chronic respiratory diseases. The locations where these sensitive receptors congregate are considered sensitive receptor
locations and may include, but are not limited to, hospitals, schools, and day care centers. The SLOAPCD identifies sensitive
receptor locations as schools, parks, playgrounds, day care centers, nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units.
The project site is surrounded by existing single-family residential units; therefore, there are sensitive receptor locations
located in all directions.
Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. Any ground disturbance
proposed in an area identified as having the potential to contain NOA must comply with the CARB Airborne Toxics Control
Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. The SLOAPCD NOA Map
indicates that the project site is in an area identified as having a potential for NOA to occur. Asbestos Containing Material
(ACM) is any material that contains more than one percent of asbestos and is considered hazardous due to its connection
with diseases and other health concerns. ACM is presumed to be found in building materials used prior to the year 1980.
Buildings that were developed prior to the year 1980 have the potential to release ACM upon demolition. The project site
Page 96 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
is mostly undeveloped except for a driveway and a shed structure. The shed was constructed sometime after 1980 (estimated
as 2016); thus, there are no on-site structures that are anticipated to have hazardous building materials, including ACM.
a) To be considered consistent with the 2001 Clean Air Plan, a project must be consistent with the land use planning and
transportation control measures and strategies outlined in the Clean Air Plan. The project includes the development
of a new 4,941-sf single-family residence and an 825-sf ADU on a single flag lot in the R-1-PD zone. The project site
is located approximately 1.2 mile northwest of a commercial center with restaurants, a market, and other commercial
development. There are several transit stops located within 1 mile of the proposed site. The nearest transit stop is
located approximately 0.4 mile south. There are Class III bike lanes located approximately 0.4 mile south that connect
to a Class II bike lane associated with Foothill Drive. Therefore, the project site is in an area that would facilitate
alternative modes of travel. The project would generate less than 110 trips per day . Due to the proximity of transit
stops and bicycle lanes and the walkability of the project vicinity, the project would be consistent with the land use
and transportation planning methods included in the 2001 Clean Air Plan. The project would also be consistent with
policies and programs included in the City’s Circulation Element and Active Transportation Plan. Therefore, impacts
would be less than significant.
b) San Luis Obispo County is currently designated as non-attainment for ozone and PM10 under State ambient air quality
standards. Construction of the project would result in short-term emissions of ozone precursors including reactive
organic gasses (ROG), nitrous oxides (NOx), and PM10. After construction, the project would result in emissions of
ozone precursors associated with mobile source emissions and other stationary sources.
Construction Emissions
The project would result in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of
cut and 650 cy of fill (2,582 cy of total cut/fill). Construction of the proposed project has the potential to result in a
short-term increase in dust and vehicle emissions, including diesel particulate matter (DPM), ROGs, NO x, and PM10.
Estimated construction emissions from the project were calculated using the California Emission Estimator Model
(CalEEMod), version 2020.4.0 (CalEEMod 2021; see Attachment 2). Emissions were quantified based on the default
construction schedules, equipment use, and construction vehicle trips contained in the model. Potential emissions
contained in the model represent a conservative estimation of short- and long-term emissions. Fugitive dust control
measures were not included in the modeling assumptions. Construction emissions modeling assumptions are
summarized in Attachment 2. Table 2 summarizes the estimated short-term construction emissions.
Table 2. Project Construction Emissions
Criteria Pollutant Highest
Emissions
SLOAPCD Screening
Threshold
Exceeds
Threshold?
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 69.3 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 2.8 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Daily Construction Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 69.4 lbs/day 137 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 2.8 lbs/day 7 lbs/day No
Uncontrolled Annual Construction Emissions
Reactive Organic Gases + Nitrogen Oxide 2.46 tons/year 2.5 tons/quarter No
Diesel Particulate Matter 0.09 tons/year 0.13 tons/quarter No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.14 tons/year 2.5 tons/quarter No
Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0); SLOAPCD 2012, 2017
As shown in Table 2, short-term construction emissions are not anticipated to exceed established thresholds. Although
the project would not result in significant construction -related emissions, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive receptors, that require implementation of standard
Page 97 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling and fugitive dust. Due to the project ’s proximity to
surrounding residential areas, standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive dust are required and have been
included as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with project
construction would be less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Impacts
Implementation of the project would result in the development and occupation a new 4,941-sf single-family residence
and an 825-sf ADU. Long-term emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Emissions
modeling assumptions after the residence is inhabited are summarized in Attachment 2. Table 3 summarizes the
estimated post-construction emissions.
Table 3. Operational Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant Highest Daily/Annual
Emissions
SLOAPCD Screening
Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Daily Operational Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.39 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide 0.93 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 0.03 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.17 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Daily Operational Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.4 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide 0.96 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 0.03 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.17 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.07 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.03 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0); SLOAPCD 2012
As shown in Table 3, emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of
significance; therefore, impacts from criteria pollutants during project occupation would be less than significant.
c) The project site is a flag lot in a residential area and is directly adjacent to residential development in all directions.
Construction activities, such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and building construction, would
result in temporary construction vehicle emission s and fugitive dust that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors.
Based on the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction activities within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors
require standard dust and DPM reduction measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to
reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust; therefore, impacts
would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Construction of the proposed project would generate odo rs associated with construction smoke, dust, and equipment
exhaust and fumes. Proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other
type of construction projects. Any effects would be temporary and limited to the construction phase of the proposed
project; therefore, impacts related to the potential for odors would be less than significant.
Page 98 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
The only on-site structure is a shed. Because there is not the potential for ACM in the existing shed given its age,
there is no potential for the release of these materials when the shed is moved or demolished. The SLOAPCD NOA
Map indicates the project site is located within an area identified as having potential for NOA to be present. The
project would include approximately 2,582 cy of total earthwork, removal of trees, and construction of the proposed
development. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and
Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105), the Applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation
prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation
Measure AQ-3 has been identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable
protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on -site. Based on required compliance with identified
mitigation, NESHAP Subpart M, and CARB ATCM Section 93105, potential impacts associated with other emissions
would be less than significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the Applicant shall implement the following idling
control techniques:
1. The following idling restrictions shall be implemented for equipment:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction
site.
2. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight
ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and
non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner,
or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall implement the following particulate
matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20%
opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during
periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non -potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
Page 99 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall
be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall
be sown with a fast-germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders,
jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with
California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads.
11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to
sweeping when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monito r the fugitive dust emissions and
enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible
emissions below the SLOAPCD limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute
period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress.
The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division
prior to the start of any site preparation, grading, or earthwork.
14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher.
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of site preparation/construction activities, the Applicant shall retain a registered geologist to
conduct a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in
full compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD
requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon
completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally
occurring asbestos (NOA), the Applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD.
If NOA is determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in
full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard s for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 Code of
Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
Conclusion
Standard mitigation measures have been identified above to address potential pro ject impacts associated with sensitive
receptors’ exposure to air pollutants and potential impacts associated with NOA. Upon implementation of the identified
mitigation measures, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant.
Page 100 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a
candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 2,
53, 62 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or
regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 2,
53, 62 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
1, 2, 7,
16, 53,
62
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native
resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
2, 7,
53 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
2, 15,
53, 62 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
This evaluation is based on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040-
2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (David Wolff Environmental 2021a; Attachment 3). The BRA
prepared for the project includes the results of a “desktop-level” background review and a reconnaissance-level survey of
the project site. “Desktop-level” background review (hereinafter referred to as “background review”) included a review of
Google Earth imagery, review of soil types near the project site using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
Web Soil Survey, and a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for special-status species occurrences
and natural communities in the vicinity of the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The reconnaissance-level
survey of the project site was conducted on April 22, 2021, which is within the blooming period for most sensitive plant
species (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The reconnaissance-level survey was conducted to determine the potential for
special-status plant and animal species and sensitive natural communities to occur within the project site based on data
collected during the background review. In addition, the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the 841 Patricia
Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA was prepared in November 2021 to
supplement the original report (David Wolff Environmental 2021b; Attachment 4). Results of the addendum are based on
an additional field reconnaissance survey on October 28, 2021, and additional background review .
Page 101 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Regional Setting
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses
that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that
allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City’s COSE identifies various goals and policies
to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City ’s planning area. These policies include, but are not
limited to, protecting listed species and species of special concern, preserving existing wildlife corridors, protecting
significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks.
Existing Biological Resources Setting
The project site consists of a mostly undeveloped flag lot in the northwester n portion of the city. Existing development
within the project site is limited to a gated driveway and shed structure. Background level review of the project site was
conducted by reviewing available information from aerial imagery of the project area, the Natural Resources Conservation
Service soil survey, results of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database
(CNDDB) for the San Luis Obispo USGS quadrangle map , and a query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servi ce National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Water and Wetlands Mapper (Davi d Wolff Environmental 2021a). The USFWS NWI
Surface Water and Wetlands Mapper identifies a creek on the project site (mapped as Twin Ridge Creek by the City in the
Parcel Viewer). Twin Ridge Creek is a tributary to Old Garden Creek, runs in a north to south direction in the central portion
of the project site and bisects the site. The presence of the on-site creek was confirmed during a field reconnaissance survey
conducted for the BRA (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW
because it conveys water and would also be subject to the Porter -Cologne Act, which is regulated by the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek supports arroyo willow (Salix
lasiolepis) thicket, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and planted sycamore (Platanus
racemosa). Arroyo willow thicket is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW and the creek’s riparian
corridor is a designated wildlife corridor in the City’s COSE. The NWI also identifies an unnamed drainage along the
unpaved driveway; however, based on the field reconnaissance survey, the driveway does not support any connecting waters
and is not a drainage feature (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).
In addition to the riparian community on -site, the project site also supports non-native annual grassland with a few native
forbs and wildflowers (David Wolff Environmental 2021a).
Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters
According to the BRA, there is an ephemeral creek that runs north to south in the central portion of the project site and
conveys flows from Bishop Peak. The creek begins at a culvert located in woody riparian vegetation in the northern portion
of the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Based on the City’s Parcel Viewer, the on-site creek is identified as
Twin Ridge Creek (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek is an ephemeral creek, and the bottom supports
narrow braided low-flow channels along the flow path (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a, David Wolff Environmental 2021a).
The remnant open creek channel and riparian corridor may represent jurisdictional waters of the U.S./State pursuant to the
Federal Clean Water Act Section 404, California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game
Code Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Program (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The creek continues through the site
toward Westmont Avenue approximately 0.3 mile to the southeast, where it is underground and runs parallel to Westmont
Avenue until it returns to an open channel to the south of Westmont Av enue. Twin Ridge Creek ultimately provides
connection to other creeks within the city, including Old Garden Creek, Stenner Creek, and San Luis Obispo Creek (City of
San Luis Obispo 2021a). In addition, there is a smaller culvert that drains to the northern portion of the site and connects to
the on-site creek. The smaller culvert is an open swale with creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), curly dock
(Rumex crispus), and iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides). • The small culvert leads to the main drainageway which
flows below and from the large culvert (David Wolff Environmental 2021a).
Special-Status Species
In the course of background review conducted for this Study 58 special-status plant and animal species and two natural
communities that have the potential to occur within the project area were identified. Based on site conditions observed
during the reconnaissance survey in April 2021, the following special -status plant and animal species have the potential to
occur within the project area.
Page 102 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Special-Status Plant Species
In the course of background review conducted for this Study 34 special-status plant species that have to the potential to
occur within the project region were identified. A field survey was conducted during the appropriate blooming period for
most special-status plant species. Of the 34 special-status plant species identified as having the potential to occur, only one
special-status species was observed on-site and is described below (David Wolff Environmental 2021 a). Based on project
soil types and habitat conditions observed during the April 22, 2021 , field survey, the other 33 special-status plant species
having the potential to occur within the project region during background review conducted for this Study are not expected
to occur on-site. In addition, none of the other 33 special-status plant species were observed during the botanical surveys
that were conducted at the project site, which were appropriately timed to ensure the best potential of observance if the
species existed at the site (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).
• San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis): This species is a California
Rare Plant Ranking 4.B (watch list). At the time the City’s COSE was adopted in 2006, Cambria morning glory
was a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1.B. This species is presently no longer a Rare List 1.B plant
according to the most recent CNPS ranking system. This species was placed on the CNPS Rank 4.2 list in
approximately 2011. Therefore, any impacts to this species are considered less than significant and do not warrant
mitigation. Cambria morning glory was observed on-site within the non-native annual grassland on the downward
slope toward the riparian area.
Special-Status Animal Species
Previously recorded occurrences of 24 special-status animal species were identified within the project region in the course
of background review of the CNDDB. Table 4 identifies these 24 special-status animal species and the likelihood of
occurrence for individual species within the project site based on the occurrences recorded within the region in the CNDDB.
Table 4. Special-Status Animal Species Recorded by the CNDDB
Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Potential to Occur
lesser slender
salamander
Batrachoseps
minor
None SSC Low potential in riparian area because of high
water sheet flows.
foothill
yellow-
legged frog
Rana boylii None Endangered This species is not anticipated to occur within the
project site because there is not suitable habitat.
California
red-legged
frog (CRLF)
Rana
draytonii
Threatened Species of
Special
Concern
(SSC)
This species is not anticipated to occur within the
project site. The project site lacks suitable aquatic
breeding and non-breeding habitat. Twin Ridge
Creek is an intermittent drainage that does not
retain water for adequate breeding habitat.
The BRA Addendum field survey conducted on
October 28, 2021 followed an approximately 1.4-
inch rainfall event several days earlier. There was
only evidence of flows from the rain event within
the narrow, braided channels with no sheet flow
across the floodplain. It appeared there was just
enough flows even from the short but substantial
rain event to push accumulated leaf litter beyond
the limits of the braided narrow low-flow channels.
No standing or pooled water remained from the
obvious rain event flows on the project site
supporting the BRA findings that the site lacks the
required aquatic habitat for the California red-
legged frog (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).
Page 103 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
For these reasons, CRLF is not expected to forage
or migrate through the project site.
coast range
newt
Taricha
torosa
None SSC This species is not anticipated to occur within the
project site because there is not suitable habitat for
this species.
Cooper’s
hawk
Accipiter
cooperii
None Watch List Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian
habitat.
white-tailed
kite
Elanus
leucurus
None Fully
Protected
Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian
habitat.
tricolored
blackbird
Agelaius
tricolor
None Threatened No suitable wetland habitat.
yellow-
breasted chat
Icteria virens None SSC Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian
habitat.
loggerhead
shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus
None SSC Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian
habitat.
burrowing
owl
Athene
cunicularia
None None No sufficient grassland habitat with enough
squirrel burrows.
vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
Threatened None No suitable vernal pool habitat.
Steelhead
trout
Oncorhynchu
s mykiss
irideus
Threatened None No suitable perennial aquatic habitat.
Crotch
bumble bee
Bombus
crotchii
None None No suitable wildflower rich grassland habitat.
monarch
winter roosts
Danaus
plexippus
Candidate None No suitable roost sites.
Monterey
dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma
macrotis
luciana
None SSC Low potential in riparian habitat.
No woodrat nests observed.
Western
mastiff bat
Eumops
perotis
californicus
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.
American
badger
Taxidea
taxus
None SSC No potential burrows observed.
pallid bat Antrozous
pallidus
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.
Page 104 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.
Yuma myotis Myotis
yumanensis
None None No suitable roost habitat.
northern
California
legless lizard
Anniella
pulchra
None SSC No suitable sandy soils or shrub cover on-site.
Western
pond turtle
Emys
marmorata
None SSC No suitable perennial aquatic habitat.
Two-striped
garter snake
Thamnophis
hammondii
None SSC No suitable aquatic habitat.
coast horned
lizard
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
None SSC No suitable sandy soils or shrub cover on-site.
a) Special-Status Plant Species
The project site consists of riparian and non-native grassland habitat types. Based on the field survey conducted for
the project on April 22, 2021 during the seasonal blooming season, there is only one CRPR 4.2 (limited distribution)
species plant species, Cambria morning glory, identified at the project site. All other sensitive plant species are not
expected to occur at the project site due to existing soil conditions and site disturbance. No other special status plant
species were observed during the appropriately time April 22, 2021 rare plant survey .
During the rare plant survey of April 22, 2021, Cambria morning glory was observed sparsely on the western side of
Twin Ridge Creek with more frequent occurrences on the eastern grassland flat (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).
Cambria morning glory is a species of limited distribution but has current distribution from San Luis Obispo County
to northwestern Santa Barbara County, with historic herbaria records as far north as Sonoma County. Recent
observations in the record have found it throughout coastal and inland San Luis Obispo County , reducing the
significance of its occurrence and local rarity at any one location. It is important to note that although Cambria
morning glory was listed as a CRPR 1B plant when the COSE was adopted in 2006, this species is presently no longer
a CRPR 1.B plant according to the most recent CNPS ranking system. This species was placed on the CNPS Rank
4.2 list in approximately 2011 after the Final EIR was drafted and certified. (David Wolff Environmental 2021b). Due
to the wide range of occurrences locally within the city, impacts to Cambria morning glory would be less than
significant and mitigation measures are not necessary (David Wolff Environmental 2021b). Therefore, impacts related
to special-status plant species would be less than significant.
Special-Status Animal Species
Based on the urban setting of the project site and limited diversity of grassland plant species, special-status grassland
animal species are not anticipated to occur within the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021 a). The riparian
corridor associated with the on-site creek does not provide habitat for riparian species due to the lack of understory
shrub and natural debris (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Therefore, as identified in Table 4, special-status
grassland and riparian species are not anticipated to occur based on existing habitat conditions.
Migratory birds may nest within the riparian vegetation associated with the on -site creek. There were no active nests
observed within the project site during field surveys; however, the riparian habitat on -site supports arroyo willows,
coast live oak, and other riparian trees that may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds that may pass
through the project site. The project would require removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow
stems from approximately four trees; therefore, removal of any trees could result in temporary nesting bird habitat
loss. Other riparian trees would be protected through the provision of a Creek Setback depicted in plans. Following
construction activities, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees, four California bay
laurel one-gallon trees, four California sycamore one-gallon trees, and 20 willow sprig trees throughout the creek
Page 105 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
channel, which would avoid long-term nesting bird habitat loss. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to
reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and associated nesting habitat during construction activities.
As previously identified in Table 4, other special-status animal species are not anticipated to occur based on a lack of
suitable habitat. Therefore, potential impacts related to special-status animal species would be less than significant
with mitigation.
b) The project would result in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of
cut and 650 cy of fill. The project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
with best management practices (BMPs) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
and City requirements. In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in
compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require the
implementation of short- and long-term erosion control measures on-site and would also require disturbed soils along
the creek corridor to be restored. Implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan would avoid and/or
minimize potential erosive or polluted runoff that could adversely affect the riparian habitat and associated arroyo
willow thicket and other riparian trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has been included to avoid and/or reduce potential
impacts related to polluted runoff from construction vehicle and equipment use on -site. Therefore, with
implementation of the erosion and sedimentation control plan and Mitigation Measure BIO-4, potential impacts to
sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation.
A portion of Twin Ridge Creek flows in a north to south direction through the central portion of the project site and
bisects the property. This portion of Twin Ridge Creek supports arroyo willow thicket, which is considered a sensitive
natural community by the CDFW. In addition to arroyo willow thicket, the riparian corridor of the on -site creek
supports coast live oak trees, big leaf maple trees, and planted sycamore trees (David W olff Environmental 2021a).
The project would require removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately
four trees and other vegetation for implementation of the proposed bridge crossing. Other riparian trees and vegetation
would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist and depicted in plans.
The project would require tree removal and work within the riparian habitat on -site to accommodate the span bridge
and associated footings and supports. In addition, utilities serving the ADU would need to cross the on-site portion of
Twin Ridge Creek. The project’s development plans include two potential approaches for the necessary ext ension of
utilities to the ADU: 1) trenching/undergrounding the utilities below the creek, or 2) including the utilities in the
bridge span, either hanging from the bridge or within the bridge decking/enclosure. Because both possibilities are
shown on the project plans, this environmental assessment assumes that the project proposal could include the
trenching/undergrounding of the utilities below the creek as this approach would be the most environmentally
impactful. As a result of the work in the riparian area and the potential for disturbance of regulatory waters resulting
from the creek crossing of the utilities, which could include trenching below the creek, t he project would be required
to be authorized by the agencies with jurisdiction pursuant to Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
and the California Fish and Game Code.
As part of the regulatory/permitting processes, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate to the affected agencies
that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts
to the extent practicable. Impacts to jurisdictional features would be mitigated through implementation of a Habitat
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (or revegetation plan), which will be reviewed and approved by the affected agencies.
To appropriately address the impacts to the riparian habitat and creek that will be required for implementation of the
span bridge, the Applicant has developed a revegetation plan, which is presented in the addendum to the BRA. The
revegetation plan shows the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees likely needing removal for the
bridge construction and states that vegetation removal will be kept to the minimum necessary for bridge clearance.
As well, the revegetation plan assumes existing drainage patterns will not be altered and that disturbance would only
occur for the bridge footings. To minimize disturbance of the riparian area and potential impacts to the creek, BIO -2
has been included to require the placement of utilities above the creek as part of the creek span, rather than trenching
below the creek.
Page 106 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
The Applicant’s proposed compensatory riparian mitigation will provide supplemental irrigation for three years, and
will be maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80 % survival success criteria after two years without
supplemental irrigation. (David Wolff Environmental 2021b; Attachment 4).
Mitigation Measure BIO-3 incorporates the Applicant’s proposed conceptual revegetation plan and is provided to
ensure that the impacts associated with bridge construction are addressed . This measure is independent of permitting
agency requirements; however, implementation of the mitigation described in both Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and
BIO-3 is consistent with what is anticipated to be required by the permitting agencies. With implementation of the
identified mitigation, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The portion of Twin Ridge Creek located within the project site and associated riparian corridor may meet the criteria
for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or the State (David Wolff Environmental 2021 a). The project would require tree
removal and work within the riparian corridor for construction of the proposed bridge and associated footings and
supports; as such, the project would be required by law to obtain permits and/or authorizations pursuant to Section
404/401 of the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and California Fish and Game Code
Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Program. While additional measures are expected as part of the permitting process
with the affected agencies, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-3 have been provided to ensure that the impacts to
the riparian habitat and creek are addressed through the minimization of impacts to the riparian habitat through the
placement of utility crossings within or attached to the bridge crossing and implementation of a revegetation plan
prepared by the Applicant. In addition, the project would require 0.8 acre of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy
of cut and 650 cy of fill, and the use of construction vehicles and equipment that could result in indirect impacts, such
as erosive or polluted runoff. The project would be required to prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control
plan in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require
implementation of short- and long-term erosion control measures on-site. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has also been
included to avoid and/or reduce potential impacts related to polluted runoff from construction vehicle and e quipment
use on-site. Therefore, with implementation of the erosion and sedimentation control plan and Mitigation Measure s
BIO-2 and BIO-3, potential impacts to Twin Ridge Creek within the project site would be less than significant with
mitigation.
d) Based on the City’s COSE, the project area is within an area that is generally mapped as having the potential to serve
as a wildlife corridor. Twin Ridge Creek flows in a north to south direction through the central portion of the project
site. The creek continues south through a developed residential area until it is undergrounded at Westmont Avenue.
The creek then returns to an open channel to the south of Westmont Avenue and ultimately provides connectivity to
other creeks, including Old Garden Creek, Stenner Creek, and San Luis Obispo Creek. The portion of Twin Ridge
Creek that flows through the project area supports ephemeral flows of water and the riparian creek corridor supports
sparse understory shrub and natural debris (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek flows onto the
property through an underground culvert under Patricia Drive and again along Westmont Avenue. The lack of a
consistent open channel impedes larger wildlife, such as deer, from effectively using the creek as a movement
corridor; however, deer and other wildlife (wild turkey, quail) that have become adapted to the urban environment
have been seen within the site and vicinity. In addition, due to its ephemeral nature and lack of an open channel, Twin
Ridge Creek does not provide connectivity for migratory fish species. Therefore, the project site is not anticipated to
support any migratory fish species and implementation of the project would not result in disturbance of migratory
fish.
Suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds is present within the riparian trees and vegetation associated with Twin
Ridge Creek. The project would require tree removal and work within the riparian corridor for construction of the
new span bridge and associated footings and supports over Twin Ridge Creek. The project includes the replanting of
20 coast live oak one-gallon trees, four California bay laurel one-gallon trees, four California sycamore one-gallon
trees, and 20 willow sprig trees throughout the creek channel , which would avoid permanent habitat loss for nesting
migratory birds. Further, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require nesting bird surveys prior to any ground-disturbing
activity, including tree removal, to ensure there are no migratory bird species nesting on-site that could be directly
affected by implementation of the project. If nesting migratory birds are present on-site during project
implementation, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires avoidance of individuals through identified nest buffers.
Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Page 107 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
e) The riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek within the project site supports arroyo willow thicket, coast
live oak trees, big leaf maple trees, and planted sycamore trees . The project would require the removal of 17 coast
live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees within the riparian corridor for
construction of the new bridge crossing over the portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site. Following construction
activities, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees (10 one each side of the corridor),
four California bay laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of the corridor), four California sycamore one-gallon
(two on each side of the corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees (throughout the creek channel), which is consistent with
the City’s Municipal Code (12.24.090), which requires the replanting of removed trees on-site at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
Replanted trees would be irrigated for three years and maintained and monitored for five years to meet an 80% survival
success. Other riparian trees would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City
Biologist and depicted in plans. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance for tree
preservation.
The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s
planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and Species of Special Concern
(SSC), preserving existing wildlife corridors, protecting significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from
creeks. The project site provides suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds within the riparian corridor on-site.
The project would require tree removal and other work within the riparian corridor for construction of the new bridge
and associated footings and supports to cross over the portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site. The creek and other
riparian trees and vegetation would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City
Biologist and depicted in plans. In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sedimentation
control plan, which would further reduce potential impacts to Twin Ridge Creek and the associated riparian corridor.
Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts related
to biological resources protected by the City’s COSE and other local policies and ordinances. Therefore, the potential
impacts associated with conflicts with local policies would be less than significant with mitigation.
f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community
Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would
not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan, and no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 –September 15), prior to any
ground-disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within
1 week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided
until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non -disturbance buffer of 50 feet
will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species.
No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has
determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activi ties would not cause adverse impacts
to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until
an appropriate buffer is determined in coordination with the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
BIO-2 All utility extensions required to cross the creek, which are necessary to serve the ADU (excluding the sewer lateral
serving the ADU and connecting to the sewer line along the rear of the property), shall be placed within or attached
to the bridge span. No trenching across the creek shall occur for the extension of utilities to the ADU.
BIO-3 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall provide copies of the permits/authorizations
from affected resource agencies, including a final revegetation plan that is consistent with the revegetation plan
provided in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA, David Wolff Environmental, November
10, 2021) for approval by the City Natural Sustainability and Natural Resources Official, Community Development
Department. Plans submitted for grading and building permits shall show tree removals consistent with the
November 2021 revegetation plan, including the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees
identified for removal to facilitate the bridge construction. Vegetation removal shall be kept to the minimum
necessary for bridge clearance and construction of the necessary footings and supports. Initial removal of vegetation
shall be monitored full-time by a qualified biologist, and weekly spot-check monitoring shall continue throughout
Page 108 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
the construction of the bridge structure. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated area of the
riparian corridor for three years, and maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80% survival success criteria
after two years without supplemental irrigation. Monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with the
revegetation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the affected resource agencies and the City annually. Permits
and/or authorizations from the regulatory agencies (CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USACE),
or documentation from the respective agency that the permit/authorization is required, shall be submitted to the
City prior to any grading and/or construction activities within the on-site riparian area.
BIO-4 All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent spills of fuel, oil, and other hazardous
materials. A designated staging area shall be established for vehicle/equipment parking and storage of fuel,
lubricants, and solvents a minimum of 30-feet outside of the riparian area on-site. All fueling and maintenance
activities shall take place in the designated staging area.
Conclusion
The project site supports biological resources, including San Luis Obispo morning glory, nesting migratory birds, and a
portion of Twin Ridge Creek and associated riparian corridor. Potential impacts to biological resources would be avoided
through project design and mitigated through implementation of requirements identified in Mitigation Measures BIO-1
through BIO-4. The creek and other riparian trees and vegetation would be protected and/or restored through provision of a
Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist, replanting req uirements, and the mitigation identified above. With
implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to biological resources, the project would not conflict with local plans or
policies for protection of biological resources with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Therefore,
potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.
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 ?
1, 5,
17, 18,
54
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
2, 17,
18, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside
of formal cemeteries?
2, 17,
18, 54 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
This evaluation is based, in part, on the Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, City of San Luis
Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California by Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants (CCARC) for this
project (CCARC 2021). The Cultural Resources Survey includes the results of the background review conducted for this
Study and an archaeological survey of the subject property. Background review consisted of a records search at the Central
Coast Information Center (CCIC) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The records search encompassed the project
site and a 0.25-mile radius of the site. Based on the records search, five cultural resource studies and two archaeological
sites were recorded within a 0.25-mile radius of the site. In addition, there was one cultural resources survey recorded within
the project site. Based on a review of previously documented findings, no cultural resources have been reported within the
footprint of the project (CCARC 2021). An intensive field survey was conducted on May 18, 2021, at the project site. There
were no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources observed within the project site during the field survey (CCARC
2021).
Page 109 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central
Coast for at least 10,000 years. The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño
Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis
Obispo County, and the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast.
The project site is not located within or adjacent to a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE.
Historic Setting
The City’s COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other
community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
• Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources ;
• Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to
remove a threat to health and safety;
• Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing, and materials of
nearby historic structures; and
• Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect
of Contributing or Master List historic properties.
The project site is not located within the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone, nor does it contain any built structures
that may be considered potentially eligible historic resources.
a) The project site is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a shed structure that would be removed as part of the
project. Based on the Cultural Resources Survey Report, the records search and the field survey did not identify any
new historic or other cultural resources within the project site, including the shed structure (CCARC 2021). Therefore,
the project site does not contain buildings or structures that may be classified as potentially eligible historic resources.
In addition, there are no identified historic buildings within the immediate vicinity the project. Therefore, the project
would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5
and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) No archaeological resources are known to occur within the project site. Mitigation Measure CR-1 is provided to
address inadvertent discovery during project construction to ensure potential impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
c) No human remains are known to occur within proposed development areas, and the project site is not located near a
Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City ’s COSE. The project would be required to comply with
California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby
area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the
necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If t he remains are determined to be
of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.
Therefore, based on required compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts related to disturbance of hum an
remains would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
CR-1 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground -disturbing activities within
a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a
City-qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native
American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be cont acted to work in
conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent
discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this
requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate
Page 110 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in consistent with
California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design
and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as
necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also
perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast
Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent
curation of the recovered materials.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 for inadvertent discovery, the project would have a less-than-significant
impact on cultural resources.
6. ENERGY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to
wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 17,
19, 21 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable
energy or energy efficiency?
1, 17,
19, 20,
21
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October
2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE and, beginning in January 2020, 3CE has become an alternative electricity
provider within the city. 3CE is striving to provide 100% carbon-free electricity to city of San Luis Obispo customers by
2030.
The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properti es, performance, or types
of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement
to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the
most recent version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on
four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer fro m
the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non -residential
lighting requirements.
The City’s COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, r enewable, 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 a ccess.
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; and fostering alternative transportation modes.
a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.
The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar
construction activities in the city. Federal and State regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles
Page 111 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
and prohibit wasteful activities; therefore, potential impacts as sociated with construction energy use would be less
than significant.
The introduction and occupation of a new residence and ADU at the project site would result in a slight increase in
consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips, electricity, and natural gas usage by project occupants.
The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards.
The project would result in mixed-fuel buildings and would be required to be in full compliance with the City ’s
Energy Reach Code. Compliance with existing building codes would ensure the project would not result in a
potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy
resources, and would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than
significant.
b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC including applicable green building standards.
The project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available
practices in energy conservation and encouraging energy-efficient building design as required by the City’s Energy
Reach Code. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for
renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
Implementation of the project would result in a slight increase in energy usage. However, t he project has been designed in
full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not conflict with State or local plans for renewable
energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy would occur , and mitigation measures are
not required.
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.
22, 23,
26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 22, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 23, 24,
25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Landslides? 25, 26 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
23, 24,
25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 112 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
25 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of
septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste
water?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological
resource or site or unique geologic feature? 27 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and
inferred faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the western side
of the city of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of California Alquist -Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified
as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna Faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture
hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source
of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan.
The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have
many pore spaces among the soil grains. These soils are typically found in valleys. Faults capable of producing strong
ground-shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar,
Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering standards and building codes set minimum design and
construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map and the City’s Safety
Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active
fault zone.
Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more
than the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with
groundwater rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling
and lubricating the spaces between soil particles because of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically
sandy and in creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into
the ground. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground
Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City ’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low
liquefaction potential.
Slope Instability and Landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Caus es
include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can
be contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope
instability. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City ’s Safety Element, the project site is located
near an area with high and moderate landslide potential (Bishop Peak); however, the project site is within an area with low
landslide potential.
Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.
Primary causes are groundwater withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing
the ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic
factors such as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead
to ground-surface subsidence. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map,
the project site is not located in an area of known subsidence.
Page 113 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Soil Limiting Factors
The project site is underlain by the Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes. This well-drained soil has a very high
runoff class and a depth to restrictive feature of more than 45 to 58 inches to paralithic bedrock. The typical profile for this
soil unit is clay and weathered bedrock. Since the soil consists of clay, there is potential for expansion.
a.i) Fault rupture refers to the displacement of ground surface along a fault trace that typically occurs during e arthquakes
of a magnitude 5 or higher. Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the City’s Safety Element and the
DOC Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project site.
Therefore, the rupture of a known earthquake fault directly under or adjacent to the project site is not anticipated to
occur and potential impacts related to substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault w ould
be less than significant.
a.ii) The city is in a seismically active region and there is potential for the project to experience seismic ground shaking at
some point(s) during the life of the project. The proposed development would be required to be designed in full
compliance with seismic design criteria established in CBC Section 1613 and City-adopted engineering standards and
practices to adequately withstand and minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected
to occur in the project region; therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than
significant.
a.iii) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City ’s Safety Element, the project site is located
within an area with low liquefaction potential; therefore, development of the project within this area is not anticipated
to result in adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure. Proposed development would be required to be
designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in CBC Section 1613 to reduce risk
associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing
regulations, impacts related to substantial adverse effects due to seismic -related ground failure would be less than
significant.
a.iv) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City ’s Safety Element, the project site is located
within an area of low landslide potential. The project site has a gentle downward slope toward the on-site creek;
however, the site and surrounding areas are predominantly flat, which further reduces the risk for a landslide to occur.
In addition, the proposed development wou ld be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design
criteria established in the CBC and City-adopted engineering standards and practices to reduce risk associated with
seismic-related ground failure; therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with
landslides, and impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is characterized by a predominantly flat topography with a gentle downward slope toward the on -site
creek and is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a shed structure and gated driveway on the property. The
proposed project includes 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy
of fill that could result in increased soil erosion during proposed project activities. The project would be required to
prepare and implement a SWPPP with construction BMPs for erosion control, including, but not limited to, silt
fencing, straw wattles, and berms. Addition of standard construction BMPs would minimize the amount of erosive
runoff from the site during ground-disturbing activities. The project would also be required to comply with the Central
Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in their Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for
Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement of the project site would also be required
to comply with the drainage requirements of the City ’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the
purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the city’s watershed. Based on the proximity of the
project to the on-site creek, increased erosion may result in increased erosive runoff into the waterway. The project
would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the City ’s stormwater
requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require restoration of soils along the creek corridor to
avoid long-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation. Following project completion, the project site would
be developed with a single-family residence, an ADU, hardscapes, and landscaping, precluding the potential for
substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, based on required compliance with existing requirements,
potential impacts related to increased erosion would be less than significant.
Page 114 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
c) Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or in areas containing escarpments. Based on the Ground Shaking
and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located on relatively flat land within an
area with low landslide potential. Based on the City’s Safety Element and USGS data, the project site is not located
in an area of historical or current land subsidence. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the
City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low liquefaction potential. A soils report prepared
by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in
response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the CBC Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be
addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the C BC. The project would also be required
to comply with CBC Section 1613 for seismic requirements to address potential seismic-related ground failure,
including lateral spread and liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts
related to location on a geologic unit or soil unit that is unstable would be less than significant.
d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is entirely underlain by
Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes. Typically, soils that consist of clay or clay materials have a higher
shrink-swell potential than soils without clay or clay materials. The soil profile of Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to
15 percent slopes, consists of clay and would be considered to have a high shrink-swell potential. The volume changes
that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. A soils report prepared by a
qualified engineer is required, per CBC Chapter 18 and Policy 4.7 of the City’s Safety Element, upon review of the
building permit to evaluate the proposed development activities and provide specific recommendations to adequately
protect future proposed development against soil stability hazards, including expansive soils. Typical precautionary
measures would likely include premoistening of the underlying soil in conjunction with placement of non-expansive
material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced foundation. Therefore, based on compliance with
existing regulations, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant.
e) The proposed project includes a new connection to the City’s sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater
treatment systems are proposed on-site; therefore, no impacts would occur.
f) The project site is underlain by the Franciscan Assemblage, which is comprised of previously sheared, slightly
metamorphosed marine sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks. Based on the lack of previously recorded vertebrate
fossils and previous destruction of the parent material during subduction and metamorphosis, the Franciscan
Assemblage has been determined to have a low paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, ground disturbance activities
are not anticipated to uncover or otherwise disturb any known or un known paleontological resources; therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing
regulations including the CBC, potential impacts related to seismic and other ground failure and damage to paleontological
resources would be less than significant. However, earthwork related to project construction has the potenti al to result in
erosive runoff; however, adverse effects would be avoided or minimized through compliance with existing regulations .
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 115 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
1, 11,
20, 55,
64
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases?
11, 19,
20, 52,
55, 64
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria
pollutants discussed in Section 3, Air Quality. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere because of human
activities are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012 the City’s Climate Action Plan for
Community Recovery was adopted. The plan identified measures and implementation strategies to achieve the City’s GHG
reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020 the City prepared the updated 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP),
which outlines a strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035 , adopts sector specific goals, and provides foundational
actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving those goals.
In 2018 the City prepared a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions for the 2016 calendar year. In 2016 San Luis
Obispo’s total GHG emissions were estimated to be 339,290 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO 2e). As in
2005, transportation was the largest contributor to the city’s total GHG emissions, with an estimated 212,980 MTCO2e or
63% of the city’s total emissions. Commercial and Industrial energy was the second largest sector with GHG emissions of
44,270 MTCO2e or 13% of the city’s total emissions. The sectors of residential energy and solid waste account for the
remaining 26% of the city’s total 2016 GHG emissions. Due to lagging data availability, 2016 is the most recent year for
complete GHG inventory data. Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions
from significant sources. Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S -3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals
and required the CARB to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by
2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Other Statewide policies adopted to reduce
GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard,
Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Building Codes, and the California Solar Initiative.
Appendix C of the 2020 CAP includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of GHG emissions analysis under CEQA
for projects within the city. To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality goal, plans and
projects within the city that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the CAP, a Qualified
GHG Emissions Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. According to the adopted SLOAPCD
guidance, if a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the City’s 2020 CAP, the project would
not result in a significant impact.
In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE, an existing community choice energy program that serves
Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties and provides 100% carbon-free electricity with a rate savings relative to
PG&E. Additionally, at its meeting on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for
New Buildings. Unlike other cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program
encourages clean, efficient, and cost-effective all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the
California Energy Code, and implementation of the Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will
be required to build more efficient and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on
existing buildings or by paying an in -lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose. When paired with cost-comparable
modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings are operationally GHG
emissions-free and cost effective and help achieve the community’s climate action goals.
Page 116 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
a) As discussed previously, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use density and projected growth of
the City’s R-1 land use designation. As such, the project is expected to be consistent with the demographic and land
use assumptions used for development of the City’s 2020 CAP.
During construction, fossil fuels and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The project
would be required to comply with federal and State regulations in place that require fuel -efficient equipment and
vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling. Construction GHG emissions were calculated using the
CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, computer program, included as Attachment 2. The project would result in
approximately 32.34 MTCO2e/year of construction-related GHG-emissions without mitigation, over the 24-month
construction period. To be conservative, amortized construction generated GHG emissions were included in annual
post-construction GHG emissions estimates, included in Table 5 below. Based on required compliance with existing
regulations and Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which identifies idling restrictions, construction of the project would
generate less than the estimated 32.34 MTCO2e/year of GHG emissions.
Implementation of the project would result in the occupation of a new 4,941-sf single-family residence, a detached
825-sf ADU, and other residential amenities. The main sources of post-construction emissions include limited vehicle
trips to and from the project site and energy use. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC,
including applicable green building standards. Operational GHG emissions were estimated for this project using the
CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, computer program, included as Attachment 2. As shown in Table 5 below, the project
would result in approximately 31.99 MTCO2e/year of GHG emissions without mitigation. Amortized GHG
emissions, when averaged over an assumed 25-year life of a project, would total approximately 12.66 MTCO2e/year.
Table 5. Operational GHG Emissions
Source Total MTCO2e
Construction Emissions
Total Construction Emissions 316.44 MTCO2e/year
Amortized Construction Emissions (Over 25 Years) 12.66 MTCO2e/year
Operational Emissions
Annual Operational Emissions 31.99 MTCO2e/year
Total Operational Emissions with Amortized Construction Emissions 44.65 MTCO2e/year
Service Population (Residents) 61
MTCO2e / Service Population 7.44 MTCO2e/year
2020 CAP Threshold (per resident) 0.7/resident (4.2 MTCO2e/year)
Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e) 40.45 MTCO2e/year
Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e/Service
Population) 6.74 MTCO2e/year
Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0)
1. Population assumption based on three persons per proposed unit
As discussed in threshold (b) below, the project would be consistent with the City ’s GHG Checklist, including
requirements for clean energy systems, green buildings, a connected community, a c ircular economy, and natural
solutions. The project would use energy provided by 3CE and would be fully compliant with applicable CBC
requirements for development of green buildings and the City’s Energy Reach Code. There are several transit stops
within one mile of the project site, and the nearest is located approximately 0.4 mile south of the site along Patricia
Drive, near Highland Drive. There is a commercial center located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project
site and includes a grocery store, a convenience store, restaurants, and other services. In addition, there are several
bicycle lanes located within the project vicinity, including a Class III bicycle lane along Patricia Drive (south of
Highland Drive) and a Class II bicycle lane along Foothill Boulevard. Based on consistency with the City’s GHG
Checklist and accessibility to nearby transit stops, bicycle lanes, and commercial centers, the project would be
consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Page 117 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
b) The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was assigned a GHG -reduction target of 11% from
transportation sources by 2035. SLOCOG adopted the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community
Strategies (RTP/SCS) in June 2019, which includes the region ’s SCS and meets the requirements of SB 375.
In September 2018, the City Council directed City staff to develop a climate action plan with a reduction target of
carbon neutrality by 2035. A carbon neutrality by 2035 target would require achieving a far greater reduction than the
SB 32 requirements by 2030, as identified in the State ’s 2017 Scoping Plan. On July 20, 2020, SLOCOG issued a
letter which determined that the City’s CAP was consistent with the GHG reduction noted in the SCS for meeting the
State’s 2030 GHG-reduction target. As a result, determination of consistency with the City ’s CAP would ensure
consistency with the GHG-reduction targets identified in the RTP/SCS.
The City’s 2020 CAP identifies six pillars, each of which includes long-term goals, measures, and foundational actions
for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city. The pillars are as follows:
1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon neutral government
operations by 2030.
2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.
3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and achieve a
50% reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by 2030.
4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40 % VMT by
electric vehicles by 2030.
5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035.
6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through
compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be ongoing through 2035.
Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the 2020 CAP can use
the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the 2020 CAP’s
GHG emissions reduction strategy. The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the CAP are based on the
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation
Element. If a plan or project is consistent with the existing 2014 General Plan land use and zoning designations of the
project site, then the project would be considered consistent with the demographic forecasts and the land uses
assumptions of the Climate Action Plan. The project is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designation and
would be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for the development of the 2020 CAP .
The proposed project would not result in an increase in employment or population estimates that would conflict with
those used for development of the City’s CAP or SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS.
Based on the City’s VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects, a residential project generates 14.25
VMT per capita. The City’s Screening Criteria for Land Use Projects Exempt from VMT analysis states that small
development projects (project anticipated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips) may be assumed to cause a
less than significant impact. In addition, as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo Residential VMT Screening Map,
the project site is located in a residential area that generates less than 85% of average VMT. Therefore, because the
project would generate less than 110 trips per day , and is located within an area that generates less than 85% of
average VMT (14.25 VMT per capita), VMT impacts would be less than significant .
The City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to ensure that
they are consistent with the pillars of the CAP. As identified below in Table 6, the project would be consistent with
the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a conflict
with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant.
Table 6. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan
Page 118 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency
Clean Energy Systems
Does the Project include an operational commitment
to participate in Central Coast Community Energy?
Consistent. The project would use energy from 3CE.
Green Buildings
Does the Project exclusively include “All-electric
buildings”? For this checklist, the following
definitions and exemptions apply:
All-electric building. A new building that has no
natural gas plumbing installed within the building and
that uses electricity as the source of energy for all
space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and
clothes drying appliances. An All-Electric Building
may be plumbed for the use of natural gas as fuel for
appliances in a commercial kitchen.
Specific exemptions to the requirements for all-
electric buildings include:
Commercial kitchens
a. The extension of natural gas infrastructure into
an industrial building for the purpose of
supporting manufacturing processes (i.e., not
including space conditioning).
b. Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to
an existing single-family home. Essential
Service Buildings including, but not limited to,
public facilities, hospitals, medical centers and
emergency operations centers.
c. Temporary buildings.
d. Gas line connections used exclusively for
emergency generators.
e. Any buildings or building components exempt
from the California Energy Code.
f. Residential subdivisions in process of
permitting or constructing initial public
improvements for any phase of a final map
recorded prior to January 1, 2020, unless
compliance is required by an existing
Development Agreement.
If the proposed project falls into an above exemption
category, what measures are applicants taking to
reduce onsite fossil fuel consumption to the maximum
extent feasible? If not applicable (N/A), explain why
this action is not relevant.
Consistent. The project would include a mixed-fuel
building. As proposed, the project would document
compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code on
final construction plans to be approved by the City.
Refer to Attachment 1.
Connected Community
Does the Project comply with requirements in the
City’s Municipal Code with no exceptions, including
bicycle parking, bikeway design, and EV charging
stations?
Consistent. The project would include two parking
spaces, which is consistent with the requirements in
the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the type of
development, the project would not be required to
provide bicycle parking or EV stations.
Page 119 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Is the estimated Project-generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) within the City’s adopted thresholds,
as confirmed by the City’s Transportation Division?
Consistent. Based on proposed development of a
single-family residence and an ADU, the project
would not result in VMT exceeding significance
thresholds. If “No,” does the Project/Plan include VMT
mitigation strategies and/or a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan approved by the City ’s
Transportation Division?
Does the Project demonstrate consistency with the
City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan?
Consistent. Based on the type of development, the
project would not be required to provide bicycle
parking or bicycle facilities in compliance with the
City’s Municipal Code. However, the project includes
adequate bicycle storage for residents of the proposed
residence.
Circular Economy
Will the Project subscribe all units and/or buildings to
organic waste pick up and provide the appropriate on-
site enclosures consistent with the provisions of the
City of San Luis Obispo Development Standards for
Solid Waste Services? Please provide a letter from
San Luis Garbage company verifying that the project
complies with their standards and requirements for
organic waste pick up.
Consistent. Proposed development includes a solid
waste enclosure as well as green and recycled material
bins, which is consistent with the City’s solid waste
standards. The proposed project would be provided
solid waste services by the City, with pick-up once a
week.
Natural Solutions
Does the Project comply with Municipal Code
requirements for trees?
Consistent. The project would require removal of
riparian trees, which would require compensation per
Section 12.24.090 (Tree Removal) of the City ’s
Municipal Code. In addition, the project would
include trees and vegetation throughout the proposed
development.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not necessary.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Checklist, including requirements for clean energy systems, green
buildings, a connected community, a circular economy, and natural solutions. The project site is located near a commercial
center, several transit stops, and bicycle lanes. Based on consist ency with the City’s GHG Checklist, the project would be
consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 120 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant
hazard to the public or the environment?
28, 29,
30 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
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?
31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland
fires?
23, 51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (“Cortese”) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and
developers to comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous
materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection
Agency (CalEPA) to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various State and local government agencies are
required to track and document hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of
Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation
efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination, such as federal superfund sites, State response
sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to
impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and
Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements
can be located on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.
Based on a review of the DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases, the project site is not an active hazardous
site, nor has it previously been recorded as a hazardous site. In addition, there are no active hazardous sites in the vicinity
of the project site.
a) Construction of the proposed project would require the use of commonly used hazardous substances (e.g., fuel,
gasoline, cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.). Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable
federal and State environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the
federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard (California
Code of Regulations [CCR] 29.1910.119), which includes requir ements for preventing and minimizing the
consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. Any commonly used hazardous substances used during
occupation of the residence (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according
to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential
impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances would be less than significant.
b) The project site is mostly undeveloped. The only exception is a shed located on-site, which would be removed as part
of the project. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, the project site is within an area identified as having a potential
Page 121 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
for NOA to occur. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying,
and Surface Mining Operations, the Applicant is required to provide a geologic evaluation prior to any construction
activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been
identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures
if NOA is determined to be present on-site.
After construction and occupation, the project would not require the handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile
substances that would result in a significant risk of accidental release. Any commonly used hazardous substances used
after construction (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to
regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) The nearest school is Old Mission Pre-School, located approximately 0.35 mile south of the project site; therefore,
the project would not result in the use of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school and no impacts would
occur.
d) Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStor database, SWRCB GeoTracker database, and CalEPA Cortese List
website, there are no previously identified hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site. Proposed
ground disturbance would not result in the release of any known hazardous materials; t herefore, no impacts would
occur.
e) San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is the nearest airport to the project site, located approximately 5.25 miles
south of the project site. The project is outside of the Airport Influence Area and any Safety Zone designations
established under the airport’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, the project would not be located within
2 miles of an airport or under the jurisdiction of an ALUP , and no impacts would occur.
f) Project construction is not anticipated to result in temporary traffic controls along Patricia Drive and no full road
closures would be necessary. Project implementation would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact
on any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, the project would result in less
than significant impacts related to the potential for impairment of implementation of emergency response plans or
emergency evacuation plans.
g) The project site is located within a developed area of the city in a low fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) designated by
the City’s COSE. Bishop Peak is located approximately 750 feet to the west of the project site and is designated as an
extreme, high, and moderate FHSZ by the City’s COSE. The project site is mostly undeveloped but has been regularly
maintained to reduce fire risk. New buildings would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety rules and
regulations, including the California Fire Code and PRC. For these reasons, the project would result in less than
significant impacts related to exposure to wildland fire.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3.
Conclusion
The project does not propose the long-term routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of hazardous substances. The project
is not located within 0.25 mile of a school or within the Airport Influence Area or ALUP safety zone designation. Mitigation
Measure AQ-3 has been identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable
protocol and procedures if NOA is determ ined to be present on-site. Project implementation would not subject people or
structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would not impair implementation of or interfere with any
adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would
be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 122 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or
ground water quality?
1, 2, 7,
53, 62 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project
may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
1, 33,
34 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a
manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 36,
53, 63 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on - or
offsite;
1, 36,
53, 62,
63
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iii. Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed
the capacity of existing or planned stormwater dr ainage
systems or provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff; or
1, 36,
53, 62,
63 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 23,
32, 59,
63
☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of
pollutants due to project inundation?
1, 2,
23, 32,
35 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality
control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan?
1, 2,
33, 36 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an
approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet
above sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach and
has six major tributary basins: Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport
Creek, and See Canyon. The project site supports a portion of Twin Ridge Creek that flows in a north to south direction and
bisects the central portion of the project area. The portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site begins at a culvert in the northern
portion of the project site and ultimately provides connection to other creeks within the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a;
David Wolff Environmental 2021a).
The City participates in the State General Permit NPDES permit program governing stormwater. Thus, the City is required
to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the
development review process. The primary objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee
is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or
contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable development projects that require approval s
and/or permits issued.
Page 123 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a
1% chance of occurring in any given year. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance
Rate Map 06079C1066G, effective date November 16, 2012, the eastern portion of the project site is located within Zone
X, an area with limited potential for annual flooding .
In 2015 the State legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires governments
and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels
of pumping and recharge. Under the SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their
sustainability plans. The project would be serviced by the City ’s water system, which has four primary water sources—
Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation)—with groundwater
serving as a fifth supplemental source.
a) The project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope downward toward the portion of Twin Ridge Creek that is on-
site. The project would require the use of construction equipment that would increase the potential for polluted runoff
during construction activities. The proposed project also includes 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance,
including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill that could result in increased soil erosion during ground-disturbing
activities. Project improvements would be located in close proximity to the on-site creek; therefore, increased erosive
and/or polluted runoff may result in indirect water quality impacts.
Based on the amount of proposed ground disturbance, consistent with the Municipal Code and as part of the building
permit process, the project would require a SWPPP with BMPs including, but not limited to , erosion and pollution
control measures such as silt fencing, straw wattles, berms, and vehicle maintenance and storage. Implementation of
standard construction BMPs would reduce the potential for polluted runoff during equipment and vehicle use and
would minimize the amount of erosive runoff from the site during ground-disturbing activities. In addition, Mitigation
Measure BIO-4 would require vehicle storage and refueling to occur outside of the creek area to avoid accidental fuel
spills. The project would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in their Post -
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast r egion.
Proposed physical improvement of the project site would also be required to comply with the drainage requirements
of the City’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper
drainage within the city’s watershed. As part of these requirements, the City has been mand ated to establish a set of
minimum designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps taken to minimize or control
the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting materials and/or exposure
of potential pollutants to rainwater or other sources of runoff. Additionally, the project would be required to prepare
an erosion and sediment control plan for short- and long-term erosion control in compliance with the City’s
stormwater requirements. The project site would be developed with a single-family residence, an ADU, hardscapes,
and landscaping, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, based on
required compliance with existing requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, potential impacts
related to violation of water quality standards would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) Implementation of the project would result in 12,540 sf of new impervious surfaces, including a single-family
residence, an ADU, and other hardscapes. This would result in an approximate 20% increase in impervious surface
areas, leaving 80% of the project parcel undeveloped. To further allow for groundwater infiltration on-site, the project
would maintain the on-site creek and associated corridor, construct driveways with permeable pavers, and reduce
driveway width where feasible. While the construction of the residence and ADU would introduce additional
impervious surfaces to the project site, this development would result in less than 20% coverage of the project site.
Because the project would retain most of the site as pervious, the project is not anticipated to disrupt groundwater
recharge on-site, and impacts would be less than significant.
c.i-iii) Project construction consists of 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance that could result in temporary
impacts to drainage patterns in the area through erosive runoff. The project would be required to develop and
implement a Water Pollution Control Plan to protect stormwater runoff, including measures to prevent soil erosion.
In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the
City’s stormwater requirements to reduce the potential for short- and long-term erosion from implementation of the
project. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with new residential units, hardscapes,
or otherwise landscaped areas, precluding the potential fo r substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The project would
Page 124 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
require work within the on-site creek for installation of the span bridge but would not disrupt the creek’s ability to
convey surface water or other flows. Based on the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Chacon Associates, LLC
(Attachment 5) for the project, the proposed bridge would be required to be a minimum of 2.5 feet above the creek
bottom to allow for potential 100-year flood flows.
Implementation of the project would result in new impervious surfaces that have potential to increase polluted or
other surface runoff. However, the project would maintain the majority of the site as pervious (approximately 80%)
and would further reduce impervious surface area by mostly maintaining the on-site creek and associated corridor,
constructing driveways with permeable pavers, and reducing driveway width where feasible as required by the City’s
post-construction stormwater requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would minimize potential impacts
to drainages during project construction; therefore, project impacts would be less than significant.
c.iv) According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06079C1066G , effective date November 16, 2012, project site is
located within Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Implementation of the project would result in minor alterations
to the on-site creek for construction of the span bridge and associated footings and supports. However, minor
alterations would not impede or redirect flood flows because the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.
Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant.
d) Based on the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with
potential for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of
water with the potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with potential
inundation due to tsunami or seiche.
e) Per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City has four
primary water supply sources—Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water
(for irrigation); groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source . The project includes stormwater treatment and
storage facilities and would not conflict with the City’s Waterways Management Plan or other water quality control
plans. The project would be supplied water by the City of San Luis Obispo, which has ample water supply based on
diversification of its water resources. Water supply analysis is further discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service
Systems. In addition, the project site would maintain approximately 80 % of the site’s pervious surfaces and would
install other measures to allow for groundwater recharge at the site. In addition, the project would not conflict with
the SGMA because the City has moved away from using groundwater as a primary water supply source, which is
consistent with the San Luis Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with
the SGMA, Central Coast Basin Plan, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or
groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
Conclusion
Through project design, standard BMPs, PPMs, and City Engineering Standards, the project would not substantially impede
or redirect flood flows, alter existing drainage patterns, degrade surface water quality, decrease groundwater supplies, or
conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan .
The project would retain the preconstruction infiltration rates and volume currently occurring on the unimproved project
site. Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations and implementation of identified mitigation measures, impacts
related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.
Page 125 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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? N/A ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict
with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 2, 5 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Page 126 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Evaluation
The project site is located on a single, mostly undeveloped flag lot within the R-1-PD zone in the northwestern portion of
the city. The flag lot was created as part of the Tract 1192 subdivision, which was approved by the City in 1985. The project
site is accessible by a private, gated driveway off of Patricia Drive . The project site is generally surrounded by one- and
two-story single-family residential uses. Land uses surrounding the project site are as follows:
• North: single-family residential development
• South: single-family residential development
• East: single-family residential development
• West: single-family development between Patricia Drive and the portion of the site proposed for development; to
the west of Patricia Drive, Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop Trailhead
a) The project would result in the development of a 4,941 -sf single-family residence and detached 825-sf ADU within
the R-1-PD zone. The project would be surrounded by other single-family residential land uses and would not
physically divide an established community. The project would be consistent with the existing level of development
in the project vicinity and would not create, close, or impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other
barriers to movement or accessibility within the community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an
established community and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is consistent with existing surrounding development and proposes a compatible land use. The project
would be consistent with the property’s R-1 land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development
within the R-1-PD zoning designation. The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and
protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protection
of listed species and SSC, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining
development setbacks from creeks. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would ensure
potential impacts to the on-site creek and associated riparian corridor and special-status plant and animal species
resulting from construction activities would be avoided and/or minimized and the project would not result in a conflict
with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. Therefore, the project would not conflict
with policies or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects and impacts would be less than
significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4.
Conclusion
The proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would be consistent with surrounding land
uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would ensure potential impacts to biological resources
would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and potential impacts would
be less than significant.
12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Page 127 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
2 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
Based on the City’s COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within City limits.
a,b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very
unlikely due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
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, 37,
38, 39,
58, 61
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
38, 39,
40 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
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?
31 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for maximum acceptable noise levels
associated with stationary and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources is required to be
mitigated to not exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 7.
Outdoor activity areas are not defined in the City’s Noise Element but are d efined in the City of San Luis Obispo, Noise
Guidebook, Measurement & Mitigation Techniques. The guidebook states that outdoor activity areas are “patios, decks,
balconies, outdoor eating areas, swimming pool areas, yards of dwellings, and other areas comm only used for outdoor
activities and recreation.”
The City’s Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road,
railroad, and airport expansion projects. Policy 1.4 states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels
specified in Table 7 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.
Page 128 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Table 7. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources
Noise-Sensitive Use
Outdoor
Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces
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 – – –
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Ldn = day-night average sound level; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level;
Lmax = maximum sound level.
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.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element 1996
Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equip ment used in construction between weekday
hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public
service utilities or by exception issued by the Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states that
construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum
noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residential uses. Based on
the City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception
threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited.
a) During project construction, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in
the immediate area. The project would require the use of typical construction equipment (dozers, excavators, etc.) to
prepare the land and construct the two new buildings. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used in
construction projects are shown in Table 8.
Table 8. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source
Concrete Mixer, Dozer, Excavator, Jackhammer,
Man Lift, Paver, Scraper
85
Heavy Truck 84
Crane, Mobile 83
Concrete Pump 82
Backhoe, Compactor 80
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2017
As shown above, construction equipment that would be used during project construction would not exceed 85 dBA
and would be similar to the level of other construction activity within the city. Construction-related noise would be
intermittent and temporary in nature. However, the project site is a flag lot and is directly adjacent to existing
residential sensitive receptor locations located in all directions. Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 have been
included to require construction noise reduction measures during all construction activities.
Page 129 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Upon completion of construction activities, the project would include the use of a heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning (HVAC) system that would have the potential to contribute additional noise to the existing noise
environment, as well as limited mobile noise from project-related traffic. The project would result in the occupation
of a single-family residence and detached ADU, which would be consistent with the level and density of surrounding
development. Due to the project’s consistency with the surrounding level of development, additional noise generated
by the project’s HVAC system or other features would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels.
Relative to vehicular noise, a doubling of traffic is typically needed to produce a noise increase that is audible to the
human ear. The project would result in a limited number of additional vehicle trips along Patricia Drive based on the
type of proposed development. Therefore, the project does not include components that would significantly add to
long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. For these reasons, potential impacts associated with generation of a
substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project does not propose pile-driving or other high-impact activities that would generate substantial noise or
groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne n oise and vibration;
however, noise would be temporary and intermittent and there are no unusual building conditions (i.e., historical
buildings) in the project vicinity that would be substantially affected by this groundborne vibration. Further,
construction activity would be required to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., which is consistent with the City ’s
Municipal Code. Based on the proposed construction activities, groundborne vibration is expected to be imperceptible
at adjacent properties. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport or within a designated Safety Zone established by the ALUP .
Therefore, the project would not result in excessive airport -related noise for project occupants and no impacts would
occur.
Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following noise reduction measures shall be
adhered to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devi ces (i.e., mufflers, lagging,
and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall
be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be
used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods
installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance
and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction measures and
shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of
grading/building permits. The Applicant shall post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior
to commencement of construction and shall maintain these signs throughout the construction phase of the project.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how,
why, and where noise reduction measures are to be implemented.
N-3 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed
to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code,
Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to , the following:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment;
Page 130 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries
shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers
attenuate sound) of 25;
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers;
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, except for passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent
to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through
Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays
(e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day); and
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.
Conclusion
The project would not exceed City Municipal Code noise standards for residential development. However, the project would
be near sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 are included to reduce potential
impacts. The project would not expose project occupants to excessive airport noise . Therefore, impacts related to noise
would be less than significant with mitigation.
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)?
41, 42 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing,
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1 ☐ ☐ ☐ ☒
Evaluation
According to the City’s General Plan 2020 Annual Report, the average growth rate between 2015 and 2019 was 0.47%.
In 2020 the city’s residential growth rate grew to 1.21%. The growth was likely caused by City-issued permits for 210 new
units within specific plan areas (of the 261 total units subject to growth management limitations). Despite the growth in
2020, the city has maintained a 6-year average annual residential growth rate of 0.6% per year, in compliance with the 1%
maximum average annual residential growth rate (City LUE Policy 1.11.2). San Luis Obispo contains the largest
concentration of jobs in the county. During workdays, the city’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons.
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an
assessment of housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City ’s overarching goals for housing include safety,
affordability, conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and
tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging
sustainable housing and neighborhood design, maximiz ing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in
the city, and developing housing on suitable sites.
a) The proposed project is limited to the development of a single-family residence and a detached ADU, which would
be consistent with the density allowed by the project site’s R-1 land use designation. Thus, the project is not
anticipated to result in significant direct or indirect population growth that would be inconsistent with the City’s
Page 131 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
General Plan. Construction workers for short-term construction activities would likely be sourced from the local labor
pool and such employment is not anticipated to induce population growth through the creation of new jobs.
The project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
b) The project site does not include any habitable structures that would need to be removed as part of the project .
Therefore, the project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impact
would occur.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the city’s projected population growth. No potentially significant impacts would occur,
and mitigation measures are not required.
15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically
altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which
could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Fire protection? 1, 56 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Police protection? 1,57 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Schools? 1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Parks? 1, 43,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Other public facilities? 1, 43 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the existing service area of the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD).
The SLOFD deploys resources and personnel from four fire stations to maintain the response time goal of 4 minutes travel
time to 95% of all emergencies. The nearest SLOFD fire station to the project site is City Fire Station 2, located at 126 North
Chorro Street, approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site. City Fire Station 2 provides primary response to the
northern portion of the city and has an average response time of 4 minutes 3 seconds. The SLOFD consists of 12 fire
captains, 15 fire engineers, 13 firefighters, 25 paramedics, and 19 emergency medical technicians. In 2020 the SLOFD
responded to 5,499 incidents, which is nearly 11% lower than 2019.
The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city. The SLOPD has
approximately 91 employees, 60 of whom are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station ,
located at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and US 101, approximately 1.75 miles southeast
of the project site.
The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD), and public parks and recreation
trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City’s Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department.
Page 132 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees,
which are administered by and paid through the City’s Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees
provide funding for maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact
fees provide funding for projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles
and equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project would be served by the SLOFD; the closest station is Fire Station 2, which is located at
126 North Chorro Street, approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site, and has an emergency response time of
less than 5 minutes. The project includes development of a single-family residence and detached ADU, which would
be consistent with the general level of development within the R-1-PD zone and would be consistent with anticipated
population growth within the city. Implementation of the project would not require the expansion or construction of
new fire protection facilities. Because the proposed project would not require the expansion or construction of new
fire protection facilities, environmental impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services would be less
than significant.
Police protection: The project would be served by the SLOPD. The project would be consistent with the general
level of development within the R-1-PD zone and would be consistent with anticipated population growth within the
city. Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or expanded police f acilities. Because the
proposed project would not require the expansion or construction of new police protection facilities, environmental
impacts associated with the provision of police services would be less than significant.
Schools: The project would result in the development of a single-family residence and detached ADU and would not
result in a significant increase in the number of school-aged children within the city. For this reason, the project would
result in less than significant impacts to school facilities.
Parks: The proposed project is limited to a single-family residence and detached ADU and is not anticipated to result
in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational facilities in the area. The project is consistent with
the City’s General Plan designation and zoning designation; therefore, any indirect population growth resulting from
the project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. Therefore, potential project impacts
on parks would be less than significant.
Other public facilities: The project would not induce unplanned population growth and would result in a negligible
effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. Therefore, potential project impacts on
public facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project would not induce unplanned population growth. The project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in
demand on City services and facilities, including fire protection, police protection, pa rks and recreational facilities, and
other public facilities; however, construction of new public facilities is not anticipated to be required. The project would not
result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
16. RECREATION
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
1, 43,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 133 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
1, 43,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Existing recreational facilities within the city include 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural
resources and open space areas and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the
Future: 2021-2041 identifies goals and policies to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation
facilities. The Parks and Recreation Blueprint has five main goals, including building communities and neighborhoods,
meeting the changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety.
The Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop Trails within Open Space are located approximately 150 feet west, and Throop Park is
located approximately 0.75 feet southeast of the project site.
a,b) The proposed project would result in a new single-family residence and detached ADU, which would not significantly
increase population in a manner that would result in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational
facilities in the area. Construction workers are anticipated to come from the local workforce and would not result in
an increase in permanent residents within the city. As the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation
and underlying zoning, any indirect population growth resulting from the project would be consistent with the
projected population growth for the city. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with accelerated deterioration
of existing facilities or construction of new park facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project would not result in unplanned population growth. Construction of new public parks or recreational facilities
would not be required to serve the project. Thus, the project would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities;
therefore, mitigation measures are not required.
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, 45,
58 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section
15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1, 12,
45, 55 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design
feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or
incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1, 23,
44 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 23,
45 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 134 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways
and identifies transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community ’s preferences for current
and future conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are no t limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the
environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single -occupant use of motor vehicles; reducing
use of cars by supporting and promoting alternatives, such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting
the safe operation of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need
and when the projects would cause no significant, long -term environmental problems. The City of San Luis Obispo Active
Transportation Plan (ATP) outlines goals and policies to promote walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation
throughout the city. The ATP provides a blueprint for creating a safe, connected, and efficient citywide active transportation
network. It lays out policies, funding strategies, supporting programs, infrastructure projects, and implementation prioritie s
to improve active transportation options and access for all community member s.
In 2013 SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management
with Statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction
of greenhouse gas emissions” and required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify
new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the
California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included
new requirements related to the implementation of SB 743 and identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net
VMT as new metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3[b]). In June 2020, the City
formally adopted the transition to VMT for the purposes of CEQA evaluation and also establish ed local VMT thresholds of
significance.
The project site would be accessed by Patricia Drive. Based on the City’s Circulation Element, the portion of Patricia Drive
near the project site is a local road. The portion of Patricia Drive near the project site is used to access residential homes and
the Bishop Peak trailhead.
a) The project proposes the development of a single-family residential unit and an ADU on a single flag lot within a
developed, residential portion of the city. The project site would be accessed by an existing driveway from Patricia
Drive. The project would result in a limited numbe r of new vehicle trips along Patricia Drive by residents of the
single-family residence and/or ADU. The project would be subject to the payment of the City’s standard Traffic
Impact Fees (TIFs) for maintenance of roads and other transportation infrastructure. There are two commercial centers
located approximately 1 mile south and southeast of the project site, and there are several transit stops within a mile
of the project area, bike lanes, and sidewalks which may promote walking and facilitate the use of alternate modes of
transportation. Therefore, with the payment of standard TIFs, project impacts associated with conflicts with any
program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transportation facilities would be less than significant.
The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent
substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency
with an SCS or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed
to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. The City’s Screening Criteria for Land Use Projects Exempt
from VMT analysis states that small development projects (project anticipated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle
trips) may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact. In addition, as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo
Residential VMT Screening Map, the project site is located in a residential area that generates less than 85% of
average VMT. The project would generate less than 110 trips per day, which is consistent with VMT reduction
strategies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would be accessed by an existing driveway from Patricia Drive. The driveway does not contain dangerous
curves, short sight distance, or other dangerous design features. The driveway would be designed in accordance with
City Public Works safety design standards, including the use of red “no parking” curb paint on either side of the
driveway entrance to allow for safe turning movements and provide motorist s an adequate line of sight from the
driveway. The project will be reviewed by the City’s Transportation and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of
any building permits. Therefore, project impacts associated with increased hazards due to a geometric design feature
would be less than significant.
Page 135 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
c) The project is not anticipated to result in temporary traffic controls or road closure along Patricia Drive during
construction activities. Emergency access would be maintained to the project site and surrounding areas during
construction activities. The project is designed to meet State and City Fire Codes, subject t o verification through
review from the City Fire Marshal during the building permit process. As such, the project would provide adequate
emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Conclusion
The project would result in a net increase in trips and VMT; however, the project would not generate trips that would exceed
the City’s established thresholds for VMT. The project would be required to meet City Public Works safety design standards
and would maintain adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation would be less
than significant.
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)?
2, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
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.
2, 54 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.
Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American
tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources
(CRHR); or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k).
2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph,
the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.
Recognizing that tribes have expertise regarding their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide
notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have
Page 136 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the
notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources
because of a project. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or
significance of tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project ’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and
available project alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on
tribal cultural resources.
Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with State and City regulations under AB 52 on
August 17, 2021.
a,b) As described above, consultation with Native American Tribes under AB 52 was initiated on August 17, 2021. As of
November 23, 2021, responses have been received from three tribes. The first response was from the Northern
Chumash Tribe on August 23, 2021 requesting the cultural report for the project, which the City provided on August
25, 2021. In addition, a response from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council was received on September 12, 2021,
requesting a copy of the records search and any archaeological survey for the property, which the City provided. On
August 26, 2021, the Salinan Tribe requested a copy of the archeological survey that was prepared, which the City
provided on August 27, 2021. No other communications from tribal representatives have been received by the City
on this project application. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, neither the background review conducted
for this Study nor a field survey of the project area identified any known or unknown cultural or tribal resources that
have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined
in PRC Section 5020.1. No significant cultural or tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the project site.
Mitigation Measure CR-1 is provided to address inadvertent discovery during project construction. With this measure,
impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource wo uld be less than
significant with mitigation.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1.
Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural
resources.
19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or
expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications
facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
1 ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
49, 50 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment
provider which serves or may serve the project that it ha s
adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in
addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
46,
48,60 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 137 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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?
47 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and
reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
The City’s Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the
community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource
Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all the wastewater from the City, Cal Poly, and the airport. The facility treats 4.5 million
gallons of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established by the
SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater . A portion of the
treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.
Water service for the project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would be served by the
City’s sewer system. The project site has existing utility infrastructure on-site, including a storm drain easement, sewer
easements, a water pipeline, an electrical line, and a gas line.
a) The project would require the extension of sewer lines, water lines, and electric lines that would connect to existing
utility infrastructure along Patricia Drive. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in
adverse environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through
BIO-4, CR-1, and N-1 through N-3 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from
expansion and establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural
resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources to a less-than-
significant level. Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction of utility connections would
be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project would be provided water through the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources—Whale
Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation)—with groundwater
serving as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has
allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water
available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 af/yr, which
included 215 af/yr of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the
City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes
of this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 af/yr. The project’s estimated water demand is 0.8 af/yr,
which would be provided by the City’s water supply. Short-term water use during construction is anticipated to use
water from an existing 2-inch water meter at the site, which would be provided by the City’s water supply. In addition,
short-term water use for revegetation within the creek area would also be provided by the City’s supply. Development
of this site is consistent with the City’s long-range planning documents and, thus, has been anticipated by the City’s
water supply planning. The City has adequate water supply to provide potable and other water to the proposed project.
Therefore, potential impacts related to water supply would be less than significant.
c) The project would connect to the City’s wastewater system. Wastewater infrastructure would be located within the
site’s existing utility easements. The project would generate approximately 255 gallons of wastewater per day and
would be served by the City’s sewer system. The City’s WRRF treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater daily.
The project would result in an incremental increase in demand on the City ’s WRRF and wastewater conveyance
infrastructure, which would be capable of serving the proposed project. The project is consistent with the general level
of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and would be required to pay standard development impact fees to
offset the project’s incremental contribution to demand on the City’s WRRF. Therefore, impacts associated with the
wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than significant.
d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the project would generate
approximately 19.6 pounds of solid waste per day (Table 9).
Page 138 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 59 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Table 9. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation Rate Project
Pounds Solid Waste
Per Day
Single-Family Residence 9.8 pounds/dwelling
unit/day 2 dwelling units1 19.6
Total 19.6
1 One single-family residence and an attached ADU.
Project solid waste materials during and after construction would likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill.
Cold Canyon Landfill has a total capacity of 23,900,000 cy and has the capacity to service 1,650 cy per day . Based
on these capacities, the Cold Canyon Landfill is expected to remain operational though at least 2040 and would be
capable of servicing the additional 19.6 pounds of solid waste per day generated by the project. Therefore, potential
impacts related to solid waste reduction goals and capacity would be less than significant.
e) The project would be required to comply with goals, policies, and programs of the City’s COSE (Section 5) and the
general requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Based on the single-family
residential requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, the project would be served
by the City’s solid waste pick-up services and would be required to create storage for three standard 96-gallon waste
receptacles in a location that is hidden from the public view. According to the City’s COSE, the project would be
required to participate in waste-reduction and recycling efforts. Therefore, based on required compliance with the
City’s COSE and solid waste requirements, the project would comply with regulations related to solid waste and
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-4 CR-1, and N-1 through N-3.
Conclusion
With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project’s potential impacts associated with utilities and
service systems would be less than significant.
20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified
as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan? 1, 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?
1, 23,
51 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated
infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water
sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate
fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts
to the environment?
1, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Page 139 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 60 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result
of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes?
1, 23 ☐ ☐ ☒ ☐
Evaluation
Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activiti es
they contain. Additional factors include access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters.
Based on the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where development
meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within 1 mile of a designated High or Very High
Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.
The City’s Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, includ ing
approving development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland
fire hazard severity zones as prescribed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE),
prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard severity zones, and continuation of
enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.
According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ viewer, the project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area. Based on the
City’s Safety Element Maps, the project site is located within a developed portion of the City and has a low risk of wildfire.
a) Implementation of the project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact to any adopted
emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project is not anticipated to require temporary road
closure or any temporary traffic controls along Patricia Drive and public ingress and egress would be maintained
during implementation of the project. Breaks in utility service may be necessary during connection to the City’s
infrastructure. Any breaks in utility service would be temporary and would not conflict with any emergency plans.
There is an existing access driveway that provides fire and other emergency vehicles adequate access to the project
site. Therefore, the project would maintain adequate public and emergency access during project activities and would
not conflict with emergency plans; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site is in a developed area of the City and is directly adjacent to existing single-family residences in all
directions. The project site consists of non-native annual grassland and riparian habitat associated with Twin Ridge
Creek, which bisects the site in a north to south direction. The site is mostly undeveloped. The project would result
in the development of a single-family residence and an ADU and would not substantially change the existing
topography of the project site. The proposed project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire
prevention pursuant to the CBC and California Fire Code. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks
or expose project occupants to substantial pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a
wildfire. Potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) There are existing utility easements within the project site from the original Tract 1182 subdivision and associated
development. The project would include the installation of expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy
extensions to be connected to existing City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur
within an urbanized area and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California
Fire Code regulations. Construction of this infrastructure has been evaluated throughout this environmental document
and would not exacerbate fire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk or
environmental impacts from installation of new infrastructure would be less than significant.
d) The project site is generally flat and is not located near slopes or other areas subject to downstream flooding or
landslides. Based on required compliance with CBC standards for structural and other design components, the project
would not include any design elements that would expose people or structures to significant risks, including
downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post -fire slope instability, or drainage changes.
Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.
Page 140 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 61 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the
development of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts
associated with wildfire would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.
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?
1, 2,
15, 16,
18, 25
☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project would be in a previously developed portion of the city of San Luis Obispo and the project vicinity generally
contains low habitat value for protected plant and animal species. The project site is characterized by gently sloping
topography and consists of a mostly undeveloped flag lot, except for a storage shed structure and gated driveway. Vegetation
at the site includes grasslands and riparian trees and vegetation . Riparian vegetation is limited to the on-site creek, which
bisects the project site in a north to south direction. The creek would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback, as
depicted in plans.3 The proposed Creek Setback Exception would be subject to mandatory findings, including a finding that
the location and design of the features receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and
riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through
BIO-4 have been identified to reduce or avoid potential impacts to migratory birds, the on-site creek, and associated riparian
habitat.
There are no known historic or prehistoric resources within the project site , and Mitigation Measures CR-1 would reduce
potential inadvertent discovery of these resources to less than significant. With implementation of identified mitigation
measures and standard requirements, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife 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. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
3 The creek setback depicted in plans is measured from the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek, established by the City
Biologist during a site visit conducted in November 2020 and verified during a subsequent site visit in June 2022.
Page 141 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 62 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project
are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects
of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project includes the development of a 4,941-sf single-family residence and an 825-sf ADU on a single lot within the R-
1-PD zone. The project would be consistent with growth assumed in the R-1 zone, and with approval of the Minor
Development Review, the project would be consistent with the design standards of the R-1-PD zone. When project impacts
are considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s potential cumulative impacts may
be significant. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level.
With the implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and payment of the City’s standard Development
Impact Fees, the individual effects of the project would be m arginal and cumulative effects of the project would not be
cumulatively considerable. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
N/A ☐ ☒ ☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality that, if left unmitigated, could result
in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Standard mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential
impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions , dust control measures, and
compliance with the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations to avoid impacts
related to NOA. Additionally, standard noise reduction measures have been included as mitigation to reduce short-term
construction-related noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptor locations. With incorporation of identified project-
specific mitigation and the payment of the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, potential environmental effects of the
project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
Page 142 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 63 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
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.
The potential environmental effects of developing the project site with uses consistent with the R-1-PD zoning designation
were previously evaluated in the Certified General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse
[SCH] #2013121019), which was certified by the City Council in 2014. The Certified EIR is available on the City’s website
at: < https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan>.
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.
This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) does not rely on a previously certified EIR or MND for its
analysis. All the environmental analyses contained herein are independent of previous CEQA documents ; no tiering from a
previous CEQA document is used.
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.
As discussed above, project-specific mitigation measures have been developed for the project to address a more stringent
regulatory environment and more complex analysis methodology. All project-specific mitigation measures recommended in
this IS/MND are consistent with and build upon the programmatic mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR.
23. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. RRM Design Group. 2021. 841 Patricia Drive Residence, Project Plans. April 2021. Amended June 4, 2021 and
June 17, 2022
2. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE).
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651
3. City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. June.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104
4. California Scenic Highways, February 2017. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a
5. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019. Available at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code.
6. California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.
Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.
7. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021a. Interactive Parcel Viewer. March.
Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a51155e46d504bfab3b7a107c3eb6643/page/Planning
8. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. Area Designation Maps / State and National. December.
Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm
9. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2020. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping
Tool. March. Available at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.364986805363756
%2C-120.52563349999997&z=10
10. SLOACPD. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/
CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf
Page 143 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 64 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
11. SLOACPD. 2001. 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan. December. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf
12. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021b. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=29123
13. SLOACPD. 2017. Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District ’s 2012
CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November. Available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-
org/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf
14. CARB. 2015. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining
Operations. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm
15. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map. Available at:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/fbc1b607a9454c66b4fc643518bfc1df
16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html
17. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861
18. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Cultural Resource Maps.
19. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Community Choice Energy. Website. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choice-
energy
20. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. June. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=27835
21. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018
22. California Department of Conservation. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California.
Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/
23. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645
24. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. Areas of Land Subsidence in California.
Available at: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html
25. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020 Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx
26. USGS. 2004. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California.
Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm
27. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2003. Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Line Project,
Section D.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology.
Available at: https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/jefferson_martin/feir/text/d06%20geology.pdf
28. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Envirostor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
29. State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Geotracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
30. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2020. Cortese List Data Resources.
Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/
31. County of San Luis Obispo. 2005. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. May.
Available at: https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf
32. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Flood Preparedness Map. Available at:
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0
Page 144 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 65 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
33. California Department of Water Resources. 2019. SGMA Groundwater Management.
Available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management
34. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-Groundwater-
Management-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx
35. California Department of Conservation. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis
Quadrangle. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo
36. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/draf t_resol_at
tch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf
37. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643
38. Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and
Ranges. September.
Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm
39. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September.
Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-and-
vibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf
40. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration
Guidance Manual. September. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34120/Caltrans-2013-construction-vibration-PDF
41. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29847/637539899241100000
42. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. 2020-2028 General Plan Housing Element. November.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30985/637667061640130000
43. City of San Luis Obispo. 2018. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198
44. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/parks-and-recreation-plan-and-
element-update
45. City of San Luis Obispo. 2017. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element. October.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412
46. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Webpage.
Accessed March 2020. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment
47. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020. SWIS Facility Detail Cold
Canyon Landfill, Inc.
Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3171
48. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update Draft Program EIR. Table 4.16‐7 Proposed
Land Use Element Development Wastewater Generation. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6723/635671221997970000
49. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. 2020 Water Resources Status Report. City of San Luis Obispo Water Division.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=29191
50. City of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, Table 4‐2.
Existing Water Demand Factors.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6439/636009798150130000
Page 145 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 66 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
51. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23872
52. CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.
Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf
53. David Wolff Environmental, LLC. 2021a. Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Pat ricia Drive Project
(ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA. May 2021.
54. Central Coast Archaeological Resource Consultants. 2021. Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence
Project, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. May 2021.
55. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. 2 nd Edition. June. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26883/637290299618070000
56. San Luis Obispo Fire Department. 2020. 2020 San Luis Obispo Fire Department Annual Report. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28869/637441408193100000
57. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. About the Department.
Available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/about-the-department
58. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys. Available at :
https://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=f808ee341ad743259b9f7b455cd7b69
b
59. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).
Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery
60. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Wastewater Treatment. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment
61. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Construction Noise Handbook.
Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1805/ML18059A141.pdf
62. David Wolff Environmental, LLC. 2021b. Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia
Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA. November 2021.
63. Chacon Associates, LLC. 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Summary – ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia). March 2021.
64. U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Quick Facts for the City of San Luis Obispo. July 1, 2021
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanluisobispocitycalifornia/PST045219
Page 146 of 427
Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 67 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Attachments
1. RRM Design Group, 841 Patricia Drive Residence, Project Plans (April 2021)
2. California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Report, version 2020.4.0
3. David Wolff Environmental, LLC., Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH -0040-
2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (May 2021)
4. David Wolff Environmental, LLC., Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the 841 Patricia Drive Project
(ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (November 2021)
5. Chacon Associates, LLC., Preliminary Hydrology Summary – ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia) (March 2021)
Page 147 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 68 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the Applicant shall implement the following idling control
techniques:
1. The following idling restrictions shall be implemented for equipment:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted;
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and
d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.
2. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of Regulations.
This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight
ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-
California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except
as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and
b. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner,
or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than 5 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5 -minute idling
limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.
AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall implement the following particulate
matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:
1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site
and from exceeding the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20%
opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required
whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during periods of
winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
4. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil-disturbing activities.
5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall be
sown with a fast-germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
7. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
Page 148 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 69 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet
of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California
Vehicle Code Section 23114.
10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads.
11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre -wetted prior to
sweeping when feasible.
12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
13. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or pe rsons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and
enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible
emissions below the SLOAPCD limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 -minute period.
Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start
of any site preparation, grading, or earthwork.
14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher.
AQ-3 Prior to initiation of site preparation/construction activities, the Applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct
a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance
with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. Thi s
geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the
geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos
(NOA), the Applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD. If NOA is determined to
be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the
various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the C ARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying,
and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission
Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These
requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:
1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;
2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and
3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.
Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review
and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in
Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Departmen t upon completion.
Biological Resources
BIO-1 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1 –September 15), prior to any ground-
disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified b iologist within 1 week
prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they
have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be
implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. No
construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has
determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to
the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an
appropriate buffer is determined in coordination with the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Page 149 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 70 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
BIO-2 All utility extensions required to cross the creek, which are necessary to serve the ADU, (excluding the sewer lateral
serving the ADU and connecting to the sewer line along the rear of the property), shall be placed within or attached
to the bridge span. No trenching across the creek shall occur for the extension of utilities to the ADU.
BIO-3 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall provide copies of the permits/authorizations
from affected resource agencies, including a final revegetation plan that is consistent with the revegetation plan
provided in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA, David Wolff Environmental, November
10, 2021) for approval by the City Natural Sustainability and Natural Resources Official, Community Development
Department. Plans submitted for grading and building permits shall show tree removals consistent with the November
2021 revegetation plan, including the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees identified for removal
to facilitate the bridge construction. Vegetation removal shall be kept to the minimum necessary for bridge clearance
and construction of the necessary footings and supports. Initial removal of vegetation shall be monitored full-time by
a qualified biologist, and weekly spot-check monitoring shall continue throughout the construction of the bridge
structure. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated area of the riparian corridor for three years, and
maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80 % survival success criteria after two years without supplemental
irrigation. Monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with the revegetation plan shall be prepared and submitted
to the affected resource agencies and the City annually. Permits and/or authorizations from the regulatory agencies
(CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USACE), or documentation from the respective agency that the
permit/authorization is required, shall be submitted to the City prior to any grading and/or construction activities
within the on-site riparian area.
BIO-4 All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent spills of fuel, oil, and other hazardous
materials. A designated staging area shall be established for vehicle/equipment parking and storage of fuel, lubricants,
and solvents a minimum of 30-feet outside of the riparian area on-site. All fueling and maintenance activities shall
take place in the designated staging area.
Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of a nesting migratory bird survey report to the City Community
Development Department. The requirement of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to
the bridge span (either within or hanging from) rather than below ground shall be specified on the project plans and submitte d
to the City for approval and verified through regular field and final inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3
shall be submitted to the City and affected agencies for approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the
approved revegetation plan to the City Community Development Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by
the City through annual reporting following implementation. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated
into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department .
Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.
Cultural Resources
CR-1 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground -disturbing activities within a
25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City -
qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native
American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction
with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause
shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously
unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and
Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
criteria by a qualified archaeologist.
If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a
research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American
representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for whic h the site is significant.
The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with
the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provid e for
the permanent curation of the recovered materials.
Page 150 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 71 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
Monitoring Program: The conditions in Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be noted on all grading and construction plans.
The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation
Program Guidelines.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3.
Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular
inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in
Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4.
Monitoring Program: Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building
plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City
prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessar y.
Land Use and Planning
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4
Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO -1 shall be incorporated into the project grading
and building plans for review and approval by the City Commun ity Development Department. Compliance shall be verified
through submittal of a nesting migratory bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The requirement
of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to the bridge span (either within or hanging
from) rather than below ground shall be specified on the project plans and submitted to the City for approval and verified
through regular field and final inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 shall be submitted to the City and
affected agencies for approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the approved revegetation plan to the City
Community Development Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by the City through annual reporting
following implementation. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and
building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the
City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Compliance shall be verified by the City
prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.
Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following noise reduction measures shall be adhered
to:
1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the
project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging,
and/or motor enclosures).
2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement break ers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be
hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air
exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.
3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used.
4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed,
such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operationa l.
5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and
presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).
Page 151 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 72 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction measures and shall
be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building
permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry site s prior to
commencement of construction and shall maintain these signs throughout the construction phase of the project.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why,
and where noise reduction measures are to be implemented.
N-3 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to
ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9,
Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to , the following:
• Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment;
• Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall
be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate
sound) of 25;
• All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factory-
recommended mufflers;
• The movement of construction-related vehicles, except for passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to
sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.
No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor
Day); and
• Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected use s.
Monitoring Program: Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction
measures, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of
grading/building permits. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular
inspections, as necessary.
Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1.
Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve
the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Utilities and Service Systems
Implement AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-4, CR-1, and N-1 through N-3.
Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans
for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during
regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation
detailed in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The survey
requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of a nesting
migratory bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The requirement of Mitigation Measure BIO-
2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to the bridge span (either within or hanging from) rather than below ground
shall be specified on the project plans and submitted to the City for approval and verified through regular field and final
inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 shall be submitted to the City and affected agencies for approval.
Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the approved revegetation plan to the City Community Development
Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by the City through annual reporting following implementation.
Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and
approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of
construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of
construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. The conditions of Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be noted on all
Page 152 of 427
Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 73 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022
grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and
all construction noise BMPs, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to
issuance of grading/building permits. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during
regular inspections, as necessary.
Page 153 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 7,7/(6+((70,&+$(/65(6,'(1&(352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5&/,(17 (5,&$1'-8/,(0,&+$(/60,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &/,(175(35(6(17$7,9( %5(77+$%$50,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 %5(77+$%$53+21( (0$,/ %*+$%$5#*0$,/&20352-(&73/$11(5 2$6,6$662&,$7(6,1&0,*8(/,72&28576$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 &$52/)/25(1&(3+21( (;7(0$,/ &0)#2$6,6$662&&20$5&+,7(&7 550'(6,*1*52836+,*8(5$675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 ('',(+(55(5$3+21( (0$,/ (0+(55(5$#550'(6,*1&20&,9,/(1*,1((5 &+$&21$662&,$7(6//&3$/20$5$9($7$6&$'(52&$ &217$&7 .(11(7+-&+$&213(3+21( (0$,/ .&+$&21#&+$&21$662&&20/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 )257,1,6+,*8(5$675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 :(6$52/$3+21( (0$,/ :(6#)257,1,/$1'6&$3(6&20352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7352326(6$1(: 648$5()227 6) 6,1*/()$0,/<&867205(6,'(1&(21$181'(9(/23(')/$*/27:,7+,1$&,5&$ 5(6,'(17,$/68%',9,6,21,1$'',7,217+(352-(&7,1&/8'(6$1648$5()227 6) '(7$&+('$&&(6625<':(//,1*81,77+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(+20(6 6 ,6&216,'(5('´&217(0325$5<&5$)760$1µ$1$0(5,&$167</(,163,5('%<7+($576$1'&5$)76029(0(17:,7+$67&(1785<7:,67&20021&+$5$&7(5,67,&62)7+(&5$)760$167</(+20(,1&/8'($&29(5(')5217325&+(;326('5$)7(57$,/629(5+$1*,1*($9(66+,1*/(522)6$1'6,',1*$1'0,;('0$7(5,$/67+528*+2877+(6758&785(5(48,6,7(3$5.,1*,63529,'(',17+(352326('&$5*$5$*(:,7+$'',7,21$/81&29(5('3$5.,1*)25*8(676$1(:648$5()227 6) '(7$&+('$&&(6625<%8,/',1*,6352326(')256725,1**$5'(1,1*<$5'722/6216,7(6,7($0(1,7,(6$5((19,6,21('720$;,0,=(7+()81&7,21$/$1'$(67+(7,&86(2)7+(6,7(6+((7,1'(;9,&,1,7<0$3352-(&767$7,67,&6=21,1*53'/2:'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/$''5(663$75,&,$'5,9(6$1/8,62%,632&$ $313$5&(/6,=( $&5(6 6) 0,1/27$5($6)*5266/27&29(5$*( 6)&5((.6(7%$&.$5($6)1(7/27$5($ 5()(5726+((7$)25$5($ 6)0$;/27&29(5$*($//2: 2) 6)352326('&29(5$*( 6) $//2:$%/()$5256)352326(')$5256)2&&83$1&<86(3(5&%& 580$;$//2:('+(,*+7 6725,(6)75(6,'(1&(6725<)7$'80$;352326('+(,*+7 6(($5&+6(&7,2166(7%$&.6 $//2:(' 352326(')5217·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6,'(·µ 6(($5&+6,7(5($5·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6)'2)%('52206$'82)%('52206 (;&(037)5203$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1765(48,5('6)'3$5.,1*&29(5('63$&(663$&(6)257+(),567%('52206$1'63$&(63(5($&+$'',7,21$/%('52207$%/(7+,63/$1+$6%('52206$1',65(48,5('72+$9(7+(0,1,08063$&(65(48,5('$'83$5.,1*63$&(6$'86'21275(48,5($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*727$/5(48,5('3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('3$5.,1*63$&(6%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5('63$&(6 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'('63$&(6),5(635,1./(565(46)' 1)3$'$'8 1)3$'$ 7,7/(6+((7$ (;,67,1*7232& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*3/$1& 75((6859(</ 0$67(5/$1'6&$3(3/$1/ 5($5<$5'/ )5217$872&2857$ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1$ 6,7(%8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7($5,$/0$3$ %$6(0(17/(9(/0$,15(6,'(1&($ *5281')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 6(&21')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 522)3/$10$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/60$,15(6,'(1&($ 3(563(&7,9(9,(:60$,15(6,'(1&($ )/225$1'522)3/$1$'8$ (/(9$7,216$'8$ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/6$'8727$/6+((76 352-(&7$5($65(6,'(1&(&21',7,21(' *5281')/225 6)(168,7( 6)6(&21')/225 6)727$/ 6)5(6,'(1&(81&21',7,21(' %$6(0(17 6)*$5$*( 6)287'225/,9,1* 6)*5((1+286( 6)&29325&+(175< 6)(168,7('(&. 6)%$/&21< 6)9(5$1'$ 6)87,/,7< 67$,56 6)$'8&21',7,21(' 6)$'881&21',7,21(' 3$7,2 6)'(&. 6)$&&(6625<%8,/',1* *$5'(16725$*( 6)" '!%# %
$"
$ $
$ # # !"# " # # !"# "
%!&$&$
#
&$%'!!!
"
"
&
*-.+%
*, )+ **)&
!$ "
! $ " #
yWƌŽũĞĐƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚϬϭͬϭϰͬϮϭ&203/,$1&(67$7(0(17)25067!7&(5<.56.7575 "
# && $*!$#'$ &%"" &!&"$! & ! !)&! " %&$'&! % %& &$&! ' -
% !&&&&%($&! !$ %!$$$ ! * !% !& &!%' &&)&&
$ &"" &! - $*!%$ &! &!&&& $*!#'$ &%-&( 9.5.64
$! &! &! #'$ &! " ' 3 %&$'&! % )! %&$'&! '%& &&! !) ,
0
58-47-554+ $-6:;81 "
'#!$ (*'
%
" #"$! &% '%&"$!$ ""$!%")& &756< !$ $+!% '%&! ! %&$&&& $+ +%
& !& $!"!%' % !$&$& & $+ +%
& !$&& $'
!& $+%
& !& $!"!%' % %%& &!& $+%
& !&& $% ' +&! !) ' &$%! %=- $
"#<
$'&! $
"#<.9
$'&!
'% $
" #"$! &% $/$&' &! '1
&$!&
+1$#'$ &%.
$+! $!$ !$
)' !) &&& &% ! " & '! & *%&&& !&" %&.
&&'
$ &"" &! + ! %&$&! " )&& $*! "&! 6 &
$ &
%- $*! " %&% $"!$&% '%&%!)&&&"$! &% ! " )&& ! $*!+" '%&%&&)$#'$ &%-' ! " %)&&"$!$ %& $%& $*! %' "&! !$&
$!"!%% ' % !$&$& & $*'& ' &!$&& $% ' '% ! %%! /$&! " %!&)$ & ' $'&! % &-! " &!"*!&'
$ &$&&!! " !"*!&' $&&!! " % ' &" %&%)&& $*! " !' &&! -
%& %'$%% &! & $*! " "!$&)& &
$ &
%- * % '$ ! %&$'&! "& & $*! " "!$&%!' $(% $%' &&-' %"&! $&&!! " &""$!(" %% % "$!$&!&' -' &&! %"&! &(&%!'& &3%$2%'&!
$ &%3-:8
! &%&!& !$ $*!+&! 574-4- 574-5 !'
57-46-554-=2%$1%'&!
$ &%2)" %&"$ &"$!%% %& %! & %"&! "$!%%-%&&&*1%' 3&*
$ &!$ %3"" &! %("-9 $*% & /0%%! $* %&(!! "! &%,& $* *% & + &! $ &$ $&! ) &*% & -! $ &$: . &$' % ! &'$ %" ' %& (& &' '%% &$&*%&%!'$! $*!$ %"& +(&$& +!! "" %+ !&%$* "" %- . &$' *" ' !$&'%! &'$ %%' !$"" % ! $ & -;"" %&! ($% & ! %&$'&! ! ).' ' + ' $! %&$'&! ! ! %' ) ' ' &! % &$&! %! *&*"&&! !& && &! ! ! &! -<&1 $+! $!$ !$
)' %' %1!$ %&$'&! % $#'$%' && %.ATTACHMENT 1Page 154 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/(;,67,1*72326,7(3/$1(;,67,1*7232*5$3+,&6859(<6,7(3/$1 ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7
5h
'
/0h
'
/$#5+5«1(«$'#4+0)50h
'
/0h
9
/5h
9
/5 h
'
/5h
9
/
9,.99/9(E) WOOD FENCE(E) ENTRY GATE & COLUMNSEXISTING SHRUBS(E) 6' WD FENCEEDGE OF DENSE VEGETATION(E) BLOCK RETAINING WALLSEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTPUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTEDGE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATIONP A T R I C I A D R I V E (E) WATER METER(E) ELEC(E) FIRE HYDRANT(E) TOPOGRAPHYNYARD SETBACK20' - 0" MIN.Y A R D S E T B A C K
5 ' - 0 " M IN .YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN. BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSBUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKS(E) WATER MAIN(E) SEWER MAINYARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.(E) SHED TO BE REMOVEDEASEMENT30' - 0"EASEMENT15' - 0"EASEMENT20' - 0"EASEMENT
30' - 0"BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKCREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"9,&,1,7<0$3ATTACHMENT 1Page 155 of 427
340341342343344UPUP350350
SHALLOW
DEEP
SHALLOW
SHALLOWSHALLOW 335335335335340340340
345345345345345350350350350332332333333334334336336337337337337337337338
338338338
339
339339339339339
341341341342342342342343343343344344344346346346346346347347347347348348348348349349349349351351351
351352352352352353353353353 7600 Morro RoadAtascadero, CA 93422(805) 610-1714#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021Ch conATTACHMENT 1Page 156 of 427
6
(
01
(
0%$6,62)%($5,1*61
(
01
:
06
:
06
(
0
6
:
06)+6:03$75,&,
$
'
5
,
9
(6)+6:06 ( :22')(1&((;,67,1*6+58%6 (
:')(1&( ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(176859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 3$75,&
,
$
'
5
,
9
(<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
0,
1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($$$$5(6,'(1&(
$'8322/*$5$*(&29325&+*5((1+286(6+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(6625<6725$*(75$6+&217$,1(5/2&$7,21:35,9$&<6&5((1($6(0(17
$&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
( (175<*$7( &2/8016 ( :$7(50(7(5 ( (/(& ( ),5(+<'5$17 ( :$7(50$,1 ( 6(:(50$,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7
#5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$$6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$66)/27$5($6)/27$5($&5((.$5($12786(',1/27&29(5$*(&$/& ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
$'83$7,2678',2(+'(+',QF :HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$ S H HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP$60,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$13$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$BUHY
$6$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(ATTACHMENT 1Page 157 of 427
ATTACHMENT 1Page 158 of 427
TREESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNKARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD` DR. HURD COMMON MANZANITACERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNKCITRUS X LIMON `IMPROVED MEYER` MEYER LEMONCITRUS X SINENSIS SWEET ORANGEFEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAFICUS CARICA COMMON FIGFORTUNELLA MARGARITA `NAGAMI` KUMQUATLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKLAURUS NOBILIS `SARATOGA` SARATOGA BAY LAURELPLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNKSHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEACANTHUS MOLLIS BEAR`S BREECHALYOGYNE HUEGELII BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI `POINT REYES` POINT REYES KINNIKINNICKBACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSHCEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS CARMEL CREEPERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSHFESTUCA RUBRA `MOLATE` MOLATE RED FESCUEHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLSHYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF HYDRANGEALANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `SPREADING WHITE` WHITE TRAILING LANTANALAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA `HIDCOTE` HIDCOTE LAVENDERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASSORIGANUM VULGARE OREGANOPHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYROSE (SELECTED BY OWNER) --ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `IRENE` TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARYROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARYSALVIA NEMOROSA `BUMBLEBLUE` BUMBLEBLUE PERENNIAL SALVIASALVIA OFFICINALIS GARDEN SAGESALVIA X `WAVERLY` WAVERLY SAGESANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTONSESLERIA X `GREENLEE` GREENLEE MOOR GRASSSTACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB`S EARTEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDERTHYMUS VULGARIS COMMON THYMEWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` MUNDI COAST ROSEMARYWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `WYNABBIE GEM` WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARYVINESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEFICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIGTRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES CHINESE STAR JASMINEVITIS X `ROGERS RED` ROGERS RED CALIFORNIA GRAPEUPREFWUP337338339341342343344346347348349351352353336337338339341342343344340345350335340SFHSWM350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWMASTERLANDSCAPEPLANL-1PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE03.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATEPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREENED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3" OF BARK MULCHIRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATERCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.A WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THEIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THEMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE.ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES, SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BEREGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.ALL LAWN AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATIONOR HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY IRRIGATIONCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTTHE DESIGN WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FORWATER CONSERVATION THROUGH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPEIRRIGATION DESIGN. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMWELO_____________________WES AROLA - CA 5958( In Feet )1 inch = 20 feetGRAPHIC SCALE80402010020PATRICIAADUBRIDGE
GARAGERESIDENCEPRELIMINARY PLANT LISTSEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-2SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-3LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHRUB PLANTINGSSSSMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESEECLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEOVNED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAP" OF BARK MULCHAMPLY WITH THELOCAL AND STATE WATERANTHE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORVAERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.TONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THELLDAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THETECH HYDROZONE.ROOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ERHAT ONCEESTABLISHEDWATERCAN BEAPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN3IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATIONDESIGNWILL COMCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. TTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATEA WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE MINIMUMREQUIREMENTS FOR EACALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOON SEPARATE HYDROZONESSOTPRELIMINARY WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONSATTACHMENT 1Page 159 of 427
UP337338339341342343344346347348349351352340345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWCORELANDSCAPEPLANL-2PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101INFINITY POOL 16x38STONE PAVING WITH NATURALIZEDEDGENATURAL LAWNWITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATIONSTAGGERED CONCRETE STEPSDECKING WITH RAILINGRETAINING WALL, BOARD FORMCONCRETE OR SMOOTH STUCCONATURAL LAWN OR MOWED MEADOWSPA/GYM PATIOGROTTO STYLE SPAPLANTING AREA, TYPPAVER RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO ADUBRIDGELIGHTWEIGHT STEEL OVERHEAD SHADESTRUCTUREOUTDOOR KITCHENGRASS PAVINGGRAVITY BLOCK RETAINING WALLSTONE CLAD ACCENT WALLDESIGN KEY23456789101112131223445678910101010111213141415151516161610ATTACHMENT 1Page 160 of 427
UP346347348349351352353345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWLANDSCAPEPLANL-3PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101DRY STACKED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATELANDSCAPE TERRACESBLOCK RETAINING WALL COVERED IN VINESPERMEABLE LINEAR PAVERSACCENT TREES POSITIONED TO PROVIDE PRIVACYGAPPED STEPPERS WITH PLANTED JOINTSCONCRETE PORCH / STEPSPLANTING AREA, TYPADDITIONAL PARKING SPACETRASH STORAGEDESIGN KEY234567819233345667778991ATTACHMENT 1Page 161 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA4PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE SECTIONS1” = 20’-0”(24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 40’-0”(12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR350' -0"T.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE16' - 0"(E) AVG. FG 351.75AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(352.75+350.75)/2 = 351.75'(E) FG 352.75(E) FG 350.75PROPOSED 375.57ALLOWED 376.75BEDROOM 2KITCHEN(E) FG 339.00(E) FG 339.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(339.00+339.50)/2 = 339.25'(E) AVG. FG 339.25ALLOWED 355.25PROPOSED +/- 354.86GREENHOUSEVERANDAADUT.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"GARAGE FF348' -0"GARAGE FF348' -0"12' - 1"10' - 1"(E) AVG. FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 1(352.75+350.25)/2 = 351.50'(E) FG 350.25(E) FG 352.75PROPOSED 376.48ALLOWED 376.50M. BEDROOMM. BATHUTILITY 1GARAGEGROUND FLOOR350' -0"GROUND FLOOR350' -0"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"SUITE FF348' -0"SUITE FF348' -0"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"(E) FG 343.00(E) AVG. FG 346.75(E) FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 3(351.50+343.00)/2 = 346.75'MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"PROPOSED +/- 369.22ALLOWED 371.75PROPOSED +/- 365.31(E) F.G. TO RIDGE20' - 0"GREATROOMFOYEREN-SUITEW.I.C.BASEMENT1" = 10'-0"AS-1A4SITE SECTION 2 @ LIVING21" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 1 @ GARAGE11" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 3 @ EN-SUITE3ATTACHMENT 1Page 162 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA5PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE AERIAL MAPSITE AERIAL MAP1" =20’ - 0” (24 X 36 SHEET)11” = 40’-0”(24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 80’-0”(12X18 SHEET)VIEWS OF BISHOP PEAKVIEWS OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY1ATTACHMENT 1Page 163 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA6PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)BASEMENT FLOOR PLANYOGA13'-3"x14'-0"DRY SUANA7'-6"x12'-0"STORCAB.T.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A1FLOOR PLAN_BASEMENT1ATTACHMENT 1Page 164 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA7PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR PLANUPUPDWGREATROOM22'-6"x2'0"DINING15'0"x19'-6"KITCHEN22'-6"x24'-0"NOOKPWDRPANTRY6'-6"x11'-6"BUTLER8'-0"x6'-1"ELEV.5'-0"x6'-6"FOYERW.I.C.9'-6"x7'-6"BATH7'-0"x12'-0"EN-SUITE16'-0"x14'-6"MUD ROOM12'0"x9'-6"BBQ2-CAR1-CAR GARAGEOUTDOOR LIVINGGREENHOUSE30'-0"x13'-0"TOOLSCL.UTILITY 1PATIOsinkbenchpet washlinenseatingflex. stationhutchbuilt-inbuilt-inbuilt-incoatlinenpergolaprep stationentertainmentREFSTOVEMICRO9' - 6" MIN18' - 6" MIN19' - 0" MIN.18' - 6" MIN.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A2FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 11ATTACHMENT 1Page 165 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA8PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SECOND FLOOR PLANDWBEDROOM 312'-0"x11'-4"W.I.C 38'-0"x4'-8"BATH 2W.I.C. 28'-0"x4'-8"BATH 3M. BEDROOM15'-6"x14'-6"HIS5'-0"x6'-5"HERS6'-10"x6'-5"T.M. BATHOPEN TO BELOWGALLERY44'-0"x5'-9"BEDROOM 212'-0"x11'-4"VERANDABALCONYFAMILY ROOM15'-6"x14'-4"BALCONYLNDRY.7'-0"x10'-5"ELEV.benchentertainmentbuilt-in shelvingart nichestorage1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A3FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 21ATTACHMENT 1Page 166 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA9PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ROOF PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A4SITE _ROOF PLAN1ATTACHMENT 1Page 167 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA10PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALSAABCCFFFDEHGDGHHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 168 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA11PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGGHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 169 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCESECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLANA12PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGDDHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 170 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA13PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PERSPECTIVE VIEWS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGADAAHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 171 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA14PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - ADUUPKITCHEN/LIVINGBEDROOMBATHROOMW.I.C.PATIODECK3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-ROOF PLAN SCHEMATIC3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-FLOOR PLAN SCHEMATICPERSPECTIVE - FRONTATTACHMENT 1Page 172 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA15PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ELEVATIONS - ADURIGHT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)REAR ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)LEFT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)FRONT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1111Horizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentABCCFEHGBEFAAFFGHCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 173 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA16PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS - ADUAGBEFFCHFHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 174 of 427
841 Patricia Drive Project
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Project Characteristics - CO2 Intensity Factor for Central Coast Clean Energy year 2028
CH4 and N2O are PG&E defaults
Land Use - One 4,941-sf residence and an 825-sf ADU on a 1.41-acre parcel
Construction Phase - Construction will last 18-24 months
24 months has been conservatively assumed
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 4,941.00 3
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 825.00 3
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
157.75 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 1 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 175 of 427
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - On-site shed is estimated to be: 15’ wide x 12’ deep x 10’ high
Demolition is conservatively assumed as it is only an option
Grading - Approx 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill for a total of 1,280 cy of earthwork.
Disturb 35,000 sf (0.8 acre), however, CalEEMod defaults for graded acres during site prep and grading were assumed.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 595.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,280.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 4,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 825.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 157.75
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 2 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 176 of 427
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 3 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 177 of 427
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3860 295.3860 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
297.1288
2023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
4.0000e-
003
0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e-
003
0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0560 9.0000e-
005
316.4448
2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e-
005
0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4934 46.4934 7.7200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
46.6878
Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
316.4448
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3857 295.3857 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
297.1285
2023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
4.0000e-
003
0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e-
003
0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0560 9.0000e-
005
316.4444
2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e-
005
0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4933 46.4933 7.7200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
46.6877
Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
316.4444
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 4 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 178 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.0591 1.0591
2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.5582 0.5582
3 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.5522 0.5522
4 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.7501 0.7501
5 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5503 0.5503
6 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.5220 0.5220
7 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.5163 0.5163
8 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 0.4917 0.4917
Highest 1.0591 1.0591
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 5 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 179 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Energy 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.9631 3.9631 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
3.9943
Mobile 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4994 0.0000 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.0710 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Total 0.0462 0.0253 0.1655 3.0000e-
004
0.0293 6.2000e-
004
0.0299 7.8400e-
003
6.0000e-
004
8.4400e-
003
0.5407 30.1193 30.6600 0.0357 1.4700e-
003
31.9897
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 6 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 180 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Energy 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 3.9631 3.9631 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
3.9943
Mobile 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4994 0.0000 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.0710 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Total 0.0462 0.0253 0.1655 3.0000e-
004
0.0293 6.2000e-
004
0.0299 7.8400e-
003
6.0000e-
004
8.4400e-
003
0.5407 30.1193 30.6600 0.0357 1.4700e-
003
31.9897
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 6 40
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/29/2022 4/20/2022 6 20
3 Grading Grading 3/31/2022 4/22/2022 6 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 7 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 181 of 427
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2022 2/28/2024 6 595
5 Paving Paving 1/11/2023 2/25/2023 6 40
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2023 3/11/2023 6 40
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Residential Indoor: 11,676; Residential Outdoor: 3,892; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 18.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 8 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 182 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e-
005
0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 1.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 160.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 9 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 183 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0335
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
7.4400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0002
Total 8.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.4600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5300e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0337
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e-
005
0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 10 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 184 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0335
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
7.4400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0002
Total 8.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.4600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5300e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0337
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
6.2300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
0.0626 6.2300e-
003
0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e-
003
0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 11 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 185 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Total 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
6.2300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
0.0626 6.2300e-
003
0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e-
003
0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 12 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 186 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Total 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
6.8300e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
0.0709 7.4200e-
003
0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e-
003
0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 13 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 187 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0163 2.8500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.3700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.5100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
5.3612
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.8600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
0.0000 9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.7693
Total 7.2000e-
004
0.0165 5.7100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e-
004
8.3000e-
004
6.1305
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
6.8300e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
0.0709 7.4200e-
003
0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e-
003
0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 14 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 188 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0163 2.8500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.3700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.5100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
5.3612
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.8600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
0.0000 9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.7693
Total 7.2000e-
004
0.0165 5.7100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e-
004
8.3000e-
004
6.1305
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464
Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 15 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 189 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Total 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461
Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 16 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 190 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Total 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973
Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 17 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 191 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Total 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970
Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 18 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 192 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Total 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5037
Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5037
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 19 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 193 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Total 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5036
Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5036
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 20 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 194 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Total 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7315
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7315
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 21 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 195 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Total 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5448 23.5448 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7314
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5448 23.5448 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7314
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 22 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 196 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Total 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8300e-
003
0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1142
Total 0.0940 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1142
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 23 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 197 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8300e-
003
0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1141
Total 0.0940 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1141
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 24 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 198 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 25 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 199 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Unmitigated 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Total 18.88 19.08 17.10 78,362 78,362
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Single Family Housing 0.486418 0.056693 0.203223 0.148945 0.038507 0.009459 0.008260 0.005996 0.000952 0.000366 0.033245 0.001002 0.006934
5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 26 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 200 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1210 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 1.1210 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
NaturalGas
Mitigated
2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 27 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 201 of 427
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
26629.5 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
26629.5 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 28 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 202 of 427
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
7833.22 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
Total 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
7833.22 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
Total 1.1210 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
1.1353
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 29 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 203 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Unmitigated 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
9.0200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0225 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 8.2000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Total 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 30 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 204 of 427
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
9.0200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0225 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 8.2000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Total 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 31 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 205 of 427
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Unmitigated 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0.130308 /
0.0821507
0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Total 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 32 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 206 of 427
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0.130308 /
0.0821507
0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Total 0.1124 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.2493
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Unmitigated 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 33 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 207 of 427
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
2.46 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Total 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
2.46 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Total 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 34 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 208 of 427
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PMPage 35 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 209 of 427
841 Patricia Drive Project
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Project Characteristics - CO2 Intensity Factor for Central Coast Clean Energy year 2024
CH4 and N2O are PG&E defaults
Land Use - One 4,941-sf residence and an 825-sf ADU on a 1.41-acre parcel
Construction Phase - Construction will last 18-24 months
24 months has been conservatively assumed
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 4,941.00 3
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 825.00 3
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
446.53 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 1 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 210 of 427
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - On-site shed is estimated to be: 15’ wide x 12’ deep x 10’ high
Demolition is conservatively assumed as it is only an option
Grading - Approx 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill for a total of 1,280 cy of earthwork.
Disturb 35,000 sf (0.8 acre), however, CalEEMod defaults for graded acres during site prep and grading were assumed.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 595.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,280.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 4,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 825.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 446.53
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 2 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 211 of 427
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 3 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 212 of 427
2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3860 295.3860 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
297.1288
2023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
4.0000e-
003
0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e-
003
0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0560 9.0000e-
005
316.4448
2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e-
005
0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4934 46.4934 7.7200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
46.6878
Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
316.4448
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3857 295.3857 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
297.1285
2023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
4.0000e-
003
0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e-
003
0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0560 9.0000e-
005
316.4444
2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e-
004
2.5000e-
004
0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e-
005
0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4933 46.4933 7.7200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
46.6877
Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e-
003
0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0585 9.4000e-
004
316.4444
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 4 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 213 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter)
1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.0591 1.0591
2 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.5582 0.5582
3 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.5522 0.5522
4 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.7501 0.7501
5 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5503 0.5503
6 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.5220 0.5220
7 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.5163 0.5163
8 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 0.4917 0.4917
Highest 1.0591 1.0591
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 5 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 214 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Energy 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 6.0152 6.0152 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
6.0465
Mobile 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4994 0.0000 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.2011 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Total 0.0462 0.0253 0.1655 3.0000e-
004
0.0293 6.2000e-
004
0.0299 7.8400e-
003
6.0000e-
004
8.4400e-
003
0.5407 32.3014 32.8421 0.0357 1.4700e-
003
34.1718
Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 6 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 215 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Energy 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 6.0152 6.0152 2.9000e-
004
8.0000e-
005
6.0465
Mobile 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4994 0.0000 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.2011 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Total 0.0462 0.0253 0.1655 3.0000e-
004
0.0293 6.2000e-
004
0.0299 7.8400e-
003
6.0000e-
004
8.4400e-
003
0.5407 32.3014 32.8421 0.0357 1.4700e-
003
34.1718
Mitigated Operational
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 6 40
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/29/2022 4/20/2022 6 20
3 Grading Grading 3/31/2022 4/22/2022 6 20
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 7 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 216 of 427
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2022 2/28/2024 6 595
5 Paving Paving 1/11/2023 2/25/2023 6 40
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2023 3/11/2023 6 40
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Residential Indoor: 11,676; Residential Outdoor: 3,892; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 18.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 8 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 217 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e-
005
0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 1.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 160.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 9 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 218 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0335
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
7.4400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0002
Total 8.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.4600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5300e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0337
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e-
005
0.0000 9.0000e-
005
1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e-
004
9.0000e-
005
0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e-
005
0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 10 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 219 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.0335
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.8000e-
004
6.8000e-
004
7.4400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
2.0002
Total 8.8000e-
004
7.8000e-
004
7.4600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5100e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5300e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e-
005
7.0000e-
005
2.0337
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
6.2300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
0.0626 6.2300e-
003
0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e-
003
0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 11 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 220 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Total 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
6.2300e-
003
6.2300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
5.7300e-
003
0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e-
004
0.0626 6.2300e-
003
0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e-
003
0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e-
003
0.0000 15.2375
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 12 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 221 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Total 2.7000e-
004
2.1000e-
004
2.2900e-
003
1.0000e-
005
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 7.7000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.6154
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
6.8300e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
0.0709 7.4200e-
003
0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e-
003
0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 13 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 222 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0163 2.8500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.3700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.5100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
5.3612
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.8600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
0.0000 9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.7693
Total 7.2000e-
004
0.0165 5.7100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e-
004
8.3000e-
004
6.1305
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
7.4200e-
003
7.4200e-
003
6.8300e-
003
6.8300e-
003
0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e-
004
0.0709 7.4200e-
003
0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e-
003
0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e-
003
0.0000 18.2491
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 14 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 223 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e-
004
0.0163 2.8500e-
003
5.0000e-
005
1.3700e-
003
1.4000e-
004
1.5100e-
003
3.8000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
5.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e-
004
8.1000e-
004
5.3612
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
2.8600e-
003
1.0000e-
005
9.6000e-
004
0.0000 9.7000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
0.0000 2.6000e-
004
0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
005
0.7693
Total 7.2000e-
004
0.0165 5.7100e-
003
6.0000e-
005
2.3300e-
003
1.4000e-
004
2.4800e-
003
6.4000e-
004
1.4000e-
004
7.7000e-
004
0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e-
004
8.3000e-
004
6.1305
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464
Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 15 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 224 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Total 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461
Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e-
003
0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 16 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 225 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Total 3.9000e-
004
3.0000e-
004
3.3200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.1200e-
003
3.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
004
0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
0.8924
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973
Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 17 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 226 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Total 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970
Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e-
003
0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 18 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 227 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Total 5.0000e-
004
3.6000e-
004
4.1200e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
1.5100e-
003
4.0000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
4.1000e-
004
0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e-
005
3.0000e-
005
1.1632
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5037
Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5037
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 19 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 228 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Total 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5036
Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e-
004
0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e-
003
0.0000 46.5036
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 20 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 229 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Total 8.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
6.3000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
0.0000 2.5000e-
004
7.0000e-
005
0.0000 7.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e-
005
0.1841
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7315
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7315
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 21 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 230 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Total 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5448 23.5448 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7314
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e-
004
6.1700e-
003
6.1700e-
003
5.6900e-
003
5.6900e-
003
0.0000 23.5448 23.5448 7.4600e-
003
0.0000 23.7314
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 22 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 231 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Total 8.3000e-
004
6.0000e-
004
6.8600e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.5000e-
003
1.0000e-
005
2.5200e-
003
6.7000e-
004
1.0000e-
005
6.8000e-
004
0.0000 1.9209 1.9209 5.0000e-
005
6.0000e-
005
1.9387
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8300e-
003
0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1142
Total 0.0940 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1142
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 23 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 232 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Archit. Coating 0.0902 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 3.8300e-
003
0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1141
Total 0.0940 0.0261 0.0362 6.0000e-
005
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
1.4200e-
003
0.0000 5.1065 5.1065 3.1000e-
004
0.0000 5.1141
Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 24 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 233 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 25 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 234 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
Unmitigated 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e-
004
0.0293 2.7000e-
004
0.0296 7.8400e-
003
2.5000e-
004
8.0900e-
003
0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e-
003
1.2900e-
003
26.4634
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Total 18.88 19.08 17.10 78,362 78,362
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Single Family Housing 0.486418 0.056693 0.203223 0.148945 0.038507 0.009459 0.008260 0.005996 0.000952 0.000366 0.033245 0.001002 0.006934
5.0 Energy Detail
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 26 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 235 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Electricity
Mitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1731 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
Electricity
Unmitigated
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 3.1731 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
NaturalGas
Mitigated
2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 27 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 236 of 427
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
26629.5 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr tons/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
26629.5 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Total 2.9000e-
004
2.4500e-
003
1.0400e-
003
2.0000e-
005
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
0.0000 2.8421 2.8421 5.0000e-
005
5.0000e-
005
2.8590
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 28 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 237 of 427
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.3 Energy by Land Use - Electricity
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
7833.22 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
Total 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
Unmitigated
Electricity
Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kWh/yr MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
7833.22 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
Total 3.1731 2.3000e-
004
3.0000e-
005
3.1875
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 29 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 238 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Mitigated 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Unmitigated 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
9.0200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0225 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 8.2000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Total 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 30 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 239 of 427
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory tons/yr MT/yr
Architectural
Coating
9.0200e-
003
0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.0225 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 8.2000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Total 0.0324 3.1000e-
004
0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
1.5000e-
004
0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e-
005
0.0000 0.0455
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 31 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 240 of 427
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category MT/yr
Mitigated 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Unmitigated 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0.130308 /
0.0821507
0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Total 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 32 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 241 of 427
7.2 Water by Land Use
Indoor/Out
door Use
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use Mgal MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
0.130308 /
0.0821507
0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Total 0.2424 4.2600e-
003
1.0000e-
004
0.3793
Mitigated
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
MT/yr
Mitigated 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Unmitigated 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Category/Year
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 33 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 242 of 427
8.2 Waste by Land Use
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
2.46 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Total 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Unmitigated
Waste
Disposed
Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use tons MT/yr
Single Family
Housing
2.46 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Total 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371
Mitigated
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 34 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 243 of 427
11.0 Vegetation
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:37 PMPage 35 of 35
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 244 of 427
841 Patricia Drive Project
San Luis Obispo County, Summer
Project Characteristics - CO2 Intensity Factor for Central Coast Clean Energy year 2024
CH4 and N2O are PG&E defaults
Land Use - One 4,941-sf residence and an 825-sf ADU on a 1.41-acre parcel
Construction Phase - Construction will last 18-24 months
24 months has been conservatively assumed
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 4,941.00 3
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 825.00 3
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
446.53 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 1 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 245 of 427
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - On-site shed is estimated to be: 15’ wide x 12’ deep x 10’ high
Demolition is conservatively assumed as it is only an option
Grading - Approx 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill for a total of 1,280 cy of earthwork.
Disturb 35,000 sf (0.8 acre), however, CalEEMod defaults for graded acres during site prep and grading were assumed.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 595.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,280.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 4,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 825.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 446.53
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 2 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 246 of 427
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 3 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 247 of 427
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 6.3370 62.3913 44.2300 0.0919 13.8191 2.8074 16.6265 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,830.701
5
8,830.701
5
2.1519 0.0971 8,913.439
6
2023 6.9136 19.2783 23.6053 0.0398 0.1384 0.8944 1.0328 0.0367 0.8529 0.8896 0.0000 3,699.072
5
3,699.072
5
0.7712 3.0600e-
003
3,719.262
2
2024 1.4230 11.0657 12.5424 0.0221 9.8900e-
003
0.4506 0.4605 2.6200e-
003
0.4348 0.4374 0.0000 2,010.095
3
2,010.095
3
0.3336 2.0000e-
004
2,018.495
5
Maximum 6.9136 62.3913 44.2300 0.0919 13.8191 2.8074 16.6265 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,830.701
5
8,830.701
5
2.1519 0.0971 8,913.439
6
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 6.3370 62.3913 44.2300 0.0919 13.8191 2.8074 16.6265 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,830.701
5
8,830.701
5
2.1519 0.0971 8,913.439
6
2023 6.9136 19.2783 23.6053 0.0398 0.1384 0.8944 1.0328 0.0367 0.8529 0.8896 0.0000 3,699.072
5
3,699.072
5
0.7712 3.0600e-
003
3,719.262
2
2024 1.4230 11.0657 12.5424 0.0221 9.8900e-
003
0.4506 0.4605 2.6200e-
003
0.4348 0.4374 0.0000 2,010.095
3
2,010.095
3
0.3336 2.0000e-
004
2,018.495
5
Maximum 6.9136 62.3913 44.2300 0.0919 13.8191 2.8074 16.6265 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,830.701
5
8,830.701
5
2.1519 0.0971 8,913.439
6
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 4 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 248 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 5 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 249 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Energy 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mobile 0.0781 0.1193 0.7582 1.6300e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 165.7559 165.7559 9.3100e-
003
7.6500e-
003
168.2688
Total 0.2574 0.1346 0.9289 1.7300e-
003
0.1691 3.5300e-
003
0.1727 0.0451 3.4300e-
003
0.0486 0.0000 183.2195 183.2195 9.9300e-
003
7.9600e-
003
185.8415
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Energy 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mobile 0.0781 0.1193 0.7582 1.6300e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 165.7559 165.7559 9.3100e-
003
7.6500e-
003
168.2688
Total 0.2574 0.1346 0.9289 1.7300e-
003
0.1691 3.5300e-
003
0.1727 0.0451 3.4300e-
003
0.0486 0.0000 183.2195 183.2195 9.9300e-
003
7.9600e-
003
185.8415
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 6 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 250 of 427
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 6 40
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/29/2022 4/20/2022 6 20
3 Grading Grading 3/31/2022 4/22/2022 6 20
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2022 2/28/2024 6 595
5 Paving Paving 1/11/2023 2/25/2023 6 40
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2023 3/11/2023 6 40
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 11,676; Residential Outdoor: 3,892; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 18.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 7 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 251 of 427
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 1.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 160.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 8 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 252 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.5700e-
003
6.9000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 4.5700e-
003
0.8379 0.8425 6.9000e-
004
0.7829 0.7836 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
8.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
1.7619 1.7619 6.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
1.8465
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0439 0.0307 0.3838 1.1200e-
003
0.1285 6.5000e-
004
0.1292 0.0341 6.0000e-
004
0.0347 113.1484 113.1484 3.1200e-
003
3.0700e-
003
114.1398
Total 0.0440 0.0356 0.3847 1.1400e-
003
0.1290 6.9000e-
004
0.1297 0.0342 6.4000e-
004
0.0348 114.9103 114.9103 3.1800e-
003
3.3500e-
003
115.9864
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 9 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 253 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.5700e-
003
6.9000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 4.5700e-
003
0.8379 0.8425 6.9000e-
004
0.7829 0.7836 0.0000 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
4.9200e-
003
8.9000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
1.7619 1.7619 6.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
1.8465
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0439 0.0307 0.3838 1.1200e-
003
0.1285 6.5000e-
004
0.1292 0.0341 6.0000e-
004
0.0347 113.1484 113.1484 3.1200e-
003
3.0700e-
003
114.1398
Total 0.0440 0.0356 0.3847 1.1400e-
003
0.1290 6.9000e-
004
0.1297 0.0342 6.4000e-
004
0.0348 114.9103 114.9103 3.1800e-
003
3.3500e-
003
115.9864
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 10 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 254 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2635 0.0000 6.2635 3.0038 0.0000 3.0038 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 0.6225 0.6225 0.5727 0.5727 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Total 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 6.2635 0.6225 6.8861 3.0038 0.5727 3.5765 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0270 0.0189 0.2362 6.9000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 69.6298 69.6298 1.9200e-
003
1.8900e-
003
70.2399
Total 0.0270 0.0189 0.2362 6.9000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 69.6298 69.6298 1.9200e-
003
1.8900e-
003
70.2399
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 11 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 255 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2635 0.0000 6.2635 3.0038 0.0000 3.0038 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 0.6225 0.6225 0.5727 0.5727 0.0000 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Total 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 6.2635 0.6225 6.8861 3.0038 0.5727 3.5765 0.0000 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0270 0.0189 0.2362 6.9000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 69.6298 69.6298 1.9200e-
003
1.8900e-
003
70.2399
Total 0.0270 0.0189 0.2362 6.9000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 69.6298 69.6298 1.9200e-
003
1.8900e-
003
70.2399
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 12 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 256 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0944 0.0000 7.0944 3.4265 0.0000 3.4265 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0944 0.7423 7.8367 3.4265 0.6829 4.1094 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0389 1.5747 0.2833 5.1900e-
003
0.1398 0.0142 0.1540 0.0383 0.0136 0.0519 563.8045 563.8045 0.0192 0.0893 590.8937
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0337 0.0236 0.2952 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.0000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 4.6000e-
004
0.0267 87.0372 87.0372 2.4000e-
003
2.3600e-
003
87.7999
Total 0.0726 1.5983 0.5786 6.0500e-
003
0.2387 0.0147 0.2534 0.0645 0.0141 0.0786 650.8417 650.8417 0.0216 0.0917 678.6936
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 13 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 257 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0944 0.0000 7.0944 3.4265 0.0000 3.4265 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0944 0.7423 7.8367 3.4265 0.6829 4.1094 0.0000 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0389 1.5747 0.2833 5.1900e-
003
0.1398 0.0142 0.1540 0.0383 0.0136 0.0519 563.8045 563.8045 0.0192 0.0893 590.8937
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0337 0.0236 0.2952 8.6000e-
004
0.0989 5.0000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 4.6000e-
004
0.0267 87.0372 87.0372 2.4000e-
003
2.3600e-
003
87.7999
Total 0.0726 1.5983 0.5786 6.0500e-
003
0.2387 0.0147 0.2534 0.0645 0.0141 0.0786 650.8417 650.8417 0.0216 0.0917 678.6936
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 14 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 258 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.3700e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0295 9.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.7037 8.7037 2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.7800
Total 3.3700e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0295 9.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.7037 8.7037 2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.7800
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 15 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 259 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.3700e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0295 9.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.7037 8.7037 2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.7800
Total 3.3700e-
003
2.3600e-
003
0.0295 9.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.7037 8.7037 2.4000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.7800
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 16 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 260 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.1600e-
003
2.0900e-
003
0.0272 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.4392 8.4392 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
8.5096
Total 3.1600e-
003
2.0900e-
003
0.0272 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.4392 8.4392 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
8.5096
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 17 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 261 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.1600e-
003
2.0900e-
003
0.0272 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.4392 8.4392 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
8.5096
Total 3.1600e-
003
2.0900e-
003
0.0272 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.4392 8.4392 2.2000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
8.5096
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 18 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 262 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Total 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.9700e-
003
1.8600e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
8.1739 8.1739 2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
8.2393
Total 2.9700e-
003
1.8600e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
8.1739 8.1739 2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
8.2393
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 19 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 263 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 0.0000 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Total 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 0.0000 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 2.9700e-
003
1.8600e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
8.1739 8.1739 2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
8.2393
Total 2.9700e-
003
1.8600e-
003
0.0252 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
8.1739 8.1739 2.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
004
8.2393
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 20 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 264 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0411 0.0272 0.3535 1.0900e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 109.7096 109.7096 2.8200e-
003
2.8400e-
003
110.6253
Total 0.0411 0.0272 0.3535 1.0900e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 109.7096 109.7096 2.8200e-
003
2.8400e-
003
110.6253
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 21 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 265 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 0.0000 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 0.0000 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0411 0.0272 0.3535 1.0900e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 109.7096 109.7096 2.8200e-
003
2.8400e-
003
110.6253
Total 0.0411 0.0272 0.3535 1.0900e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 109.7096 109.7096 2.8200e-
003
2.8400e-
003
110.6253
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 22 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 266 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 4.5099 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 4.7015 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 23 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 267 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 4.5099 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 4.7015 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 24 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 268 of 427
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0781 0.1193 0.7582 1.6300e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 165.7559 165.7559 9.3100e-
003
7.6500e-
003
168.2688
Unmitigated 0.0781 0.1193 0.7582 1.6300e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 165.7559 165.7559 9.3100e-
003
7.6500e-
003
168.2688
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Total 18.88 19.08 17.10 78,362 78,362
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 25 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 269 of 427
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Single Family Housing 0.486418 0.056693 0.203223 0.148945 0.038507 0.009459 0.008260 0.005996 0.000952 0.000366 0.033245 0.001002 0.006934
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 26 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 270 of 427
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
72.9576 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Total 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
0.0729576 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Total 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 27 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 271 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Unmitigated 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.9600e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.3042
Total 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 28 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 272 of 427
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.9600e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.3042
Total 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 29 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 273 of 427
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:38 PMPage 30 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Summer
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 274 of 427
841 Patricia Drive Project
San Luis Obispo County, Winter
Project Characteristics - CO2 Intensity Factor for Central Coast Clean Energy year 2024
CH4 and N2O are PG&E defaults
Land Use - One 4,941-sf residence and an 825-sf ADU on a 1.41-acre parcel
Construction Phase - Construction will last 18-24 months
24 months has been conservatively assumed
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 4,941.00 3
Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 825.00 3
1.2 Other Project Characteristics
Urbanization
Climate Zone
Rural
4
Wind Speed (m/s)Precipitation Freq (Days)3.2 44
1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data
1.0 Project Characteristics
Utility Company User Defined
2024Operational Year
CO2 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
446.53 0.033CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
0.004N2O Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 1 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 275 of 427
Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment -
Demolition - On-site shed is estimated to be: 15’ wide x 12’ deep x 10’ high
Demolition is conservatively assumed as it is only an option
Grading - Approx 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill for a total of 1,280 cy of earthwork.
Disturb 35,000 sf (0.8 acre), however, CalEEMod defaults for graded acres during site prep and grading were assumed.
Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 20.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 595.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00
tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,280.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 4,941.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 825.00
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71
tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033
tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 446.53
tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004
tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 2 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 276 of 427
2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 3 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 277 of 427
2.1 Overall Construction (Maximum Daily Emission)
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 6.3470 62.4434 44.2106 0.0918 13.8191 2.8075 16.6266 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,819.176
2
8,819.176
2
2.1525 0.0978 8,902.135
1
2023 6.9182 19.2822 23.5962 0.0397 0.1384 0.8944 1.0328 0.0367 0.8529 0.8896 0.0000 3,694.123
9
3,694.123
9
0.7714 3.3300e-
003
3,714.399
7
2024 1.4233 11.0660 12.5419 0.0221 9.8900e-
003
0.4506 0.4605 2.6200e-
003
0.4348 0.4374 0.0000 2,009.753
8
2,009.753
8
0.3336 2.2000e-
004
2,018.159
7
Maximum 6.9182 62.4434 44.2106 0.0918 13.8191 2.8075 16.6266 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,819.176
2
8,819.176
2
2.1525 0.0978 8,902.135
1
Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year lb/day lb/day
2022 6.3470 62.4434 44.2106 0.0918 13.8191 2.8075 16.6266 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,819.176
2
8,819.176
2
2.1525 0.0978 8,902.135
1
2023 6.9182 19.2822 23.5962 0.0397 0.1384 0.8944 1.0328 0.0367 0.8529 0.8896 0.0000 3,694.123
9
3,694.123
9
0.7714 3.3300e-
003
3,714.399
7
2024 1.4233 11.0660 12.5419 0.0221 9.8900e-
003
0.4506 0.4605 2.6200e-
003
0.4348 0.4374 0.0000 2,009.753
8
2,009.753
8
0.3336 2.2000e-
004
2,018.159
7
Maximum 6.9182 62.4434 44.2106 0.0918 13.8191 2.8075 16.6266 6.5534 2.6225 9.1758 0.0000 8,819.176
2
8,819.176
2
2.1525 0.0978 8,902.135
1
Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 4 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 278 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 5 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 279 of 427
2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Energy 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mobile 0.0777 0.1276 0.7905 1.5800e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 160.6971 160.6971 9.9500e-
003
8.0500e-
003
163.3435
Total 0.2570 0.1429 0.9611 1.6800e-
003
0.1691 3.5300e-
003
0.1727 0.0451 3.4300e-
003
0.0486 0.0000 178.1607 178.1607 0.0106 8.3600e-
003
180.9162
Unmitigated Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Area 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Energy 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mobile 0.0777 0.1276 0.7905 1.5800e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 160.6971 160.6971 9.9500e-
003
8.0500e-
003
163.3435
Total 0.2570 0.1429 0.9611 1.6800e-
003
0.1691 3.5300e-
003
0.1727 0.0451 3.4300e-
003
0.0486 0.0000 178.1607 178.1607 0.0106 8.3600e-
003
180.9162
Mitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 6 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 280 of 427
3.0 Construction Detail
Construction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 6 40
2 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/29/2022 4/20/2022 6 20
3 Grading Grading 3/31/2022 4/22/2022 6 20
4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2022 2/28/2024 6 595
5 Paving Paving 1/11/2023 2/25/2023 6 40
6 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2023 3/11/2023 6 40
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor
Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73
Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37
Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Residential Indoor: 11,676; Residential Outdoor: 3,892; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0
(Architectural Coating – sqft)
Acres of Grading (Site Preparation Phase): 18.75
Acres of Grading (Grading Phase): 20
Acres of Paving: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 7 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 281 of 427
3.1 Mitigation Measures Construction
Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41
Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40
Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29
Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20
Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74
Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37
Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45
Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56
Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42
Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36
Paving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38
Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37
Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48
Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 1.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Site Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Grading 4 10.00 0.00 160.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Building Construction 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Paving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 8 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 282 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.5700e-
003
6.9000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 4.5700e-
003
0.8379 0.8425 6.9000e-
004
0.7829 0.7836 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
5.0500e-
003
9.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
1.7624 1.7624 6.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
1.8471
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0483 0.0348 0.3739 1.0700e-
003
0.1285 6.5000e-
004
0.1292 0.0341 6.0000e-
004
0.0347 108.3961 108.3961 3.3500e-
003
3.3400e-
003
109.4741
Total 0.0484 0.0399 0.3748 1.0900e-
003
0.1290 6.9000e-
004
0.1297 0.0342 6.4000e-
004
0.0348 110.1585 110.1585 3.4100e-
003
3.6200e-
003
111.3212
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 9 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 283 of 427
3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 4.5700e-
003
0.0000 4.5700e-
003
6.9000e-
004
0.0000 6.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 0.8379 0.8379 0.7829 0.7829 0.0000 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Total 1.6889 16.6217 13.9605 0.0241 4.5700e-
003
0.8379 0.8425 6.9000e-
004
0.7829 0.7836 0.0000 2,323.416
8
2,323.416
8
0.5921 2,338.219
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 1.2000e-
004
5.0500e-
003
9.0000e-
004
2.0000e-
005
4.4000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
4.8000e-
004
1.2000e-
004
4.0000e-
005
1.6000e-
004
1.7624 1.7624 6.0000e-
005
2.8000e-
004
1.8471
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0483 0.0348 0.3739 1.0700e-
003
0.1285 6.5000e-
004
0.1292 0.0341 6.0000e-
004
0.0347 108.3961 108.3961 3.3500e-
003
3.3400e-
003
109.4741
Total 0.0484 0.0399 0.3748 1.0900e-
003
0.1290 6.9000e-
004
0.1297 0.0342 6.4000e-
004
0.0348 110.1585 110.1585 3.4100e-
003
3.6200e-
003
111.3212
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 10 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 284 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2635 0.0000 6.2635 3.0038 0.0000 3.0038 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 0.6225 0.6225 0.5727 0.5727 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Total 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 6.2635 0.6225 6.8861 3.0038 0.5727 3.5765 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0297 0.0214 0.2301 6.6000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 66.7053 66.7053 2.0600e-
003
2.0500e-
003
67.3687
Total 0.0297 0.0214 0.2301 6.6000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 66.7053 66.7053 2.0600e-
003
2.0500e-
003
67.3687
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 11 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 285 of 427
3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 6.2635 0.0000 6.2635 3.0038 0.0000 3.0038 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 0.6225 0.6225 0.5727 0.5727 0.0000 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Total 1.3122 14.6277 7.0939 0.0172 6.2635 0.6225 6.8861 3.0038 0.5727 3.5765 0.0000 1,666.173
8
1,666.173
8
0.5389 1,679.645
7
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0297 0.0214 0.2301 6.6000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 66.7053 66.7053 2.0600e-
003
2.0500e-
003
67.3687
Total 0.0297 0.0214 0.2301 6.6000e-
004
0.0791 4.0000e-
004
0.0795 0.0210 3.7000e-
004
0.0213 66.7053 66.7053 2.0600e-
003
2.0500e-
003
67.3687
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 12 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 286 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0944 0.0000 7.0944 3.4265 0.0000 3.4265 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0944 0.7423 7.8367 3.4265 0.6829 4.1094 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0380 1.6166 0.2883 5.1900e-
003
0.1398 0.0142 0.1541 0.0383 0.0136 0.0519 563.9767 563.9767 0.0192 0.0893 591.0735
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0371 0.0268 0.2876 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.0000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 4.6000e-
004
0.0267 83.3816 83.3816 2.5800e-
003
2.5700e-
003
84.2109
Total 0.0751 1.6434 0.5760 6.0100e-
003
0.2387 0.0147 0.2534 0.0645 0.0141 0.0786 647.3583 647.3583 0.0218 0.0919 675.2844
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 13 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 287 of 427
3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Fugitive Dust 7.0944 0.0000 7.0944 3.4265 0.0000 3.4265 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 0.7423 0.7423 0.6829 0.6829 0.0000 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Total 1.5403 16.9836 9.2202 0.0206 7.0944 0.7423 7.8367 3.4265 0.6829 4.1094 0.0000 1,995.482
5
1,995.482
5
0.6454 2,011.616
9
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0380 1.6166 0.2883 5.1900e-
003
0.1398 0.0142 0.1541 0.0383 0.0136 0.0519 563.9767 563.9767 0.0192 0.0893 591.0735
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0371 0.0268 0.2876 8.2000e-
004
0.0989 5.0000e-
004
0.0994 0.0262 4.6000e-
004
0.0267 83.3816 83.3816 2.5800e-
003
2.5700e-
003
84.2109
Total 0.0751 1.6434 0.5760 6.0100e-
003
0.2387 0.0147 0.2534 0.0645 0.0141 0.0786 647.3583 647.3583 0.0218 0.0919 675.2844
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 14 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 288 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7100e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0288 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.3382 8.3382 2.6000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
8.4211
Total 3.7100e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0288 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.3382 8.3382 2.6000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
8.4211
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 15 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 289 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Total 1.6487 12.5031 12.7264 0.0221 0.5889 0.5889 0.5689 0.5689 0.0000 2,001.542
9
2,001.542
9
0.3486 2,010.258
1
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.7100e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0288 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.3382 8.3382 2.6000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
8.4211
Total 3.7100e-
003
2.6800e-
003
0.0288 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9400e-
003
2.6200e-
003
5.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.3382 8.3382 2.6000e-
004
2.6000e-
004
8.4211
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 16 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 290 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4900e-
003
2.3700e-
003
0.0266 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.0857 8.0857 2.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.1623
Total 3.4900e-
003
2.3700e-
003
0.0266 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.0857 8.0857 2.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.1623
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 17 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 291 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Total 1.5233 11.7104 12.6111 0.0221 0.5145 0.5145 0.4968 0.4968 0.0000 2,001.787
7
2,001.787
7
0.3399 2,010.285
8
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.4900e-
003
2.3700e-
003
0.0266 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.0857 8.0857 2.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.1623
Total 3.4900e-
003
2.3700e-
003
0.0266 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
5.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6700e-
003
8.0857 8.0857 2.3000e-
004
2.4000e-
004
8.1623
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 18 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 292 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Total 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.2900e-
003
2.1100e-
003
0.0247 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
7.8324 7.8324 2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
7.9035
Total 3.2900e-
003
2.1100e-
003
0.0247 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
7.8324 7.8324 2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
7.9035
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 19 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 293 of 427
3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 0.0000 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Total 1.4200 11.0639 12.5172 0.0221 0.4506 0.4506 0.4348 0.4348 0.0000 2,001.921
4
2,001.921
4
0.3334 2,010.256
3
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 3.2900e-
003
2.1100e-
003
0.0247 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
7.8324 7.8324 2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
7.9035
Total 3.2900e-
003
2.1100e-
003
0.0247 8.0000e-
005
9.8900e-
003
4.0000e-
005
9.9300e-
003
2.6200e-
003
4.0000e-
005
2.6600e-
003
7.8324 7.8324 2.1000e-
004
2.2000e-
004
7.9035
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 20 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 294 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0453 0.0308 0.3451 1.0400e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 105.1145 105.1145 3.0400e-
003
3.0900e-
003
106.1102
Total 0.0453 0.0308 0.3451 1.0400e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 105.1145 105.1145 3.0400e-
003
3.0900e-
003
106.1102
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 21 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 295 of 427
3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Off-Road 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 0.0000 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.6446 6.2357 8.8024 0.0136 0.3084 0.3084 0.2846 0.2846 0.0000 1,297.688
0
1,297.688
0
0.4114 1,307.972
5
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0453 0.0308 0.3451 1.0400e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 105.1145 105.1145 3.0400e-
003
3.0900e-
003
106.1102
Total 0.0453 0.0308 0.3451 1.0400e-
003
0.1285 6.1000e-
004
0.1291 0.0341 5.7000e-
004
0.0347 105.1145 105.1145 3.0400e-
003
3.0900e-
003
106.1102
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 22 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 296 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 4.5099 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 4.7015 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Unmitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 23 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 297 of 427
3.7 Architectural Coating - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Archit. Coating 4.5099 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Off-Road 0.1917 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Total 4.7015 1.3030 1.8111 2.9700e-
003
0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0708 0.0000 281.4481 281.4481 0.0168 281.8690
Mitigated Construction On-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Worker 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Total 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Mitigated Construction Off-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 24 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 298 of 427
4.0 Operational Detail - Mobile
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.0777 0.1276 0.7905 1.5800e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 160.6971 160.6971 9.9500e-
003
8.0500e-
003
163.3435
Unmitigated 0.0777 0.1276 0.7905 1.5800e-
003
0.1691 1.5300e-
003
0.1707 0.0451 1.4300e-
003
0.0466 160.6971 160.6971 9.9500e-
003
8.0500e-
003
163.3435
4.1 Mitigation Measures Mobile
4.2 Trip Summary Information
4.3 Trip Type Information
Average Daily Trip Rate Unmitigated Mitigated
Land Use Weekday Saturday Sunday Annual VMT Annual VMT
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Single Family Housing 9.44 9.54 8.55 39,181 39,181
Total 18.88 19.08 17.10 78,362 78,362
Miles Trip %Trip Purpose %
Land Use H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW H-W or C-W H-S or C-C H-O or C-NW Primary Diverted Pass-by
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
Single Family Housing 13.00 13.00 13.00 35.80 21.00 43.20 86 11 3
4.4 Fleet Mix
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 25 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 299 of 427
Land Use LDA LDT1 LDT2 MDV LHD1 LHD2 MHD HHD OBUS UBUS MCY SBUS MH
Single Family Housing 0.486418 0.056693 0.203223 0.148945 0.038507 0.009459 0.008260 0.005996 0.000952 0.000366 0.033245 0.001002 0.006934
5.0 Energy Detail
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
NaturalGas
Mitigated
1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
NaturalGas
Unmitigated
1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
5.1 Mitigation Measures Energy
Historical Energy Use: N
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 26 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 300 of 427
6.1 Mitigation Measures Area
6.0 Area Detail
5.2 Energy by Land Use - NaturalGas
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
72.9576 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Total 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Unmitigated
NaturalGa
s Use
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Land Use kBTU/yr lb/day lb/day
Single Family
Housing
0.0729576 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Total 1.5700e-
003
0.0135 5.7200e-
003
9.0000e-
005
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
1.0900e-
003
17.1665 17.1665 3.3000e-
004
3.1000e-
004
17.2685
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 27 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 301 of 427
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category lb/day lb/day
Mitigated 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Unmitigated 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.9600e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.3042
Total 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Unmitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 28 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 302 of 427
7.1 Mitigation Measures Water
7.0 Water Detail
6.2 Area by SubCategory
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
SubCategory lb/day lb/day
Architectural
Coating
0.0494 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Consumer
Products
0.1234 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Hearth 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Landscaping 4.9600e-
003
1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.3042
Total 0.1778 1.9000e-
003
0.1649 1.0000e-
005
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
9.1000e-
004
0.0000 0.2971 0.2971 2.9000e-
004
0.0000 0.3042
Mitigated
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 29 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not AppliedATTACHMENT 2Page 303 of 427
11.0 Vegetation
8.1 Mitigation Measures Waste
8.0 Waste Detail
9.0 Operational Offroad
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Days/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
10.0 Stationary Equipment
Fire Pumps and Emergency Generators
Equipment Type Number Hours/Day Hours/Year Horse Power Load Factor Fuel Type
Boilers
Equipment Type Number Heat Input/Day Heat Input/Year Boiler Rating Fuel Type
User Defined Equipment
Equipment Type Number
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Date: 11/7/2021 6:39 PMPage 30 of 30
841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Winter
EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied
ATTACHMENT 2Page 304 of 427
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David Wolff Environmental, LLC
P.O. Box 7019
Los Osos, CA 93402
DavidW.Enviro@gmail.com
(805) 235-5223
May 13, 2021
Eric and Julie Michaels
c/o Oasis Associates, Inc.
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-
0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is pleased to submit this Biological Resources
Assessment (BRA) for the 841 Patricia Drive residential development project (proposed
project) in the City of San Luis Obispo, CA (APN 052-520-063; ARCH-0040-2021). This BRA
has been prepared to establish existing conditions of the proposed project site based on field
surveys and the review of project plans provided by the project team.
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE
The proposed project on an infill parcel flag lot includes construction of a residence,
accessory dwelling unit, storage shed, and a span bridge creek crossing to connect the two
buildable areas of the 1.41-acre property. The property is accessed from a gravel driveway off
of Patricia Drive. DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed available background data
and conducted biological resources field surveys of the proposed project site. The purpose of
this biological resources assessment is to document existing conditions of the proposed
project site and to evaluate the potential for any direct or indirect significant impacts on
biological, wetland or riparian resources, or adverse effects on any rare, threatened, or
endangered plant or wildlife species (special-status species).
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project includes construction of a new 4,900 square foot single family
residence on 0.36-acre allowable building area, a new 825 square foot accessory dwelling
unit (ADU) on 0.09-acre allowable building area, and a 128 square foot detached accessory
building (storage shed) on an undeveloped flag lot within an infill parcel of an existing
subdivision near the western edge of the City of San Luis Obispo (City). The site is bisected
by a drainageway (creek) and riparian corridor with required setbacks (0.78 acre) that
separates the two allowable buildable areas of the property. See attached Figures 1 and 2. An
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 305 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |2
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
approximately 55-foot long by 12-foot-wide span vehicle bridge is proposed for access to the
ADU and storage shed from the primary residence driveway and Patricia Drive. The
applicant proposes to plant ten 5 to 15-gallon coast live oak trees within the riparian corridor
setback to enhance the habitat and provide replacement for the minor tree removal and
pruning required to place the span bridge.
3.0 METHODS
DWE conducted a review of available background information including aerial photography
of the project area (Google Earth), the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey,
and the results of the California Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) for the San Luis
Obispo USGS quadrangle map. The CNDDB provided a list of special-status plant and
wildlife species, and natural communities of special concern that have been recorded in the
region of the project site. The CNDDB records help to focus the field survey efforts and
evaluation of potential project effects on specific species or habitats. It is noted that the
CNDDB does not necessarily include all special-status species potentially occurring onsite or
in the region, but rather only those that have been recorded by the CNDDB.
DWE Principal ecologist David Wolff conducted biological resources reconnaissance and
floristic inventory and rare plant survey on April 22, 2021 at a time of peak expression of the
onsite botanical resources. Surveys were conducted by walking the entirety of the proposed
project site recording plant and wildlife species observed and general site characteristics and
those of the immediate surrounding area. Conditions for the site survey were conducive to
the purpose of documenting plant and wildlife habitat to establish existing conditions. The
purpose of the field surveys was to document existing conditions in terms of habitat for plant
and wildlife species, presence/absence for special-status plant species, suitability of habitat
for special-status wildlife, and the potential to support wetland and/or riparian habitats
and/or waters of the U.S./State. The field surveys were conducted to include a complete
floristic inventory and rare plant survey as they were conducted during the peak 2021
growing season and full expression of the onsite flora. The study area habitat types were
described by the aggregation of plants and wildlife based on the composition and structure of
the dominant vegetation observed at the time the field reconnaissance was conducted.
DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff reviewed the available background information and
available aerial photography, conducted the field surveys, and is the primary author and
principal in charge of report preparation. The survey data collected on plant and wildlife
species and conclusions presented in this biological and wetland assessment are based on the
methods and field reconnaissance conducted over the project site as described above.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 306 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |3
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS AND REGULATORY SETTING
This section established the existing conditions of the proposed project site and regulatory
setting for the residential development project. Plant communities are described by the
assemblages of plant species that occur together in the same area forming habitat types.
Community alliance used in this report follow A manual of California vegetation, 2nd
edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Plant names used in this report follow the 2012 Jepson Manual,
Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition Thoroughly Revised and Expanded.
The USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; Soil Conservation Service, 1977)
has identified one soil series mapping unit within the project site, Cropley clay, 2 to 9
percent slopes (128). This is a very deep moderately well drained, soil with slow
permeability, occurring on alluvial fans and plains formed in alluvium weathered from
sedimentary rocks. Typical surface layer is dark gray, very dark gray and light brownish gray
clay about 36 inches thick. The underlying material is brown silty clay loam to a depth of 60
inches or more. The west side of the property (proposed primary residence area) appeared to
be compacted fill leading to the slope down to the creek. Deep surface cracks were observed
on the east side of the creek that appeared more typical of the Cropley clay soil surface
characteristics.
4.1 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project site supports two plant communities, disturbed non-native annual
grassland on each side of the arroyo willow riparian habitat along the drainage that bisects
the site. Attached Figure 3 provides a project area habitat map showing the location and
extent of the habitat on the proposed project site. Figure 4 includes a set of onsite
representative photographs. A complete list of plant species observed during the floristic
inventory and rare plant survey is attached as Table 1.
BOTANICAL RESOURCES
The east and west sides of the proposed project site are composed of disturbed non-native
annual grassland habitat, or semi-natural annual brome grassland alliance (CDFW CA Code:
42.026.00), that is typically dominated by non-native annual grasses and herbaceous
broadleaf plant species, along with a few native forbs and wildflowers. The non-native
annual grassland on the compacted level area of the western side was observed to be
relatively low in species diversity and dominated by non-native oats (Avena sp.), filarees
(Erodium botrys, E. cicutarium), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), smooth cat’s ear
(Hypochaeris glabra), and abundant scattering of non-native treasureflower (Gazania sp.)
groundcover. The slope down to the riparian area had a dense cover of field mustard
(Brassica rapa) and crete weed (Hedypnois cretica). Integrated as a component of the non-
native dominated grassland on the west were a few purple needlegrass (Stipa pulchra) along
with very few San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis). The grassland habitat on the west side of the riparian corridor totals 0.57 acre.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 307 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |4
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
The eastern project area grassland (0.31 acre) was similar in composition to the west side
dominated by a dense cover of oats and landscape escaped treasureflower, but without the
stand of field mustard and crete weed. The eastern grassland flat had more abundant purple
needlegrass that is integrated into the non-native grassland habitat along with more San Luis
Obispo morning glory. From a habitat perspective it still constitutes a non-native annual
grassland and not a purple needlegrass grassland habitat.
The drainage (creek) riparian corridor (0.53 acre) bisecting the site supports arroyo willow
thicket habitat, Salix lasiolepis Woodland Alliance (CDFW: 61.201.00, CNDDB
CTT63200CA). This alliance is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), which is
characterized as a tall shrub or tree-like growth habit that may reach up to eight meters in
height. Large and small coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia) trees occur throughout the
corridor, along with a big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and planted sycamore (Platanus
racemosa). There is little native understory vegetation limited to scattered landscape escapes.
The City has depicted the creek riparian corridor as a wildlife corridor in the Conservation
and Open Space Element (COSE) with supporting policies in the Land Use Element and
COSE for the protection and enhancement of creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors. The
creek emanates from a large culvert and small culvert under Patricia Drive from Bishop Peak
runoff and likely stormwater runoff from the residential neighborhood. The small culvert
from the north end of the site is an open swale with creeping spikerush (Eleocharis
macrostachya), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphiodes) leading
to the main drainageway from the large culvert under the woody riparian vegetation. The
creek bottom has narrow braided low flow channels along the flow path with likely
unconsolidated sheet flow across the drainage bottom during heavy rain events. The open
channel and riparian corridor continue offsite downstream to the backyards of houses along
Westmont Avenue where it appears to go underground through the residential development.
WILDLIFE RESOURCES
The project site is a remnant isolated patch of grassland and riparian habitat within the
residential urbanized landscape at the outer edge of the City at the base of Bishop Peak. The
site can provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the
urban environment such as raccoons, opossums, skunks, with evidence of deer, gopher, and
ground squirrels observed. Even in urbanized areas, riparian corridors and trees can provide
habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become adapted to the urban environment,
but in particular to resident and migratory birds. Common birds observed during DWE field
survey included the northern mockingbird, house finch, Anna’s hummingbird, California
towhee, California quail, Wilson’s warbler, Hutton’s vireo, and black-headed grossbeak.
Given the small infill site is surrounded by urban development, other wildlife use is likely
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 308 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |5
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
limited with generally low wildlife values. While depicted by the City as a wildlife corridor,
the project site does not represent any specific migratory or movement corridor for wildlife
amongst the dense surrounding residential development as the riparian corridor ends
abruptly near Westmont Avenue.
4.2 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
Special-status species are those plants and animals listed, proposed for listing, or candidates
for listing as threatened or endangered by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the federal Endangered
Species Act (FESA); those listed or proposed for listing as rare, threatened, or endangered by
the CDFW under the California Endangered Species Act (CESA); animals designated as
“Species of Special Concern” by the CDFW; and plants occurring on lists 1B, 2, and 4 of the
CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Natural Communities
of Special Concern are habitat types considered rare and worthy of tracking in the California
Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) by the CNPS and CDFW because of their limited
distribution or historic loss over time.
The search and review of the CNDDB revealed 58 historic and extant (presumed existing)
occurrences of special-status plant and wildlife species, and two natural communities of
special concern within the San Luis Obispo USGS quadrangle map with potential to occur on
the project site. This quadrangle map CNDDB search was used because of the urbanized
landscape surrounding the proposed project site. Attached Table 2 is a list of the CNDDB
special-status plant and wildlife species with recorded occurrences used for project
evaluation. The following briefly describes or summarizes the special-status species issues
and observations or potential for occurrence on the project site.
Special-Status Botanical Resources
The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of 34 special-status plant species and
two natural communities of special concern with the potential to occur on the project site.
No natural communities of special concern occur on the project site. Purple needlegrass
dominated grasslands can be considered a valley needlegrass grassland natural community of
special concern, however, the onsite occurrence of purple needlegrass is only a component of
the non-native oats dominated annual grassland habitat and does not constitute a natural
community of special concern.
While the CNDDB list of special-status plant species is exhaustive, most of the species and
natural communities are associated with undisturbed lands and specific soil types, such as
serpentine outcrops or specific habitat characteristics such as seasonal wetlands. The DWE
field survey was conducted during the spring 2021 at peak floristic expression and represents
a thorough floristic inventory and rare plant survey for this somewhat disturbed infill site.
The botanical survey resulted in observation of one CNPS List 4.B (a watch list) San Luis
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 309 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |6
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
Obispo (Cambria) morning glory that is a species of limited distribution but has current
distribution from San Luis Obispo County to northwestern Santa Barbara County, with
historic herbaria records as far north as Sonoma County. Recent observations in the record
have found it throughout coastal and inland San Luis Obispo County reducing the
significance of its occurrence and local rarity at any one location. No other rare, threatened,
or endangered plant species or remnants thereof were observed within the project area
during the DWE appropriately timed 2021 floristic inventory and rare plant survey. While
only one survey was conducted, the grassland project areas were at peak expression of grasses
and broadleaf forbs that adequately captured the flora for the purposes of project evaluation
and assessment of potential rare plant impacts.
Special-Status Wildlife
The CNDDB search revealed the recorded occurrences of 24 special-status wildlife in the
region of the project site (see Table 2). Special-status wildlife species known from the region
evaluated for this study have specific habitat use requirements (i.e., specific soils, terrestrial
or aquatic). Given the infill urban setting with a limited diversity of the non-native grassland
species, no associated special-status grassland wildlife species area expected to occur. The
willow riparian creek corridor habitat has a low potential for several riparian associated
species, but the lack of understory shrub and natural debris limits the suitability for any
special-status wildlife species. This conclusion is discussed further below.
Riparian/Aquatic Species – The CNDDB has recorded occurrences of the steelhead,
California red-legged frog, foothill yellow-legged frog, coast range newt, San Luis Obispo
pyrg (a freshwater snail), and western pond turtle. These are all highly aquatic species for all
or a significant portion of their lifecycle and suitable habitat is not represented in the
seasonal creek running through the project site. The lesser slender salamander and two-
stripped garter snake can occur in riparian habitat. The lack of accumulated cover
(vegetation and debris) and likely sheet flows throughout the bottom of the corridor does not
represent suitable habitat for these two species. Vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta
lynchi) require static seasonal pools that do not occur within the project site. Tricolored
blackbirds require tule/cattail stands or thickets for nesting that do not occur on the project
site. The yellow-breasted chat, loggerhead shrike, and Cooper’s hawk have a low potential to
use the onsite riparian corridor for nesting or foraging. The Monterey dusky footed woodrat
can occur in riparian areas, however, no woodrat middens (nests) were observed onsite.
Upland Species – The compacted and heavy clay soils are unsuitable habitat for the American
badger, coast horned lizard, or northern California (silvery) legless lizard that need sandy
friable soils. No evidence of these species or suitable soils were observed during DWE field
surveys. The burrowing owl can winter in the San Luis Obispo area but nests further inland,
however, the site lacks sufficient grassland and ground squirrel burrow habitat. The Crotch
bumblebee (Bombus crotchii) ranges throughout California to Baja typically found in
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 310 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |7
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
wildflower rich grasslands. The project site is low in wildflower diversity and no bumblebee
nests were observed during DWE field surveys. The monarch butterfly uses forests and tree
stands typically near the coast for fall and winter roosts. The onsite low stature riparian
habitat does not represent suitable monarch butterfly winter roost habitat. The CNDDB has
recorded occurrences of four bat species that are known from forest and woodland habitats,
but use caves, mines, buildings, trees and rock crevices for maternity colonies and roosts. No
suitable roost structure occurs within the project site, so these species are not expected to
occur. The American badger is known from grasslands in the region with abundant small
mammal prey base. No evidence of badger dens was observed on the project site during DWE
field surveys.
4.3 REGULATORY SETTING
The remnant open creek channel and riparian corridor may represent jurisdictional waters of
the U.S./State pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404, California Porter
Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Lake
and Streambed Program. Depending on the location of project impacts into the riparian
corridor or active creek bottom, project elements encroaching into the riparian corridor such
as the proposed bridge may need permits or authorizations from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and/or the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Current bridge design indicates the proposed span
bridge footings would be constructed above the 100-year water surface elevation and fall
well above the active creek channel with only minor impacts from riparian tree removal and
trimming. As such, no fill would be placed in the Corps waters of the U.S. jurisdiction and no
permit would be required by the Corps. However, the RWQCB and CDFW may still require
permits for the work through the riparian corridor.
The CDFW Fish and Game Code of California Sections 3503 and 3503.1 (raptors specifically)
prohibits the destruction of active nests of birds. Active bird’s nests must be avoided from
destruction and protected from nest failure during project activities as there is no permit
available for destruction of an active nest.
5.0 PROJECT IMPACTS AND RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES
The proposed project would develop non-native annual grassland habitat for the residence
allowable building area of 0.36 acre and ADU building area of 0.09 acre, while preserving the
riparian corridor and required setbacks of 0.78 acre. Construction of the bridge across the
riparian corridor connecting the west and east building areas would require removal of one
multi-trunk willow (mostly horizontal laying trunks with numerous small vertical shoots)
and one small coast live oak (less than 4” dbh) (see Tree Survey Plan Sheet C2). Other willow
canopy may be trimmed for placement of the span bridge on the footings. The bridge
location has been sighted in an open area of the riparian corridor to minimize impacts on
riparian vegetation.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 311 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |8
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
The proposed project preservation of the riparian corridor with required setbacks totaling
0.78 acre of the 1.41-acre site would be consistent with the COSE and Land Use Element
policies to maintain an open channel, respect natural features, and protect and enhance
creeks and wildlife habitat and corridors.
IMPACT 1: NESTING BIRDS
The proposed conversion of the disturbed annual grassland habitat and tree
removal/trimming in the riparian corridor for the proposed bridge may impact ground
nesting and/or tree nesting bird species if activities are conducted during the nesting season
typically February 1st to August 31st. To reduce potential impacts to nesting birds to a less
than significant level, the following mitigation measures are recommended:
MM BIO-1: Vegetation removal and initial site disturbance for any project elements shall
be conducted between September 1st and January 31st outside of the nesting
season for birds. If vegetation removal is planned for the bird nesting season
(February 1st to August 31st), then preconstruction nesting bird surveys shall be
required to determine if any active nests would be impacted by project
construction. If no active nests are found, then no further mitigation shall be
required.
If any active nests are found that would be impacted by construction, then the
nest sites shall be avoided with the establishment of a non-disturbance buffer
zone around active nests as determined by a qualified biologist. Nest sites shall
be avoided and protected with the non-disturbance buffer zone until the
adults and young of the year are no longer reliant on the nest site for survival
as determined by a qualified biologist. As such, avoiding disturbance or take of
an active nest would reduce potential impacts on nesting birds to a less-than-
significant level.
IMPACT 2: RIPARIAN HABITAT IMPACTS
The proposed bridge has been located in a relatively open area of the onsite riparian habitat.
However, some willow and small oak tree removal, and other willow tree pruning may be
required to construct footings and place a clear span bridge structure over the creek on the
footings. Ten 5 to 15-gallon coast live oak trees will be planted in riparian setback as part of
the project to offset tree removal/trimming impacts. The bridge structure construction may
result in fill of waters of the U.S./State (current plans show bridge work above Corps
jurisdiction) and removal of riparian habitat that may require regulatory compliance from
federal and state agencies. Impacts resulting in fill of waters of the U.S./State would be
considered a potentially significant impact. To affirm acceptable regulatory compliance to
reduce potential impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less than significant level, the
following mitigation measures are recommended:
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 312 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |9
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
MM BIO-2: The applicant shall obtain Clean Water Act (CWA) regulatory compliance in
the form of a permit from the Corps or written documentation from the Corps
that no permit would be required for the proposed road crossing. Should a
permit be required, the applicant shall implement all the terms and conditions
of the permit to the satisfaction of the Corps. Corps permits and authorizations
require applicants to demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed
and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts on
aquatic resources to the extent practicable. Compliance with Corps permitting
would also include obtaining and CWA 401 Water Quality Certification from
the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). Absent a Corps permit,
the applicant may be required to obtain waste discharger requirements
(WDRs) from RWQCB for riparian habitat waters of the State impacts. As
such, Corps and/pr RWQCB regulatory compliance would reduce potential
impacts on waters of the U.S./State to a less-than-significant level.
MM BIO-3: The applicant shall obtain compliance with Section 1602 of the California Fish
and Game Code (Streambed Alteration Agreements) in the form of a
completed Streambed Alteration Agreement Notification or written
documentation from the CDFW that no agreement would be required for the
proposed span bridge crossing through the riparian habitat. Should an
agreement be required, the property owners shall implement all the terms and
conditions of the agreement to the satisfaction of the CDFG. The CDFG
Streambed Alteration Agreement process encourages applicants to
demonstrate that the proposed project has been designed and will be
implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts in the stream
zone. As such, regulatory compliance would reduce potential impacts on
waters of the State to a less-than-significant level.
6.0 CONCLUSIONS
Based on the findings described above establishing the existing conditions of biological
resources and regulatory setting within the project site, and incorporation of the
recommended mitigation measures, implementation of the proposed project would not result
in any substantial adverse effects on biological, botanical, or riparian habitat resources.
Therefore, with mitigation measures incorporated into the project, direct and indirect project
impacts on biological resources would be considered to be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 313 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |10
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
Thank you for the opportunity to provide biological resources consulting services for this
project.
Very truly yours,
David K. Wolff
DWE Principal Ecologist
ATTACHMENTS:
TABLE 1 – PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
TABLE 2 – CNDDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES
FIGURE 1 – REGIONAL LOCATION AERIAL MAP
FIGURE 2 – VICINITY LOCATION AERIAL MAP
FIGURE 3 – PROJECT HABITAT MAP
FIGURE 4 – REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPHS
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 314 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |11
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
TABLE 1
PLANT SPECIES OBSERVED
(4/22/2021)
Scientific Name Common Name
Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple
Avena sp. Oats
Brassica rapa Field mustard
Bromus diandrus Ripgut grass
Bromus hordeaceous Soft chess brome
Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis Cambria morning glory
Convolvulus arvensis Field bind weed
Eleocharis macrostachya Creeping spikerush
Erodium botrys Storksbill
Erodium cicutarium Redstem filaree
Gazania sp. Treasureflower
Geranium dissectum Wild geranium
Hedypnois cretica Crete weed
Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum Foxtail barley
Hypochaeris glabra Smooth cat's ear
Juncus xiphiodes Iris-leaved rush
Lotus corniculatus Trefoil
Plantago lanceolata English Plaintain
Platanus racemosa Sycamore
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Rumex crispus Curly dock
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo willow
Sisyrinchium bellum Blue eyed grass
Sonchus asper Spiny sowthistle
Stipa pulchra Purple needlegrass
Trifoliium sp. Clover
Vicia sativa Common vetch
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 315 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |12
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
TABLE 2
CNNDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL
STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
RANK
HABITAT SUITABILITY
POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE
WILDLIFE
Batrachoseps minor
lesser slender salamander None SSC -
Low potential in riparian area
because of high water sheet flows.
Rana boylii
foothill yellow-legged frog None Endangered -
No suitable perennial aquatic
habitat.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog Threatened SSC -
No suitable perennial aquatic
habitat.
Taricha torosa
Coast Range newt None SSC -
No suitable perennial aquatic
habitat.
Accipiter cooperii
Cooper's hawk None WL -
Low potential in remnant small
patch of riparian habitat.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite None FP -
Low potential in remnant small
patch of riparian habitat.
Agelaius tricolor
tricolored blackbird None Threatened -
No suitable wetland habitat.
Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat None SSC -
Low potential in remnant small
patch of riparian habitat.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike None SSC -
Low potential in remnant small
patch of riparian habitat.
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl None None -
No sufficient grassland habitat with
enough squirrel burrows.
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp Threatened None -
No suitable vernal pool habitat.
Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus
steelhead Threatened None -
No suitable perennial aquatic
habitat.
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee None None -
No suitable wildflower rich
grassland habitat.
Danaus plexippus
monarch winter roosts Candidate None -
No suitable roost sites.
Neotoma macrotis luciana
Monterey dusky-footed woodrat None SSC -
Low potential in riparian habitat.
No woodrat nests observed.
Eumops perotis californicus
western mastiff bat None SSC -
No suitable roost habitat.
Taxidea taxus
American badger None SSC -
No potential burrows observed.
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat None SSC -
No suitable roost habitat.
Corynorhinus townsendii
Townsend's big-eared bat None SSC -
No suitable roost habitat.
Myotis yumanensis Yuma myotis None None - No suitable roost habitat.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 316 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |13
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
TABLE 2
CNNDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL
STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
RANK
HABITAT SUITABILITY
POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE
Anniella pulchra
northern California legless lizard None SSC -
No suitable sandy soils or shrub
cover onsite.
Emys marmorata
western pond turtle None SSC -
No suitable perennial aquatic
habitat.
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake None SSC -
No suitable aquatic habitat.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard None SSC -
No suitable sandy soils or shrub
cover onsite.
NATURAL COMMUNITIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN
Coastal & Valley Freshwater
Marsh None None -
Not observed onsite.
Serpentine Bunchgrass None None - Not observed onsite.
PLANTS
Chlorogalum pomeridianum var.
minus
dwarf soaproot None None 1B.2
Not observed. No serpentine
chapparal onsite.
Eryngium aristulatum var.
hooveri
Hoover's button-celery None None 1B.1
Not Observed. No seasonal
wetlands onsite.
Lomatium parvifolium
small-leaved lomatium None None 4.2
Not observed. No chapparal onsite.
Perideridia pringlei
adobe yampah None None 4.3
Not observed. No scrub, chapparal,
woodland onsite.
Sanicula hoffmannii
Hoffmann's sanicle None None 4.3
Not observed. No scrub, chapparal,
woodland onsite.
Centromadia parryi ssp.
congdonii
Congdon's tarplant None None 1B.1
Not Observed. No mesic (moist)
grassland areas onsite.
Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense
Chorro Creek bog thistle Endangered Endangered 1B.2
Not observed. No serpentine
wetland seeps onsite.
Cirsium occidentale var.
lucianum
Cuesta Ridge thistle None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Deinandra paniculata
paniculate tarplant None None 4.2
Not observed.
Layia jonesii
Jones' layia None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Senecio aphanactis
chaparral ragwort None None 2B.2
Not observed. No scrub, chapparal,
woodland onsite.
Plagiobothrys uncinatus
hooked popcornflower None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Streptanthus albidus ssp.
peramoenus None None 1B.2
Not observed.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 317 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |14
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
TABLE 2
CNNDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL
STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
RANK
HABITAT SUITABILITY
POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE
most beautiful jewelflower
Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis
San Luis Obispo (Cambria)
morning-glory None None 4.2
Observed.
Dudleya abramsii ssp. bettinae
Betty's dudleya None None 1B.2
Not observed. No scrub or
chapparal onsite.
Dudleya abramsii ssp. murina
mouse-gray dudleya None None 1B.3
Not observed. No chapparal or
woodland onsite.
Dudleya blochmaniae ssp.
blochmaniae
Blochman's dudleya None None 1B.1
Not observed.
Carex obispoensis
San Luis Obispo sedge None None 1B.2
Not observed. No wetlands onsite.
Arctostaphylos luciana
Santa Lucia manzanita None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Arctostaphylos pechoensis
Pecho manzanita None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Arctostaphylos pilosula
Santa Margarita manzanita None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Astragalus didymocarpus var.
milesianus
Miles' milk-vetch None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Ribes sericeum
Santa Lucia gooseberry None None 4.3
Not observed. No coastal scrub
onsite.
Calochortus clavatus var.
clavatus
club-haired mariposa-lily None None 4.3
Not observed.
Calochortus obispoensis
San Luis mariposa-lily None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Calochortus simulans
La Panza mariposa-lily None None 1B.3
Not observed.
Fritillaria agrestis
stinkbells None None 4.2
Not observed.
Castilleja densiflora var.
obispoensis
San Luis Obispo owl's-clover None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Muhlenbergia utilis
aparejo grass None None 2B.2
Not observed. No wetlands onsite.
Chorizanthe aphanantha
Irish Hills spineflower None None 1B.1
Not observed.
Chorizanthe breweri
Brewer's spineflower None None 1B.3
Not observed
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 318 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT |15
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
TABLE 2
CNNDB SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR
SCIENTIFIC NAME
COMMON NAME
FEDERAL
STATUS
STATE
STATUS
CNPS
RANK
HABITAT SUITABILITY
POTENTIAL OCCURRENCE
Chorizanthe palmeri
Palmer's spineflower None None 4.2
Not observed.
Delphinium parryi ssp.
eastwoodiae
Eastwood's larkspur None None 1B.2
Not observed.
Horkelia cuneata var. puberula
mesa horkelia None None 1B.1
Not observed.
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 319 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FIGURE 1 – REGIONAL LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 320 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FIGURE 2 – VICINITY LOCATION MAP
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 321 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT
FIGURE 3 – PROJECT HABITAT MAP
Residence Site – Non-native
annual grassland (0.57 acre)
Small Culvert Outfall and Swale
Large Culvert
Outfall
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 322 of 427
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 841 Patricia Drive Residence Project
Biological Resources Assessment
Figure 4 – Representative Photographs
Page 1 of 2
Photo 1: View west along flag lot driveway access from Patricia Drive. 4/22/2021 Photo 2: View northeast at residence site non-native annual grassland. Field mustard
(yellow flowers) at top of slope down to riparian corridor (tree line). 4/22/2021
Photo 3: View south along field mustard and crete weed covered slope down to willow
riparian corridor along creek. 4/22/2021
Photo 4: View east across proposed bridge creek/riparian crossing (arrow) in open area of
riparian canopy. 4/22/2021
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 323 of 427
DAVID WOLFF ENVIRONMENTAL, LLC 841 Patricia Drive Residence Project
Biological Resources Assessment
Figure 4 – Representative Photographs
Page 2 of 2
Photo 5: View north (upstream) at low-flow “channel” scour and willows across the broad
creek bottom. Shows landscape escapes and lack of native understory. 4/22/2021
Photo 6: View northwest at large culvert outfall under Patricia Drive to creek bottom and
landscape escapes and lack of native understory. 4/22/2021
Photo 7: View at northwest corner of the site at swale from small culvert outfall under
Patricia Drive. 4/22/2021
Photo 8: View north at accessory dwelling unit location on east side non-native annual
grassland and willow riparian corridor along creek. 4/22/2021
ATTACHMENT 3
Page 324 of 427
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
David Wolff Environmental, LLC
P.O. Box 7019
Los Osos, CA 93402
DavidW.Enviro@gmail.com
(805) 235-5223
November 10, 2021
Eric and Julie Michaels
c/o Oasis Associates, Inc.
3427 Miguelito Court
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
SUBJECT: Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the 841 Patricia Drive Project
(ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA
David Wolff Environmental (DWE) is pleased to submit this Biological Resources
Assessment Addendum (BRA Addendum) to the May 13, 2021 Biological Resources
Assessment (BRA) for the 841 Patricia Drive residential development project (proposed
project) in the City of San Luis Obispo (City), CA (APN 052-520-063; ARCH-0040-2021).
This BRA Addendum has been prepared in response to the October 21, 2021 SWCA peer
review email of the BRA and following the project site visit on October 22, 2021 with the
project team, City, and SWCA staff. DWE Principal Ecologist David Wolff conducted a
follow up field reconnaissance on October 28, 2021 to further evaluate project site existing
conditions and analyze proposed project impacts to address the peer review comments. The
following addresses the five biological resources comments from the October 21st SWCA
BRA peer review email.
1.0 RIPARIAN IMPACTS FROM BRIDGE CONSTRUCTION
The proposed project includes a clear span bridge with footings placed above the active
braided creek channel. No ground disturbance in the active braided creek channel bottom
would occur. As shown on the attached Sheet L-1 approximately 17 small coast live oak
saplings would be removed, and between 20-30 arroyo willow stems from four trees may
need removal or pruning to place the bridge and footings. This is considered the maximum
amount of vegetation removal needed and will be minimized to the extent feasible during
construction.
In order to fully mitigate for the oak and willow tree riparian habitat removal, the proposed
project includes planting of 20 coast live oak, 4 California bay laurel, 4 California sycamore
1-gallon trees, and 20 willow sprigs planted throughout the channel bottom as shown on
attached Sheet L-1. Final planting locations will be field verified for optimal placement
during construction. The proposed compensatory riparian mitigation will add plant species
diversity and density to increase the riparian habitat values. Plantings will be provided
supplemental irrigation for three years, and maintained and monitored for five years, to meet
an 80 percent survival success criteria after two years without supplemental irrigation.
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 325 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM |2
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
2.0 SAN LUIS OBISPO (CAMBRIA) MORNING GLORY
The BRA rare plant survey observed the CNPS List 4.2 (a watch list of plants with limited
distribution) San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp.
episcopalis) sparsely on the western side of the creek with more frequent occurrences on the
eastern grassland flat. Interesting occurrence because the site has been previously disturbed
from fill and installation of a sewer line. The San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning glory is a
species of limited distribution but has current distribution from San Luis Obispo County to
northwestern Santa Barbara County, with historic herbaria records as far north as Sonoma
County. Recent observations in the record have found it throughout coastal and inland San
Luis Obispo County reducing the significance of its occurrence and local rarity at any one
location. The CNPS recognized the greater range and distribution of this species and reduced
its rarity listing from List 1.B. to List 4.2 in 2011.
David Wolff discussed the matter of impacts on the San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning
glory with City Natural Resource Manager Bob Hill. It was agreed that while this species was
a CNPS List 1.B. at the time the Conservation and Open Space Element was adopted in 2006,
its current status as a List 4.2 plant in 2011 should prevail in any current project analysis.
Given it has been widely observed throughout the City (and beyond), and the infill nature of
this previously disturbed project site, it was further agreed that impacts on the San Luis
Obispo (Cambria) morning glory would be considered less than significant and not require
any mitigation.
3.0 CALIFORNIA RED-LEGGED FROG
The BRA established the onsite creek as a remnant above ground reach emanating from a
culverts on the project site and undergrounding several block away near Westmont Avenue.
There does not appear to be any readily identifiable connection to any downstream waters or
aquatic habitat. “Upstream” is urban runoff and the rapid draining steep Bishop Peak hillside.
This remnant reach of creek is surrounded by residential development with the steep hills of
Bishop Peak to the west. Review of aerial photography does not show any evidence of ponds
in the surrounding hillsides or residential areas that could represent a source of California
red-legged frogs to disperse and occupy the onsite reach of creek. Additionally, there is no
undeveloped land around the project site (only residences) that could be an entry to overland
movement by frogs should they occur somewhere in the surrounding lands (again no suitable
aquatic habitat identified in aerial photographs).
The DWE field survey on October 28th followed an approximately 1.4-inch rainfall event
several days earlier. There was only evidence of flows from the rain event within the narrow
braided channels with no sheet flow across the floodplain. It appeared there was barely
enough flows even from the short but substantial rain event to push accumulated leaf litter
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 326 of 427
David Wolff Environmental, LLC 841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT ADDENDUM |3
Biological & Wetland Resources Assessments – Regulatory Compliance Specialist
beyond the limits of the braided narrow low-flow channels. No standing or pooled water
remained from the obvious rain event flows on the project site supporting the BRA findings
that the site lacks the required aquatic habitat for the California red-legged frog. The
proposed project would not alter the creek channel or change any of the inputs so post
project conditions would be unchanged and remain lacking suitable aquatic habitat to attract
any California red-legged frogs should they even occur from within either the limited
available above ground creek system, or the surrounding lands.
4.0 TREE IMPACTS
The attached Sheet L-1 shows the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees
likely needing removal for the bridge construction. Section 1.0 above provides a conceptual
tree replacement compensatory mitigation plan with a five-year success monitoring period.
Sheet L-1 also provides a conceptual planting plan for the replacement trees also described in
Section 1.0 above.
5.0 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY MAPPING
The National Wetlands Inventory is a very broad-brush remote sensing approach to mapping
wetlands and other waters. The unnamed drainage running along the existing driveway
referred to in the peer review comments appears to be a mapping convention to “connect the
dots” between the steep hillside drainage pattern and the readily identifiable creek corridor.
BRA Figure 4 Photo 1 provides a view west down the driveway elevated above the street to
the hillside demonstrating the lack of any connecting waters. This determination is also
shown on BRA Figure 3 and was corroborated during the October 22nd City, SWCA, and
project team field meeting.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this BRA Addendum to address the peer review
comments for use in completing the City’s environmental review for the proposed project.
Very truly yours,
David K. Wolff
DWE Principal Ecologist
ATTACHMENT:
SHEET L-1 – TREE SURVEY (PARTIAL) AND REVEGETATION PLAN
ATTACHMENT 4
Page 327 of 427
ATTACHMENT 4Page 328 of 427
DESIGN MEMORANDUM
Date: March 3, 2021
To: Hal Hannula, City of San Luis Obispo – Development Review
CC:
From: Ken Chacon, PE - Chacon Associates, LLC (805-610-1714)
Subject: Preliminary Hydrology Summary - ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
These preliminary calculations are presented to support the bridge height clearance at the creek
crossing for the project at 841 Patricia.
The watershed for The City of San Luis Obispo has been studied in detail by previous Engineering Firms.
The results are included in the City’s adopted Drainage Design Manual-Appendix A. The following flow
depth analysis is based on the watersheds and calculations presented in the referenced manual.
The watersheds contributing to the creek at the 841 Patricia residence are summarized below and
shown in Attachment A.
Watersheds area (sm) Area (ac) 2 yr (cms) 100-yr (cms) 2 yr(cfs) 100-yr (cfs)
22 34717 8.58 0.0917 0.3342 3.24 11.80
30 1679 0.41 0.0044 0.0162 0.16 0.57
31 14274 3.53 0.0377 0.1374 1.33 4.85
32 6182 1.53 0.0163 0.0595 0.58 2.10
34 196581 48.58 0.5194 1.8924 18.34 66.83
35 34271 8.47 0.0906 0.3299 3.20 11.65
36 30857 7.62 0.0815 0.2971 2.88 10.49
Total 318561 78.72 0.84 3.07 29.72 108.30
Using the 100-yr cfs totaled above, and the site-specific topographic survey, the creek channel was
analyzed using manning’s equation for channel flow. The expected depth of flow at the bridge crossing
was determined to be 0.54 feet. The channel calculation is included in Attachment B.
It is the recommendation of this office that the proposed bridge height clearance be a minimum of 2.5
feet above the creek bottom. This will provide the 100-year depth of flow plus 2 feet of freeboard.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 329 of 427
Attachment A
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 330 of 427
226227707834509732191967244773753762922273517216202293614665427149131212222332546819741431441269012513070218522214596232529312425164313411240321182307394837582547386924528156217112347747106512631102538519593978307211138551841092592352369125894734242318610759523763233735LegendSubwatershedCity Limit0360 720 1,080 1,440180MetersSubwatershed Delineation Map Sheet 134223536313322222Project SiteWatersheds used forchannel flow calculations(78.7 Acres - 108.4 cfs)per DDMExhibit A(excerpt from DDM Appendix A)ATTACHMENT 5
Page 331 of 427
SubwatershedIDStorm SizePortion of Questa Engineering WatershedQuesta Engineering Watershed Size in Square MetersSubwatershed Area in Square Meters2 Year Event in Cubic Metersper Second10 Year Event in Cubic Metersper Second25 Year Event in Cubic Metersper Second50 Year Event in Cubic Metersper Second100 Year Event in Cubic Metersper Second1 A Lower Stenner Creek 6441443.393 14991.123 0.0396 0.0793 0.106 0.1280.14432ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3939384.870.02480.04970.06630.08010.09033ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931379.3910.00360.00730.00970.01180.01334ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393678.1560.00180.00360.00480.00580.00655ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3932603.0280.00690.01380.01840.02220.02516ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931818.3020.00480.00960.01290.01550.01757ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39326793.4610.07080.14180.18940.22870.25798ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393142311.1420.3760.75291.00591.21471.379ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39347798.9760.12630.25290.33790.4080.460110ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393785.8020.00210.00420.00560.00670.007611ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3933574.1250.00940.01890.02530.03050.034412ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936776.0560.01790.03590.04790.05780.065213ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3937763.4340.02050.04110.05490.06630.074714ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39315222.8340.04020.08050.10760.12990.146515ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3933704.5640.00980.01960.02620.03160.035716ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3939439.2790.02490.04990.06670.08060.090917ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334069.4290.090.18030.24080.29080.32818ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931434.2870.00380.00760.01010.01220.013819ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39315790.8030.04170.08350.11160.13480.15220ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39332367.3240.08550.17120.22880.27630.311621ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39320589.1030.05440.10890.14550.17570.198222ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334716.9290.09170.18370.24540.29630.334223ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39311282.6410.02980.05970.07970.09630.108624ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931125.7820.0030.0060.0080.00960.010825ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3939799.980.02590.05180.06930.08360.094326ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3932948.9520.00780.01560.02080.02520.028427ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334711.0110.09170.18360.24530.29630.334228ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3933816.8430.01010.02020.0270.03260.036729ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39338072.5270.10060.20140.26910.3250.366530ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931678.9980.00440.00890.01190.01430.016231ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39314274.3790.03770.07550.10090.12180.137432ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936182.3990.01630.03270.04370.05280.059533ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39317650.1610.04660.09340.12480.15070.169934ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393196580.70.51941.04011.38951.67791.892435ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334270.6140.09060.18130.24220.29250.329936ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39330857.2880.08150.16330.21810.26340.297137ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3935720.2930.01510.03030.04040.04880.055138ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931585.1550.00420.00840.01120.01350.015339ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931844.9520.00490.00980.0130.01570.017840ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936373.4870.01680.03370.0450.05440.061441ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936986.0930.01850.0370.04940.05960.067342ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39324631.1070.06510.13030.17410.21020.237143ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3939296.8970.02460.04920.06570.07940.089544ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39314094.0220.03720.07460.09960.12030.135745ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39311570.4230.03060.06120.08180.09880.111446ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39327851.2910.07360.14740.19690.23770.268147ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3933459.2750.00910.01830.02450.02950.033348ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3935872.4120.01550.03110.04150.05010.056549ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39322469.0820.05940.11890.15880.19180.216350ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393107307.9650.28350.56770.75850.91591.03351ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3933238.3230.00860.01710.02290.02760.031252ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39311817.7270.03120.06250.08350.10090.113853ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39346209.6690.12210.24450.32660.39440.444854ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3934556.0650.0120.02410.03220.03890.043955ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931538.3090.00410.00810.01090.01310.014856ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936970.7610.01840.03690.04930.05950.067157ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3934521.2630.01190.02390.0320.03860.043558B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.05955.40.00160.00330.00440.00530.00659B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.052401.2420.00410.00820.01110.01340.015160B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.055158.1080.00880.01770.02380.02870.032461B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.051981.4240.00340.00680.00910.0110.012562B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.051430.4520.00240.00490.00660.0080.00963ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3932386.9730.00630.01260.01690.02040.02364ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393408.0660.00110.00220.00290.00350.003965B Laguna Lake Drainage21691014.0562316.3830.10580.21330.28760.34680.391822ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334716.9290.09170.18370.24540.29630.3342ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3931678.9980.00440.00890.01190.01430.016231300ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39314274.3790.03770.07550.10090.12180.137432ALower Stenner Creek6441443.3936182.3990.01630.03270.04370.05280.059534ALower Stenner Creek6441443.393196580.70.51941.04011.38951.67791.892435ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39334270.6140.09060.18130.24220.29250.329936ALower Stenner Creek6441443.39330857.2880.08150.16330.21810.26340.2971ATTACHMENT 5
Page 332 of 427
Attachment B
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 333 of 427
Channel Report
Hydraflow Express Extension for Autodesk® Civil 3D® by Autodesk, Inc. Tuesday, Dec 15 2020
Patricia Channel at bridge - 100-Year
Trapezoidal
Bottom Width (ft) = 30.00
Side Slopes (z:1) = 9.00, 5.00
Total Depth (ft) = 2.00
Invert Elev (ft) = 100.00
Slope (%) = 3.00
N-Value = 0.026
Calculations
Compute by: Known Q
Known Q (cfs) = 110.00
Highlighted
Depth (ft) = 0.54
Q (cfs) = 110.00
Area (sqft) = 18.24
Velocity (ft/s) = 6.03
Wetted Perim (ft) = 37.64
Crit Depth, Yc (ft) = 0.71
Top Width (ft) = 37.56
EGL (ft) = 1.11
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70
Elev (ft)Depth (ft)Section
99.50 -0.50
100.00 0.00
100.50 0.50
101.00 1.00
101.50 1.50
102.00 2.00
102.50 2.50
103.00 3.00
Reach (ft)
At 110 cfs, the
expected depth
of flow is 0.54 ft.
ATTACHMENT 5
Page 334 of 427
From:Kathy apRoberts
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:Earth Moving - 841 Patricia Plans
Date:Monday, October 3, 2022 3:37:52 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Dear Mr. Oetzell,I would like to specifically comment on the San Luis Obispo County CEQA Air QualityHandbook which evaluates project-specific impacts and determines if potentiallysignificant health impacts could result from a project. "The project site is a flag lot
and is directly adjacent to residential development in all directions. Construction
activities, such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and building
construction would result in construction vehicle emissions and dust that will impact
neighbors within 1,000 feet." Initial Study Environmental Checklist, page 18.*
Earth Moving - 841 Patricia plans
In the recent past, we have had neighbors diagnosed with Valley Fever. To
provide context, it's important to understand how much earth moving will be
involved during proposed construction.
"Project construction would require approximately 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of
cut and 650 cy of fill, for a total of 2,582 cy total cut/fill. Construction is
anticipated to last approximately 24 months. Construction would result in
approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance and would
replace approximately 12,540 square feet of previous surface area."
Valley Fever - How does it relate to the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive?
SLO County has the third-highest number and rate of cases in California, after
Kern and Kings counties. With Valley Fever, knowledge is power. Valley
Fever (or Coccidioidomycosis) is an infection caused by inhalation of spores of
the fungus, Coccidioides, which lives naturally in the soil. It is highly endemic
in Arizona and some areas of California, including San Luis Obispo County,
Monterey County and the Central Valley region.
SLO County Health Department - "Although the fungus that causes Valley
Fever can live anywhere in our county, many local cases are from the
northern part of the county where conditions are especially dry and
windy. When this soil is disturbed by wind, construction, or other causes—
people can breathe in the spores from this fungus and develop Valley Fever. "
Please include this letter in the case file for 841 Patricia Drive.(City Files EID-0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021)
Sincerely,
Kathy apRoberts
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo
Page 335 of 427
From:Kathy apRoberts
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:CREEK SETBACK EXCEPTIONS - 841 Patricia Drive
Date:Tuesday, October 4, 2022 11:07:57 AM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
The City's Zoning Regulation 17.70.030 clearly establishes the purpose of Creek
Setbacks. First, these setbacks are intended to "protect scenic resources, water
quality and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement." The second stated purpose is "the restoration of damaged or
degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat corridor can be
established".
Regarding Creek Setback Exceptions, we understand that there are eight findings
that must be made in order for the Director to approve such an exception. Within the
design of the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive, we believe there are five findings
that are not possible to meet. They are:
1. Minimal impact should mean that there is no development in the creek itself.
The location and design of the proposed bridge will absolutely not minimize
impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including
opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement.
4. There are no circumstances applying to this site, such as size, shape or
topography that would deprive the property privileges enjoyed by other property
in the vicinity with the same zoning.
5. This exception would constitute a grant of special privilege. A creek setback
exception would be inconsistent with the limitation upon other properties in the
neighborhood.
7. Site development can be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the
project.
8. Redesign of the project would not deny the property owner reasonable use
of the property given comparable development scale in the neighborhood, even
on a larger than average lot.
We believe that incorporation of five of the mitigation measures into the project at 841
Patricia Drive will not reduce the significant impacts of the project. Please include this
correspondence in the case file: EID-0547-0201, ARCH-00402021.
Sincerely,
Jim and Kathy apRoberts
Page 336 of 427
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo
Page 337 of 427
Victoria Frydenlund and Daniel Alvarez
235 Twin Ridge Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93405
October 4, 2022
Community Development Department
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attn: Walter Oetzell, Assistant City Planner
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the initial study environmental checklist and
draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo in City Files
EID-0547-2021 and ARCH-0040-2021 and per the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Michaels Residence Project.
As property owners adjacent to the 841 Patricia parcel, we have concerns regarding the extent
of development within Twin Ridge Creek, the creek set-back requirements and the City’s
declaration of a Riparian Wildlife Corridor on the property. The initial study and MND provide for
actions to mitigate impact to Twin Ridge Creek and Wildlife Corridor; however there are errors,
omissions and potentially additional mitigations necessary to reduce impact to this sensitive
environment on the property.
We appreciate the desire to develop the property at 841 Patricia Drive, and given the unique
characteristics of the property it is important to preserve wildlife and the creek environment. We
believe it is possible to develop on this parcel without harming the creek and wildlife corridor by
placing all structures within the building envelope on the west side of the creek and thus not
disturb the creek area or wildlife corridor. In doing so, much of the MND actions would become
unnecessary and thus preserve this precious environment within the neighborhood. We do not
claim to be land use planners, so simple common sense is what is driving our intentions for
providing comments.
Attached please find comments to the documents including proposed additional information
needed in order to correct and or include within the study and MND.
Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions regarding these comments.
Sincerely,
Victoria Frydenlund Daniel Alvarez
Enclosure
Comments to the Initial Study and Draft MND for EID-0457-2021
Page 338 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
2
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
1 Last paragraph states, “In addition
to the residence and ADU, the
project includes…a small access
bridge over Twin Ridge
Creek…The bridge access would
be a maximum 12 feet wide and is
envisioned to accommodate small
vehicles (e.g. electric cart) to allow
access to the ADU”.
The description does not include the length of
the bridge. According to the project plans in
Attachment 1, the bridge is described as 55
feet long by 12 feet wide. The description
states that the bridge is to accommodate small
vehicles (e.g. electric cart). The size of this
bridge and the permeable driveway and
parking area surrounding the ADU will
accommodate standard vehicles and trucks as
it is as wide as a freeway lane or single lane in
a street. If the bridge is envisioned to
accommodate small vehicles such as an
electric cart (golf cart), those vehicles are
typically 48” wide and thus the bridge should
be reduced in width for that type of vehicle. In
doing so, it would allow for less destruction
within the creek and wildlife corridor.
The description should be revised to include
the length of the bridge and the MND should
recommend reducing the width of the bridge to
6-8 feet wide to accommodate the envisioned
small vehicles e.g. electric cart.
2 In the fourth paragraph and Table 1
it states “The project as proposed
would provide a minimum set-back
of 5 feet from the interior side
yards, 15 feet from the rear
property line and 20 feet from a line
representing the edge of the
riparian vegetation associated with
the creek.” In the paragraph after
Table 1, it states “The project
includes a creek set-back
exception to allow an exception to
the creek set back requirement for
placement of the bridge and
associated footings and supports
within the set-back area and for
any encroachment of associated
paving and vehicle parking area
into the required creek set-back
area”
These statements in paragraph 4 and Table 1
are in conflict with the statement about the
creek set-back exception. The information in
the fourth paragraph and Table 1 should be
revised to state that there is an exception to
the creek-set back and the proposed minimum
setbacks are zero (0) for creek set-back due to
the bridge, associated vehicle roadway,
paving/parking and the exceptions being
requested. In addition Table 1 states the
allowed/required set-back for the ADU is 4 feet
per city code, but for this property there is a
sewer line easement that requires a 15 foot
set-back and the 15 feet plus 4 feet should be
listed in Table 1 under allowed/required.
2 In the second paragraph it states,
“Other design features include
concrete steps, stone paving, grass
paving and a stone clad-wall”.
This description is incomplete as the design
includes per Figure 2 (on page 6) includes a
swimming pool. Furthermore, per Figure 2 the
design includes a wall within the creek set-
back area but is not described in this section
of the document. The wall height is depicted in
the project plans as 5.5 feet above ground and
Page 339 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
3
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
is shown to span entirely in the set-back.
Please revise this information to include the
pool and that the 5.5 foot wall and roadway is
entirely within the set-back area. The wall
should be included in what is being requested
in the exception for the set-back area.
2-3 The last sentence on page 2
states, “Without the bridge
crossing, this eastern portion of the
site would not be accessible.”
This sentence appears to be incomplete in
terms of the type of accessibility being stated.
The eastern portion of the site is accessible by
foot based upon the numerous visits to the site
by the project manager, the project planner
and City staff. Does this sentence imply the
eastern portion is not accessible by a vehicle?
If so, it should be revised to be clear on what
type of access in not accessible.
3 In the fourth paragraph there are
statements that “The project would
include installment of expanded
infrastructure to connect new
development to existing City
facilities. Utilities serving the ADU
would need to cross the on-site
portion of Twin Ridge Creek. The
project’s development plans
include two potential approaches
for the necessary extension of
utilities to the ADU 1)
trenching/undergrounding the
utilities below the creek or 2)
including the utilities in the bridge
span either handing (hanging?)
from the bridge or within the bridge
decking/enclosure. Because both
possibilities are shown on the
project plans, this environmental
assessment assumes that the
project proposed could include the
trenching/undergrounding of the
utilities below the creek as this
approach would be the most
environmental impactful”.
What is the basis of the assumption that
trenching/undergrounding would be most
impactful to the environment? Would this type
of activity impact the trees if the
undergrounding was sufficiently deep
underground to not disturb the trees and
vegetation? It is also unclear in the plans
provided in Attachment 1 that the utilities
would be placed underground as it appears
they are alongside the bridge. There is no
description in the plans that the utilities will be
trenched/undergrounded. Please clarify where
in the plans it is stated the utilities will either be
underground or on the bridge span.
Given the sensitive nature of Twin Ridge
Creek and Riparian Wildlife Corridor, it would
be a better option to develop the ADU on the
western portion of the parcel within the
building envelope and thus mitigating all
impacts to the creek and set-back. Why isn’t
there a mitigation calling for revised
conceptual plans that would not disturb the
creek and creek-set back areas at all?
16 In the fourth paragraph in the
Evaluation section it states, “The
project site is surrounded by
existing single-family residential
units; therefore, there are sensitive
receptor locations located in all
directions”. The next paragraph
This section of the evaluation does not include
information regarding Valley Fever
(coccidioides sp.) infections and the hazards
related to Valley Fever. Valley Fever is known
to be in San Luis Obispo County, which is
amongst the three highest counties in the state
to harbor the fungus. Thus, there is risk of
Page 340 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
4
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
further states that “Naturally
Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has
been identified as a toxic air
contaminant by the CARB. Any
ground disturbance proposed in an
area identified as having the
potential to contain NOA must
comply with the Airborne Toxics
Control Measures (ATCM) for
Construction, Grading, Quarrying,
and Surface Mining Operations.
The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates
that the project site is in an area
identified as having the potential for
NOA to occur”.
infection to persons exposed to the airborne
spores from this fungus. This risk should be
included in the evaluation and proposed
mitigations should be included to minimize the
risk to both workers and adjacent neighbors
from the significant disruption of the ground for
this project (0.8 acres out of 1.4 acres
according to the plans). There should be
sampling and testing for this fungus in the
ground similarly to the Asbestos testing by the
retention of a geologist as in AQ-3 on Page
20. There should be a separate mitigation
defined for the risks associated with Valley
Fever. Neighbors, not just those adjacent,
should be notified of the risks of NOA and
Valley Fever. Furthermore, are the mitigations
listed in AQ-2 sufficient to reduce the risk and
harms from Valley Fever? If not additional
mitigations should be proposed. Reference:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC
/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.aspx
24 Under section 4-Biological
Resources, Coopers hawk is listed
in Table 4, Special-Status Animal
Species Recorded by the CNDDB.
It is described as a potential to
occur as “Low potential in remnant
small patch of riparian habitat”.
On numerous occasions we have observed a
Cooper’s hawk on our back fence which is
adjacent to the eastern portion of 841 Patricia.
Hawks hunt for prey in the Wildlife Corridor on
841 Patricia and carry their prey to our fence.
The potential is much higher for Cooper’s
hawk to reside and use the riparian corridor
within Twin Ridge Creek. It is unclear the basis
of this low occurrence assessment. It is
recommended to revise this statement to
Moderate to High occurrence since we have
observed this bird to be present in the Riparian
Wildlife corridor.
27 Section (d) there is a statement
that “Twin Ridge Creek flows onto
the property through underground
culvert under Patricia Drive and
again along Westmont Ave. The
lack of a consistent open channel
impedes larger wildlife, such as
deer from effectively using the
creek as a movement corridor.”
This statement is incorrect for a couple points.
Specifically, 1) there are additional flows from
the storm drains located at 221 Twin Ridge
Drive and across the street from 221 Twin
Ridge Drive. This location is a low point from
either end of Twin Ridge Drive. These two
collection points drain all of the runoff into
Twin Ridge Creek. During the rainy season,
these two storm drains empty large volumes of
run-off into Twin Ridge Creek; and 2) we
observe deer on a regular basis using the
creek and riparian corridor to move through
841 Patricia and surrounding areas. One
recent observation was on September 23,
2022 where there was a young buck, a doe
Page 341 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
5
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
and fawn using the creek corridor.
Furthermore, in Attachment 3, the Biological
Resources Assessment, it states “the site can
provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species
that have become adapted to the urban
environment such as raccoons, opossums,
skunks, with evidence of deer, gopher and
ground squirrels observed”. We have
observed these animals as well as rabbits,
turkey vultures and wild turkeys. The sentence
on page 27 should be revised to be consistent
with the BRA report and reflect that deer and
other wildlife actually do use the Twin Ridge
Creek as a movement corridor.
28-29 Mitigation Measures, Bio-3: “…The
Applicant shall provide copies of
the permits/authorizations from
affected resource agencies,
including a final revegetation plan
that is consistent with the
revegetation plan provided in the
Addendum to the Biologic
Resources
Assessment”.(Attachment 4)
“Vegetation removal shall be kept
at the minimum necessary for
bridge clearance and construction
of the necessary footings and
supports. Initial removal of
vegetation shall be monitored full-
time by a qualified biologist, and
weekly spot-check monitoring shall
continue throughout construction of
the bridge structure.”
Why doesn’t this mitigation measure
specifically state the minimum requirements
for replanting trees that were removed? The
BRA addendum in Attachment 4, proposes to
replant the up to 17 oak trees with 1 gallon
trees and to replace the Arroyo Willow’s with
20 willow sprigs. According to the City’s Tree
Regulations (Municipal Code 12.24), per
12.24.090 (C.2), removal of a tree in a creek
set-back area requires a permit. Therefore, it
should be clearly stated that there needs to be
a permit requested to remove any trees in the
creek set-back area. Some of these trees are
being removed within the creek proper.
Section 12.24.090(J), Compensatory Tree
Planting, states “Tree removals authorized
under subsection E or F of this section shall
be compensated by planting a minimum of one
new tree for each tree authorized to be
removed when planted on the same property
(on site).” Further in this section is a table
indicating the size of tree to be replanted
based upon diameter of the tree removed and
the City’s engineering standards. According to
this table, trees that are between 0.75” and
1.5” are to be replanted with a 15 gallon tree.
Trees between 1.5” and 2.5” are to be planted
with a 24” box. However, according to the
proposed replanting plan in the BRA
addendum, the sizes of the trees are 1 gallon
for the Oak trees and sprigs for the Arroyo
Willows. Bio-3 should be revised to
recommend the same standards as defined by
the City Code for Tree Removal 12.24.090 and
to require larger trees to be replanted to
Page 342 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
6
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
ensure revegetation of the creek corridor.
What are the implications if the project causes
more trees that defined in the BRA addendum
need to be removed?
We strongly urge the City to preserve this
wildlife corridor by asking that the project be
redesigned to mitigate impacts to the creek by
building all dwellings on the west side of the
building envelope.
29 The conclusion states, “The project
would be set-back 20 feet from the
approximate top of bank of Twin
Ridge Creek and would not conflict
with local plans or policies for
protection of biological resources
with implementation of the
identified mitigation measures.”
This statement is incorrect. It should be
revised given that the project is not set-back
20 feet from the approximate top of bank
because the bridge and roadway encroaches
both the creek set-back and creek itself. The
plans do conflict with local plans and policies
and thus the need to mitigate harms and risks
as well as requiring a request for an exception
to the set-back criteria defined by City
Municipal Code. This conclusion needs
revision for accuracy to the facts of the
proposed development.
38 Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Table
6 “The project would include a
mixed-fuel building. As proposed,
the project would document
compliance with the City’s Energy
Reach Code on final construction
plans to be approved by the City.”
This statement should reference Attachment 1,
Project Plans to be specific where this
commitment is proposed. As well, is it either
dwellings or just the main house that is mixed
fuel? It should be clear that all calculations
are based upon which dwellings.
Given the mixed fuel use with this project, it
should be very clear that the project should be
fully compliant with CBC requirements for
mixed fuel dwellings.
40-42 Hazardous and Hazardous
Materials
This evaluation does not include the hazard of
airborne illness due to the Valley Fever fungus
(Coccidioides sp). This section should be
revised to be consistent with the Air Quality
Section regarding this risk of hazard within the
ground to be disrupted during construction.
Page 343 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
7
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
44 The evaluation in paragraph (b)
states, “Implementation of the
project would result in 12,540 sf of
new impervious surfaces including
a single-family residence, an ADU
and other hardscapes”. This
paragraph also states “To further
allow for groundwater infiltration
on-site, the project would maintain
the on-site creek and associated
corridor, construct driveways with
permeable pavers and reduce
driveway width where feasible”.
What is meant by other hardscapes? This
should be revised to be specific to include
walkways, a swimming pool, pool deck, patios,
etc.
The next statement quoted is not consistent as
while the creek may remain intact, there is a
55 foot by 12 foot steel bridge constructed
within the creek. This fact should be explicitly
stated. Furthermore, there is nothing stated in
the initial study to remove or reduce the
driveway width where feasible, so this point
should also be revised. There should be a
specific point to reduce the size of the bridge
and driveways to be consistent with the use of
an electric cart as previously stated in the
document.
The project should be redesigned to mitigate
impacts to the creek by building all dwellings
on the west side of the building envelope.
44 c,i-iii states that “Based upon the
Preliminary Hydrology Study
prepared by Chacon Associates,
LLC (Attachment 5) for the project,
the proposed bridge would be
required to be a minimum of 2.5
feet above the creek bottom to
allow for potential 100-year flood
flows.
Is the 2 feet of freeboard recommended
sufficient to mitigate flooding especially from
debris that could be carried in Twin Ridge
Creek to the bridge? Should there be
additional clearance for flows given the
topography of the site and creek area? In this
era of climate change, is a 100 year flood
standard reasonable? We have observed
flooding of this area in the past given the creek
channel is very shallow. We recommend there
be additional mitigations to address flooding
risk from the alterations to the creek due to
construction of the bridge. Those mitigations
should include removing the bridge from the
plans and building the ADU on the western
side of the property.
45-46 Land Use Planning This section does not include the points that
the project requires an exception to the creek
and creek set-back regulations in the City
Municipal Code. This section should be explicit
that while the use is consistent with the zoning
of the property, the project is requiring
exceptions in order to build an ADU on the
eastern portion of the property. The impacts
could be reduced if the project did not build on
the eastern portion of the property and
maintained all dwellings within the western
side of the property.
Page 344 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
8
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
47-50 Noise: On page 48, the paragraph
under Table 7 states “the municipal
code also states that construction
activities shall be conducted in a
manner where technically and
economically feasible, that
maximum noise levels at affected
properties will not exceed 85 A-
weighted decibel (dBA) at mixed
residential uses”.
This statement is incorrect. This is not a mixed
residential use (residential/commercial) as
defined in the City Code for Noise Control-
9.12. This project should be defined as
residential per 9.12.020-Definitions.
Furthermore, under 9.12.060, Exterior Noise
limits states, “At residential properties, the
maximum noise level from 7am-7pm daily
except Sundays and Holidays is 75 dBA.
Thus, the statement on Page 48 should be
revised to reflect the City Code for Noise
Control of 75 dBA. Furthermore, the
equipment listed in Table 8 on page 48
exceeds the Noise Control limits. It is unclear
whether the mitigations listed in N-1 to N-3 are
sufficient to reduce the noise levels to an
acceptable level below 75 dBA. Further
evaluation is warranted and subsequent
mitigations to reduce the noise level to the
allowable maximum limit.
57 Utilities and Service Systems-under
(b) it states “The project’s
estimated water demand is
08af/yr., which would be provided
by the City’s water supply.” And
“Development of this site is
consistent with the City’s long-
range planning documents, and
thus has been anticipated by the
City’s water supply planning.”
Does this evaluation take into account the
water usage by having an in-ground pool at
the property? It should be clearly stated in the
evaluation that the estimates include not only
used based upon the number of residents, but
also that there is a swimming pool planned for
the project.
Page 345 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
9
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
60-61 Mandatory Findings of Significance
(b) “With implementation of the
identified project specific mitigation
measures and payment of the
City’s standard Development
Impact fees, the individual effects
of the project would be marginal
and cumulative effects of the
project would not be cumulatively
considerable.”
This section on does not include the
description of the 55 foot long by 12 foot wide
steel bridge across the creek and within the
creek area as well as the associated
driveways and parking areas necessary to
place the ADU in the eastern portion of the
property. This span creates impact to the
City’s own Municipal Code for creek
preservation and requires an exception to
those regulations. This section should state
those facts and that the exception needs
approval in order to build the bridge in the
creek which significantly impacts the creek
area. It should also be stated that other
mitigations could be done, such as to build the
project in the western side of the property
within the building envelope and thus to not
disturb the creek and maintain the creek set-
back.
This entire section should be revised to reflect
the numerous mitigations that are necessary in
order to mitigate the impacts of building the
bridge and associated driveways and parking
spaces for the eastern side of the property.
67-72 Required mitigation and monitoring
plan
These sections should be revised based upon
the comments provided for the specific
sections of the initial study document to be
consistent with the initial study corrections
needed to make the report accurate and
complete.
69 Monitoring Program states “The
requirement of Mitigation Measure
BIO-2 that the utility extensions to
the ADU be attached to the bridge
span (either within or hanging from)
rather than below ground shall be
specified on the project plans and
submitted to the City. Compliance
shall be verified through submittal
of a nesting migratory bird survey
report to the City Community
Development Department.”
The proposed compliance verification for BIO-
2 appears to be in error since it refers to the
nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2
mitigation is about the extension of the utilities
and that no trenching across the creek shall
occur for the extension of utilities. This error
should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would
seem more appropriate that compliance for
BIO-2 should be included in the plans for
grading and/or construction, including the
details on where the utilities will be located for
the extensions. Verification then would be
done through regular inspections of the project
by City staff.
70 Land Use Planning-Monitoring
Program states “The requirement
of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that
The proposed compliance verification for BIO-
2 appears to be in error since it refers to the
nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2
Page 346 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
10
Page
Number
Document Text Comments
the utility extensions to the ADU be
attached to the bridge span (either
within or hanging from) rather than
below ground shall be specified on
the project plans and submitted to
the City. Compliance shall be
verified through submittal of a
nesting migratory bird survey report
to the City Community
Development Department.”
mitigation is about the extension of the utilities
and that no trenching across the creek shall
occur for the extension of utilities. This error
should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would
seem more appropriate that compliance for
BIO-2 should be included in the plans for
grading and/or construction, including the
details on where the utilities will be located for
the extensions. Verification then would be
done through regular inspections of the project
by City staff.
71 Utilities and Service Systems
states “The requirement of
Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that the
utility extensions to the ADU be
attached to the bridge span (either
within or hanging from) rather than
below ground shall be specified on
the project plans and submitted to
the City. Compliance shall be
verified through submittal of a
nesting migratory bird survey report
to the City Community
Development Department.”
The proposed compliance verification for BIO-
2 appears to be in error since it refers to the
nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2
mitigation is about the extension of the utilities
and that no trenching across the creek shall
occur for the extension of utilities. This error
should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would
seem more appropriate that compliance for
BIO-2 should be included in the plans for
grading and/or construction, including the
details on where the utilities will be located for
the extensions. Verification then would be
done through regular inspections of the project
by City staff.
Summary:
We believe this initial study/MND is in need of significant revision due to errors, omissions and
additional mitigations needed. We would like to express our severe concerns about the project
plans specifying the steel bridge across Twin Ridge Creek will be 12 feet wide by 55 feet long.
The plans also show a retaining wall 5.5 feet high spanning about half of the property’s length.
The wall is located within the riparian vegetation and creek set-back. The proposed bridge
design is sufficiently wide to allow a car or truck to drive from the main house through a
roadway, cross the bridge and park at the ADU. As our home is adjacent to 841, we are very
concerned that headlights will add to the already increased light pollution created by this project.
The extensiveness of this development impacts the creek and wildlife corridor to such a degree
that it is not consistent with the surrounding habitat and we believe the creek’s riparian
vegetation will be negatively impacted. The trees surrounding the creek and wildlife corridor are
native and protected. Even with any defined mitigations, the risks to permanently damaging this
sensitive environment are too high. We do not think that the scale of the bridge and driveway
are appropriate for this type of development and should not be allowed due to harmful impacts
to the creek, wildlife corridor and neighborhood.
Page 347 of 427
Comments to Initial Study and Required Mitigations and Monitoring Programs for EID-0547-2021
11
The proposed development project should be revised to place all dwellings on the western side
of the creek set-back. This redesign would mitigate all the impacts to Twin Ridge Creek due to
placing the roadways, walls, parking area and extremely large bridge within the creek and set-
back of the riparian vegetation by eliminating these design features and need for a creek set-
back exception.
According to San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations under Creek Setbacks, 17.16.025(G.4),
Discretionary Exceptions,
a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are intended to allow
reasonable use of sites that are subject to creek set-backs, where there is no practicable
alternative to the exception. Generally, such exceptions are limited to small parcels that
are essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with setbacks smaller than
those in subsection E of this section. In the case of pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and
bridges, the site may be large but there are no options for avoiding a crossing of the
creek or encroaching into the creek setback.
The development at 841 Patricia does not fit the intent of an exception given there are other
options to develop on the 1.4 acre parcel and those options include redesign of the dwellings to
all be located on the western side of the creek and within the larger building envelope of the
parcel. Allowing such a large exception to the creek setback at 841 Patricia would set a
damaging precedent for San Luis Obispo in this R-1 zoned area.
Page 348 of 427
Page 349 of 427
Page 350 of 427
From:Kathy apRoberts
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 11:06:09 AM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
October 7, 2022
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo:
Looking at the property at 841 Patricia Drive, the lot area contained by the minimum lot and
creek setbacks and excluding the ‘flag’ for the driveway - effectively the ‘by-right’
developable envelope- is approximately 15,500 square feet. At 40% maximum coverage
(6,200 square feet) this project and the ADU (5,260sf + 830sf = 6,120 sf) could be designed
and constructed to be together on the west side of the creek. This very conservative approach
to developable area and lot coverage clearly demonstrates the project could be redesigned to
avoid the need for the requested creek setback exception - a request that is undeniably one of
choice, not necessity.
Outside of the building footprints, the site development also includes a large pool, extensive
patios and terraces, all choices made that inhibit the potential for the ADU to be included on
the west side of the creek. With adjustments to those outdoor areas - and perhaps even by
requesting a creek setback exception for the pool - additional space could be maintained on
the west side of the creek and facilitate placement of the ADU without compromising
separation and privacy between the two homes, and without requiring the severe impacts of
installing a road and bridge to cross over and through the creek bed. The road and bridge are
substantially larger impacts than the ADU itself in terms of surface area and creek
encroachment.
Per the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.70.030.G.4.c findings must be made to grant an
exception to the required creek setbacks. Finding #4 indicates that there needs to
be “circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.” Over 6,000 square
feet of building footprint, large terraces, and a pool to not reflect a deprivation of privilege, is
quite the opposite. Finding #7 requires that “site development cannot be feasibly accomplished
with a redesign of the project.” As noted above, a redesign is entirely feasible, it just would
not have a bridge. This is supported by text regarding Finding #8 that “in the case of new
development (reasonable use of the property) may include less development than indicated by
zoning.”
The Initial Study mentions that “without the bridge crossing, the eastern portion of the site
would not be accessible.” This may be true, but the property owner has no right to vehicular
access across a waterway. Undoubtedly, outside of the rainy season, access by foot across the
creek would be easily achieved.
Page 351 of 427
Please include this correspondence in the City Files EID-0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021
Respectfully,
Jim and Kathy apRoberts
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo
Page 352 of 427
From:R. Judson Clark
To:Oetzell, Walter
Cc:Nara Clark
Subject:841 Patricia Drive Project comments
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 1:21:18 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Dr. Mr Oetzell,
Thank you for your consideration of an extension to review the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the 841 Patricia Drive (APN 052-520-063) project. This is an overwhelming task
for your average citizen that is not in the real estate development or legal fields. We will do our best to share our
concerns. Please include this in the case file: EID-0547-0201, ARCH-00402021
1. We are curious if all parties involved within the City have actually walked the property at 841 Patricia drive and
witnessed what the creek and wildlife corridor look like in person? Although the City has in place protections for the
creek and the surrounding riparian area, its hard to protect something that you've never seen. Our hope is that all
parties involved take the time to visit the site and to take in the surrounding area as the proposed bridge through the
creek and riparian area are not what the City laws have in place to protect. We believe the owners have every right
to build on their property however feel that there is ample room to have an ADU and storage shed on the main
development site without having to encroach upon a protected creek, riparian area, and wildlife corridor.
2. We would like further information on the initial study environmental checklist as to why an Environmental
Impact Report is currently not required? We don't feel like the Mitigated Negative Declaration truly delves into the
negative environmental effects that will take place by cutting down a large quantity of naturally occurring willows
along the creek to make way for a 55 foot long 12 foot wide bridge to cross the creek to get to an ADU unit and
storage shed that will also impact a large portion of the riparian and wild life corridor areas.
3. HYDROLOGY/FLOODING: We have lived in this neighborhood since 2002 and have witnessed on multiple
occasions heavy rainfall that has resulted in the entire open are behind our house and within the proposed shed,
ADU unit, and bridge flooded with water. As homeowners that back up to the proposed project, we are extremely
worried that any change to the creek flow can result in a disastrous flooding situation that can affect neighbors
within the entire creek area including further downstream from the project. We don't believe the impact study takes
into account current models of precipitation that could impact our area due to the adverse affects of climate change.
Last year we didn't get much annual rainfall but the one big storm we had dropped almost 7 inches of rain in a 2 day
period that did cause considerable ponding and areas of localized flooding. This is a situation that could happen
more frequently than previously planned for based on the traditional 100 year or 500 year storm models.
4. We would also like to challenge the report under Aesthetics letter a: This project if approved with the bridge and
ADU and shed, will have a potentially significant and substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. I'm confused as to
why the initial report is checked with a less than significant impact. This may be true for the main building site but
not the bridge, ADU, and shed. Not only will neighbors that back up to the project have a significant aesthetic
impact but anyone walking or running on Patricia past the creek area will be exposed to an anomaly that is not
congruent with the aesthetics for the rest of the neighborhood or open space. We would also like to challenge letter
c: and believe that approval of the bridge, ADU unit and Shed will have a significant impact and degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its surroundings. Under letter d) we also feel that
the ADU unit and shed will create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area. We would like to add that having the ADU unit will not only create light pollution for
our neighborhood but potential noise issues as well depending on who the owners rent the property to.
5. Land Use and Planning letter b: We would also like to challenge the finding that this project will have less than a
significant impact with mitigation incorporated 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: We believe the City
has standards and laws in place to protect the creeks, riparian areas and wildlife corridors for a reason. It is one of
the City's missions and to establish a precedent of approval to build a bridge, ADU unit and shed across a protected
Page 353 of 427
creek, riparian area and wildlife corridor goes against what the City of San Luis Obispo is trying to protect. If
approved this project will literally pave the way for any landowner with property spanning across a creek, riparian
area and wildlife corridor in San Luis Obispo to ask for an exception to build a bridge, ADU unit and storage sheds
in what was once a protected area. I will reiterate, we are not against the owners building on the primary site,
however feel it is unnecessary given the lot size and dimensions to encroach or build through a riparian area by
removing naturally occurring protected willows over a protected creek into a wildlife corridor.
6. Biological Resources Assessment: I would like to state that in fact there are multiple areas along the creek within
the building area that have ponding that can be present into late May and sometimes June depending on how much
rain we received in the prior months. Years ago when my daughter was 7 or 8 years old we were cleaning up debris
in the creek and were surprised and excited to find turtles in one of the ponding areas located within the proposed
building site. We haven't seen turtles in a long time but haven't been specifically looking for them. We can also say
with certainty that Coopers Hawk's frequent the creek and riparian areas almost daily. We have also witnessed the
yellow-breasted chat on occasion. The creek and riparian areas also have many deer on a year round basis and
higher rates during birthing months.
7. Is it possible for the City to post at the entrance to the 841 property the proposed project with a concept design so
the community can better understand the significance of this project and how it will negatively impact the creek,
riparian area, and wildlife corridor? It's easy for community members to not know what's going on unless something
is visibly in place for them to read while they are out and about on a walk or run.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. We are sure there will be more questions that come up
and we will share those with you in the appropriate forum.
Take care,
Jud and Nara Clark
Page 354 of 427
From:Tom Eltzroth
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:Response to Notice of Intent; 841 Patricia Drive
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 3:50:44 PM
Attachments:Referenced Document.pdf
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Community Development DepartmentCity of San Luis Obispo919 Palm StSan Luis Obispo CA 93401Attn: Walter Oetzell, Assistant Planner
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
Please consider this response to the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Draft
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Michaels Residence Project (City Files EID-0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021). Project Location 841 Patricia Drive. We own andreside permanently at 847 Patricia Drive. Ours is the property immediately to the leftof the Michaels' driveway and immediately in front of the main portion of theproposed residence. We are responding to a portion of The Initial Study andMitigated Negative Declaration. Specifically we are responding to the 21-pagedocument that is referred to as "Project Plans (Jun [sic] 17, 2022)", also sometimes
referenced as Attachment 1. We are uncertain about the exact title and date of this
document because dates other than Jun/June 17, 2022 appear on several pages of
the document, so to make clear which document we are referencing it is included as
an attachment to this email with the title we have given it - "Referenced Document".Please consider the attachment as part of our response.
From our reading and careful review of the referenced document, it is ourunderstanding that:1. As shown in "Site Section 2 @ Living" (page A4?) the highest point of theresidence roof will not exceed an elevation of 375.57
2. As shown in "Site Section 1 @ Garage" (page A4?) the highest point of the garage
roof will not exceed an elevation of 376.48
3. As shown in the "Schematic Site Plan" (AS-1) no portion of the residence will be
closer than 27' 11" to our back property line
Overall, we are favorably impressed by the plans as shown in the referenceddocument. More specifically, we favor the style, color scheme, and exterior materialsand details of the buildings as called out in the plans. We are also happy to see theplanned use of extensive permeable paving and a landscape plan that suggests the
intention to use what appears to be appropriate plants, mulching, and hardscaping
along with appropriate irrigation technology. We note that several plants have been
called out that are favorable to birds, bees, butterflies, and other pollinators.
Landscape plans are sometimes difficult to read and interpret, in part because of theuse of symbols that are very similar to other symbols on the plan; consequently,we make this note regarding the landscape plan as presented: from the MasterLandscape Plan (L-1) it appears that Citrus X sinensis will be planted along the leftside of the driveway parallel to our property. The ultimate height of Citrus X sinensis
Page 355 of 427
varies depending largely on cultivar selection, rootstock, and ongoing maintenance -
especially pruning. In a typical residential setting most selections of Citrus X sinensisare kept at about 8' to 10' tall for convenience of harvesting, maintenance, etc.However, many cultivars of this species can reach an ultimate height of nearly 30',especially if left unattended. At that height the plants will possibly negatively impactsolar collection on existing and/or future solar panels.
Though grading and drainage are somewhat addressed in the referenced document,
we want to express this concern: any changes in grading and/or drainage in the
referenced project shall not cause water to flow onto or seep or otherwise permeate
into any neighboring property other than what may be occurring presently.
Thank you,
Thomas E. and Mary Kay Eltzroth847 Patricia DriveSan Luis Obispo, CA 93405-1069
Page 356 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 7,7/(6+((70,&+$(/65(6,'(1&(352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5&/,(17 (5,&$1'-8/,(0,&+$(/60,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &/,(175(35(6(17$7,9( %5(77+$%$50,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 %5(77+$%$53+21( (0$,/ %*+$%$5#*0$,/&20352-(&73/$11(5 2$6,6$662&,$7(6,1&0,*8(/,72&28576$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 &$52/)/25(1&(3+21( (;7(0$,/ &0)#2$6,6$662&&20$5&+,7(&7 550'(6,*1*52836+,*8(5$675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 ('',(+(55(5$3+21( (0$,/ (0+(55(5$#550'(6,*1&20&,9,/(1*,1((5 &+$&21$662&,$7(6//&3$/20$5$9($7$6&$'(52&$ &217$&7 .(11(7+-&+$&213(3+21( (0$,/ .&+$&21#&+$&21$662&&20/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7 )257,1,6+,*8(5$675((76$1/8,62%,632&$ &217$&7 :(6$52/$3+21( (0$,/ :(6#)257,1,/$1'6&$3(6&20352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7352326(6$1(: 648$5()227 6) 6,1*/()$0,/<&867205(6,'(1&(21$181'(9(/23(')/$*/27:,7+,1$&,5&$ 5(6,'(17,$/68%',9,6,21,1$'',7,217+(352-(&7,1&/8'(6$1648$5()227 6) '(7$&+('$&&(6625<':(//,1*81,77+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(+20(6 6 ,6&216,'(5('´&217(0325$5<&5$)760$1µ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·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6,'(·µ 6(($5&+6,7(5($5·µ 6(($5&+6,7(6)'2)%('52206$'82)%('52206 (;&(037)5203$5.,1*5(48,5(0(1765(48,5('6)'3$5.,1*&29(5('63$&(663$&(6)257+(),567%('52206$1'63$&(63(5($&+$'',7,21$/%('52207$%/(7+,63/$1+$6%('52206$1',65(48,5('72+$9(7+(0,1,08063$&(65(48,5('$'83$5.,1*63$&(6$'86'21275(48,5($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*727$/5(48,5('3$5.,1*63$&(63529,'('3$5.,1*63$&(6%,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5('63$&(6 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'('63$&(6),5(635,1./(565(46)' 1)3$'$'8 1)3$'$ 7,7/(6+((7$ (;,67,1*7232& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*3/$1& 75((6859(</ 0$67(5/$1'6&$3(3/$1/ 5($5<$5'/ )5217$872&2857$ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1$ 6,7(%8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7($5,$/0$3$ %$6(0(17/(9(/0$,15(6,'(1&($ *5281')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 6(&21')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 522)3/$10$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/60$,15(6,'(1&($ 3(563(&7,9(9,(:60$,15(6,'(1&($ )/225$1'522)3/$1$'8$ (/(9$7,216$'8$ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/6$'8727$/6+((76 352-(&7$5($65(6,'(1&(&21',7,21(' *5281')/225 6)(168,7( 6)6(&21')/225 6)727$/ 6)5(6,'(1&(81&21',7,21(' %$6(0(17 6)*$5$*( 6)287'225/,9,1* 6)*5((1+286( 6)&29325&+(175< 6)(168,7('(&. 6)%$/&21< 6)9(5$1'$ 6)87,/,7< 67$,56 6)$'8&21',7,21(' 6)$'881&21',7,21(' 3$7,2 6)'(&. 6)$&&(6625<%8,/',1* *$5'(16725$*( 6)" '!%# %
$"
$ $
$ # # !"# " # # !"# "
%!&$&$
#
&$%'!!!
"
"
&
*-.+%
*, )+ **)&
!$ "
! $ " #
yWƌŽũĞĐƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚϬϭͬϭϰͬϮϭ&203/,$1&(67$7(0(17)25067!7&(5<.56.7575 "
# && $*!$#'$ &%"" &!&"$! & ! !)&! " %&$'&! % %& &$&! ' -
% !&&&&%($&! !$ %!$$$ ! * !% !& &!%' &&)&&
$ &"" &! - $*!%$ &! &!&&& $*!#'$ &%-&( 9.5.64
$! &! &! #'$ &! " ' 3 %&$'&! % )! %&$'&! '%& &&! !) ,
0
58-47-554+ $-6:;81 "
'#!$ (*'
%
" #"$! &% '%&"$!$ ""$!%")& &756< !$ $+!% '%&! ! %&$&&& $+ +%
& !& $!"!%' % !$&$& & $+ +%
& !$&& $'
!& $+%
& !& $!"!%' % %%& &!& $+%
& !&& $% ' +&! !) ' &$%! %=- $
"#<
$'&! $
"#<.9
$'&!
'% $
" #"$! &% $/$&' &! '1
&$!&
+1$#'$ &%.
$+! $!$ !$
)' !) &&& &% ! " & '! & *%&&& !&" %&.
&&'
$ &"" &! + ! %&$&! " )&& $*! "&! 6 &
$ &
%- $*! " %&% $"!$&% '%&%!)&&&"$! &% ! " )&& ! $*!+" '%&%&&)$#'$ &%-' ! " %)&&"$!$ %& $%& $*! %' "&! !$&
$!"!%% ' % !$&$& & $*'& ' &!$&& $% ' '% ! %%! /$&! " %!&)$ & ' $'&! % &-! " &!"*!&'
$ &$&&!! " !"*!&' $&&!! " % ' &" %&%)&& $*! " !' &&! -
%& %'$%% &! & $*! " "!$&)& &
$ &
%- * % '$ ! %&$'&! "& & $*! " "!$&%!' $(% $%' &&-' %"&! $&&!! " &""$!(" %% % "$!$&!&' -' &&! %"&! &(&%!'& &3%$2%'&!
$ &%3-:8
! &%&!& !$ $*!+&! 574-4- 574-5 !'
57-46-554-=2%$1%'&!
$ &%2)" %&"$ &"$!%% %& %! & %"&! "$!%%-%&&&*1%' 3&*
$ &!$ %3"" &! %("-9 $*% & /0%%! $* %&(!! "! &%,& $* *% & + &! $ &$ $&! ) &*% & -! $ &$: . &$' % ! &'$ %" ' %& (& &' '%% &$&*%&%!'$! $*!$ %"& +(&$& +!! "" %+ !&%$* "" %- . &$' *" ' !$&'%! &'$ %%' !$"" % ! $ & -;"" %&! ($% & ! %&$'&! ! ).' ' + ' $! %&$'&! ! ! %' ) ' ' &! % &$&! %! *&*"&&! !& && &! ! ! &! -<&1 $+! $!$ !$
)' %' %1!$ %&$'&! % $#'$%' && %.ATTACHMENT 1Page 357 of 427
3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&($352-(&712 56$35,/(;,67,1*72326,7(3/$1(;,67,1*7232*5$3+,&6859(<6,7(3/$1 ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7
5h
'
/0h
'
/$#5+5«1(«$'#4+0)50h
'
/0h
9
/5h
9
/5h
'
/5h
9
/
9,.99/9(E) WOOD FENCE(E) ENTRY GATE & COLUMNSEXISTING SHRUBS(E) 6' WD FENCEEDGE OF DENSE VEGETATION(E) BLOCK RETAINING WALLSEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTPUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENTEDGE OF RIPARIAN VEGETATIONP A T R I C I A D R I V E (E) WATER METER(E) ELEC(E) FIRE HYDRANT(E) TOPOGRAPHYNYARD SETBACK20' - 0" MIN.Y A R D S E T B A C K
5 ' - 0" M IN .YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.YARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN. BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSBUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKS(E) WATER MAIN(E) SEWER MAINYARD SETBACK5' - 0" MIN.(E) SHED TO BE REMOVEDEASEMENT30' - 0"EASEMENT15' - 0"EASEMENT20' - 0"EASEMENT
30' - 0"BUILDABLE AREA OUTSIDE OF SETBACKSEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKEDGE OF CREEK SETBACKCREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"CREEK SETBACK20' - 0"9,&,1,7<0$3ATTACHMENT 1Page 358 of 427
340341342343344UPUP350350
SHALLOW
DEEP
SHALLOW
SHALLOWSHALLOW 335335335335340340340
345345345345345350350350350332332333333334334336336337337337337337337338
338338338
339
339339339339339
341341341342342342342343343343344344344346346346346346347347347347348348348348349349349349351351351
351352352352352353353353353 7600 Morro RoadAtascadero, CA 93422(805) 610-1714#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021Ch conATTACHMENT 1Page 359 of 427
6
(
01
(
0%$6,62)%($5,1*61
(
01
:
06
:
06
(
0
6
:
06)+6:03$75,&,
$
'
5
,
9
(6)+6:06 ( :22')(1&((;,67,1*6+58%6 (
:')(1&( ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(1738%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(176859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 3$75,&
,
$
'
5
,
9
(<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'
6
(
7
%
$
&
.
0,
1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($$$$5(6,'(1&(
$'8322/*$5$*(&29325&+*5((1+286(6+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(6625<6725$*(75$6+&217$,1(5/2&$7,21:35,9$&<6&5((1($6(0(17
$&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
($6(0(17
($6(0(17
( (175<*$7( &2/8016 ( :$7(50(7(5 ( (/(& ( ),5(+<'5$17 ( :$7(50$,1 ( 6(:(50$,1<$5'6(7%$&.
0,16,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7
#5,'*(
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$
$$6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
2))6(7
$66)/27$5($6)/27$5($&5((.$5($12786(',1/27&29(5$*(&$/& ( %/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23($&&(66%5,'*(($6(0(17
6859(<('9(*(7$7,21/,1( 0%6/$1'6859(<6$8*867 2))6(7
2))6(7
$'83$7,2678',2(+'(+',QF :HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$ S H HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP$60,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$13$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$BUHY
$6$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(758(1257+*5$3+,&6&$/(ATTACHMENT 1Page 360 of 427
ATTACHMENT 1Page 361 of 427
TREESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNKARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD` DR. HURD COMMON MANZANITACERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNKCITRUS X LIMON `IMPROVED MEYER` MEYER LEMONCITRUS X SINENSIS SWEET ORANGEFEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAFICUS CARICA COMMON FIGFORTUNELLA MARGARITA `NAGAMI` KUMQUATLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKLAURUS NOBILIS `SARATOGA` SARATOGA BAY LAURELPLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNKSHRUBSBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEACANTHUS MOLLISBEAR`S BREECHALYOGYNE HUEGELIIBLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI `POINT REYES` POINT REYES KINNIKINNICKBACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT`PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSHCEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALISCARMEL CREEPERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUMSMALL CAPE RUSHFESTUCA RUBRA `MOLATE`MOLATE RED FESCUEHEUCHERA SANGUINEACORAL BELLSHYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIAOAKLEAF HYDRANGEALANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `SPREADING WHITE` WHITE TRAILING LANTANALAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA `HIDCOTE`HIDCOTE LAVENDERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIAPINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENSDEER GRASSORIGANUM VULGAREOREGANOPHORMIUM X `SEA JADE`NEW ZEALAND FLAXRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE`CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYROSE (SELECTED BY OWNER)--ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `IRENE` TMIRENE TRAILING ROSEMARYROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARYSALVIA NEMOROSA `BUMBLEBLUE`BUMBLEBLUE PERENNIAL SALVIASALVIA OFFICINALISGARDEN SAGESALVIA X `WAVERLY`WAVERLY SAGESANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUSLAVENDER COTTONSESLERIA X `GREENLEE`GREENLEE MOOR GRASSSTACHYS BYZANTINALAMB`S EARTEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYSGERMANDERTHYMUS VULGARISCOMMON THYMEWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI`MUNDI COAST ROSEMARYWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `WYNABBIE GEM` WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARYVINESBOTANICAL NAMECOMMON NAMEFICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIGTRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES CHINESE STAR JASMINEVITIS X `ROGERS RED` ROGERS RED CALIFORNIA GRAPEUPREFWUP337338339341342343344346347348349351352353336337338339341342343344340345350335340SFHSWM350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWMASTERLANDSCAPEPLANL-1PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE03.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATEPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREENED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3" OF BARK MULCHIRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATERCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.A WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THEIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THEMINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE.ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES, SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BEREGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.ALL LAWN AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATIONOR HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY IRRIGATIONCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTTHE DESIGN WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FORWATER CONSERVATION THROUGH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPEIRRIGATION DESIGN. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THEMWELO_____________________WES AROLA - CA 5958( In Feet )1 inch = 20 feetGRAPHIC SCALE80402010020PATRICIAADUBRIDGE
GARAGERESIDENCEPRELIMINARY PLANT LISTSEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-2SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-3LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHRUB PLANTINGSSSSMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREESEECLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVEOVNED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPEAP" OF BARK MULCHAMPLY WITH THELOCAL AND STATE WATERANTHE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FORVAERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.TONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THELLDAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THETECH HYDROZONE.ROOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,ERHAT ONCEESTABLISHEDWATERCAN BEAPLANTING DESIGN CRITERIATHE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMKNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CGROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREEAREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN3IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIATHE IRRIGATIONDESIGNWILL COMCONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. TTHE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATEA WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONIRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE MINIMUMREQUIREMENTS FOR EACALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOON SEPARATE HYDROZONESSOTPRELIMINARY WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONSATTACHMENT 1Page 362 of 427
UP337338339341342343344346347348349351352340345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWCORELANDSCAPEPLANL-2PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101INFINITY POOL 16x38STONE PAVING WITH NATURALIZEDEDGENATURAL LAWNWITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATIONSTAGGERED CONCRETE STEPSDECKING WITH RAILINGRETAINING WALL, BOARD FORMCONCRETE OR SMOOTH STUCCONATURAL LAWN OR MOWED MEADOWSPA/GYM PATIOGROTTO STYLE SPAPLANTING AREA, TYPPAVER RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO ADUBRIDGELIGHTWEIGHT STEEL OVERHEAD SHADESTRUCTUREOUTDOOR KITCHENGRASS PAVINGGRAVITY BLOCK RETAINING WALLSTONE CLAD ACCENT WALLDESIGN KEY23456789101112131223445678910101010111213141415151516161610ATTACHMENT 1Page 363 of 427
UP346347348349351352353345350350350SHALLOWDEEPSHALLOWSHALLOWSHALLOWLANDSCAPEPLANL-3PROJECT MANAGERWES AROLADRAWN BYWES AROLADATE01.11.2021MICHAELS RESIDENCE841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPOLANDSCAPE PLANSITEM#DATE( In Feet )1 inch = 10 feetGRAPHIC SCALE40201050101DRY STACKED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATELANDSCAPE TERRACESBLOCK RETAINING WALL COVERED IN VINESPERMEABLE LINEAR PAVERSACCENT TREES POSITIONED TO PROVIDE PRIVACYGAPPED STEPPERS WITH PLANTED JOINTSCONCRETE PORCH / STEPSPLANTING AREA, TYPADDITIONAL PARKING SPACETRASH STORAGEDESIGN KEY234567819233345667778991ATTACHMENT 1Page 364 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA4PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE SECTIONS1” = 20’-0”(24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 40’-0”(12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR350' -0"T.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"GROUND FLOORDADU340' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"T.O.P. DADU350' -6"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"POOL BOTT343' -8 5/128"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE16' - 0"(E) AVG. FG 351.75AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(352.75+350.75)/2 = 351.75'(E) FG 352.75(E) FG 350.75PROPOSED 375.57ALLOWED 376.75BEDROOM 2KITCHEN(E) FG 339.00(E) FG 339.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 2(339.00+339.50)/2 = 339.25'(E) AVG. FG 339.25ALLOWED 355.25PROPOSED +/- 354.86GREENHOUSEVERANDAADUT.O.P. 1360' -1"T.O.P. 1360' -1"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"LEVEL 2361' -5 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"T.O.P. 2371' -6 3/4"MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"ZONE 1 F.S.349' -8 5/128"GARAGE FF348' -0"GARAGE FF348' -0"12' - 1"10' - 1"(E) AVG. FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 1(352.75+350.25)/2 = 351.50'(E) FG 350.25(E) FG 352.75PROPOSED 376.48ALLOWED 376.50M. BEDROOMM. BATHUTILITY 1GARAGEGROUND FLOOR350' -0"GROUND FLOOR350' -0"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"BASEMENT337' -6 1/4"SUITE FF348' -0"SUITE FF348' -0"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"T.O.P. LIVINGROOM365' -1"(E) FG 343.00(E) AVG. FG 346.75(E) FG 351.50AVG. GRADE @ SECTION 3(351.50+343.00)/2 = 346.75'MAX ALLOW HT ABOVE AVG GRADE25' - 0"PROPOSED +/- 369.22ALLOWED 371.75PROPOSED +/- 365.31(E) F.G. TO RIDGE20' - 0"GREATROOMFOYEREN-SUITEW.I.C.BASEMENT1" = 10'-0"AS-1A4SITE SECTION 2 @ LIVING21" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 1 @ GARAGE11" = 10'-0"AS-1 A4SITE SECTION 3 @ EN-SUITE3ATTACHMENT 1Page 365 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA5PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 2021SITE AERIAL MAPSITE AERIAL MAP1" =20’ - 0” (24 X 36 SHEET)11” = 40’-0”(24X36 SHEET)02040 800 40 80 1601” = 80’-0”(12X18 SHEET)VIEWS OF BISHOP PEAKVIEWS OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY1ATTACHMENT 1Page 366 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA6PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)BASEMENT FLOOR PLANYOGA13'-3"x14'-0"DRY SUANA7'-6"x12'-0"STORCAB.T.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A1FLOOR PLAN_BASEMENT1ATTACHMENT 1Page 367 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA7PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)GROUND FLOOR PLANUPUPDWGREATROOM22'-6"x2'0"DINING15'0"x19'-6"KITCHEN22'-6"x24'-0"NOOKPWDRPANTRY6'-6"x11'-6"BUTLER8'-0"x6'-1"ELEV.5'-0"x6'-6"FOYERW.I.C.9'-6"x7'-6"BATH7'-0"x12'-0"EN-SUITE16'-0"x14'-6"MUD ROOM12'0"x9'-6"BBQ2-CAR1-CAR GARAGEOUTDOOR LIVINGGREENHOUSE30'-0"x13'-0"TOOLSCL.UTILITY 1PATIOsinkbenchpet washlinenseatingflex. stationhutchbuilt-inbuilt-inbuilt-incoatlinenpergolaprep stationentertainmentREFSTOVEMICRO9' - 6" MIN18' - 6" MIN19' - 0" MIN.18' - 6" MIN.1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A2FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 11ATTACHMENT 1Page 368 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA8PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)SECOND FLOOR PLANDWBEDROOM 312'-0"x11'-4"W.I.C 38'-0"x4'-8"BATH 2W.I.C. 28'-0"x4'-8"BATH 3M. BEDROOM15'-6"x14'-6"HIS5'-0"x6'-5"HERS6'-10"x6'-5"T.M. BATHOPEN TO BELOWGALLERY44'-0"x5'-9"BEDROOM 212'-0"x11'-4"VERANDABALCONYFAMILY ROOM15'-6"x14'-4"BALCONYLNDRY.7'-0"x10'-5"ELEV.benchentertainmentbuilt-in shelvingart nichestorage1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A3FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 21ATTACHMENT 1Page 369 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA9PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ROOF PLAN1/8" = 1'-0"A-500A4SITE _ROOF PLAN1ATTACHMENT 1Page 370 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA10PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALSAABCCFFFDEHGDGHHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 371 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA11PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGGHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 372 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCESECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLANA12PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGDDHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 373 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA13PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PERSPECTIVE VIEWS1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)12AABCCFDEHDGHBEFGADAAHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 374 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA14PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - ADUUPKITCHEN/LIVINGBEDROOMBATHROOMW.I.C.PATIODECK3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-ROOF PLAN SCHEMATIC3/16" = 1'-0"DADU-FLOOR PLAN SCHEMATICPERSPECTIVE - FRONTATTACHMENT 1Page 375 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA15PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)ELEVATIONS - ADURIGHT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)REAR ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)LEFT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)FRONT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)1111Horizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentABCCFEHGBEFAAFFGHCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 376 of 427
841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCEA16PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20MARCH 12, 20211/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)048 160 8 16 321/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET)PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS - ADUAGBEFFCHFHorizontal Lap Siding - Sage GreenPainted Trim -Dark GreenABRain Screen & WoodAccent - Natural CedarGutters -Weathered Copper AccentTesla Solar Roof TilesFireplace & Feature Wall -Local Volcanic StoneCDEGHShake Shingles -Natural CedarFWindows/Doors -Dark Bronze Metal AccentCONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEMEALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED. ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS (17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL EXTERIOR DOORS.WALL SCONCE -TECH LIGHTING, PEAKWALL SCONCE -EVERGREEN LIGHTING, SERIES 20ATTACHMENT 1Page 377 of 427
From:Jim apRoberts
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo EID-0547-0201, ARCH-0040-
2021
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 4:29:27 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
October 7, 2022
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo:
Looking at the property at 841 Patricia Drive, the lot area contained by the minimum lot and
creek setbacks and excluding the ‘flag’ for the driveway - effectively the ‘by-right’
developable envelope- is approximately 15,500 square feet. At 40% maximum coverage
(6,200 square feet) this project and the ADU (5,260sf + 830sf = 6,120 sf) could be designed
and constructed to be together on the west side of the creek. This very conservative approach
to developable area and lot coverage clearly demonstrates the project could be redesigned to
avoid the need for the requested creek setback exception - a request that is undeniably one of
choice, not necessity.
Outside of the building footprints, the site development also includes a large pool, extensive
patios and terraces, all choices made that inhibit the potential for the ADU to be included on
the west side of the creek. With adjustments to those outdoor areas - and perhaps even by
requesting a creek setback exception for the pool - additional space could be maintained on
the west side of the creek and facilitate placement of the ADU without compromising
separation and privacy between the two homes, and without requiring the severe impacts of
installing a road and bridge to cross over and through the creek bed. The road and bridge are
substantially larger impacts than the ADU itself in terms of surface area and creek
encroachment.
Per the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.70.030.G.4.c findings must be made to grant an
exception to the required creek setbacks. Finding #4 indicates that there needs to be
“circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the property of
privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same zoning.” Over 6,000 square
feet of building footprint, large terraces, and a pool to not reflect a deprivation of privilege, is
quite the opposite. Finding #7 requires that “site development cannot be feasibly accomplished
with a redesign of the project.” As noted above, a redesign is entirely feasible, it just would
not have a bridge. This is supported by text regarding Finding #8 that “in the case of new
development (reasonable use of the property) may include less development than indicated by
zoning.”
The Initial Study mentions that “without the bridge crossing, the eastern portion of the site
would not be accessible.” This may be true, but the property owner has no right to vehicular
access across a waterway. Undoubtedly, outside of the rainy season, access by foot across the
creek would be easily achieved.
Page 378 of 427
Please include this correspondence in the City Files EID-0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021
Respectfully,
Jim and Kathy apRoberts
251 Twin Ridge Drive
San Luis Obispo
Page 379 of 427
From:Schroeter Family
To:Oetzell, Walter
Cc:Schroeter Family
Subject:CEQA Comments for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 5:00:17 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
As stated in the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) Conservation Guidelines, it is
critical to preserve and or restore riparian areas, creeks, wetlands and ephemeral
seeps or springs to a natural state and provide suitable habitat to all native aquatic
and riparian species. The City further states that it is critical to minimize the impacts
of harmful activities in these waterways, wetlands and floodplains to enhance and
preserve their natural function and to protect native fish and amphibian populations
that utilize these areas as habitat.
This project is requesting an exception to riparian forest protection (creek setback)
and if approved, the project will alter and degrade the riparian forest and the
designated habitat corridor. The proposed changes sought by this project are
specifically prohibited as exceptions within setbacks (include structures, paving and
parking lots; San Luis Obispo Municipal Code17.70.030 Creek Setbacks).
It seems reasonable that the city may consider such exceptions when there is
significant and substantial public benefit. However, in this case there is no realized
public benefit and there will be significant environmental costs that do not justify
granting such an exception. In addition, the applied for exception would prevent the
implementation of city adopted plans regarding open space, riparian areas and
habitat corridors and would likely constitute a grant of special privilege since other
projects in the area have not been rewarded with similar exceptions. Finally, there are
many alternatives to having a bridge built over pristine riparian forest including the
relocation of the ADU to the south side of stream, which would leave 100% of the
stream riparian forest intact.
The proposal also underestimates and understates the impacts to the riparian forest
and the habitat corridor, as will be discussed in the following sections that specifically
address the bioloigical resources assessment report (BRA).
BRA is not representative / accurate of true impact to the stream riparian and
corridor:
The authors of the BRA state 17 oak saplings and 20-30 arroyo willow “stems” from
four trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed bridge and that its
construction and presence would have minimal impacts given the already limited
connectivity of the stream corridor.
Page 380 of 427
In total, the 12’ x 50’ bridge will directly impact a minimum riparian forest area of 600
ft2 once constructed and there will likely be extensive additional damage to riparian
plants and the soil and stream substrate as a result of the construction activities. In
addition, it cannot be assumed that the removed forest vegetation will return at the
bridge crossing as it would need to be continuously cut to maintain access. Any
shaded plants under the bridge will also likely not survive the modification.
Furthermore, the use of the term stems is misleading. Stems are any above ground
plant structure, but the reality of the proposed construction activities will be the
removal of large limbs and possibly trunks of the existing arroyo willow to
accommodate the space needed for the bridge. The size of the stems removed
should be identified. The entire riparian forest on the property is very healthy and
dense, thus using the affected area (600 ft2) is the best estimate of total impact and
an appropriate mitigation would be the addition of riparian forest equivalent to the size
that was removed.
According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Heather Rodriguez) removal
of any riparian limb exceeding 2” in diameter would require mitigation and any limb
exceeding 4” diameter would require the application for a 1600 permit. Having clarity
on the size of limbs removed would allow for greater assessment of impact and
appropriate permitting next steps.
It is important to point out that the landowners applying for this permit have already
extensively thinned the riparian forest on this property. This occurred in the Fall of
2020. It is not clear what if any permits were obtained for this tree removal work, but
since all work stopped once it was reported to city officials, it is likely that no permit
was obtained. Many of the cut tree branches had diameters exceeding the 2-4”
diameter criteria. The city biologist Freddy Otte can attest to scale of impact and the
proposed mitigation that was suggested at the time, which was tree replanting. It is
not clear if any mitigation has taken place to date. Furthermore, it is not clear as to
the extent of the riparian forest that was removed from those activities.
The proposed mitigation for this projects stream riparian impacts, which include
planned “stem” and oak sapling removal is planting more willow and oaks into existing
riparian forest. As already stated, this will not mitigate the loss of 600 ft2 of riparian
forest as it will only further crowd the existing plants in already established upstream
riparian forest.
BRA states that the wildlife corridor provides little value to wildlife since it is
blocked at the upper and lower end by culverts.
No data is provided within the BRA and the city biologists also provide no data on the
use of this area by wildlife. My personal observations and accounts made by the
surrounding homeowners are that the site is extensively used by wildlife. I carried out
a site visit on 10/6/22 and observed turkey, quail, numerous species of small birds
and there were signs of extensive deer use (droppings, deer rubs and game trails)
along the edge and within the riparian forest. There was also a deer fawn carcass
Page 381 of 427
scattered between the stream channel and the upper flood plain suggesting that
larger predators such as mountain lion are actively feeding in the area.
The BRA alludes to the fact that there is limited direct connectivity of the habitat
corridor at the project site to Bishops Peak, due to upstream culverts. Although it
would be best to have direct connectivity, wildlife do have access to bishops peak and
other surrounding riparian and upland habitat through the culverts and via backyards
and side yards. The limited upstream access in no way should be an excuse to
degrade and or diminish the value of the existing riparian forest at the project site.
BRA – Assessment conducted during drought year 2021
The BRA depends on a single year of assessment (April and October 2021) of
biological life from an extreme drought time period 2021 as a basis for their ecological
studies report. This is not a good way to gauge the potential impact of the proposed
study because the full inventory of species use is not likely to be reflective of potential
species (both aquatic and terrestrial) use under more natural non drought conditions
and will prevent thorough consideration of the overall impact of the project. As Freddy
Otte can attest to, bullfrogs are found on occasion within this drainage which indicates
that habitat is suitable for other multistage amphibians including red legged frog.
Additional Concerns:
Stream Riparian edge depicted as a straight line, which is not accurate.
Natural riparian systems and their associated forests typically do not occur in straight
lines. Current staking of the edge of riparian forest cuts off an extension measuring
15’ x 25’ which is 375 ft2 of riparian forest that would be excluded from protection as it
is now staked. The current staking pattern runs counter to the “measurement of creek
setbacks” listed in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17. 70.030C. This area is on
the North side of the property close to the proposed ADU driveway. The actual
existing riparian forest edge should be corrected for accuracy and for further
protection of this important habitat.
Sincerely,
Robert Schroeter PhD
Page 382 of 427
From:Schroeter Family
To:Oetzell, Walter
Subject:Re: CEQA Comments for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA
Date:Friday, October 7, 2022 5:22:32 PM
This message is from an External Source. Use caution when deciding to open attachments, click links, or
respond.
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
I would like to follow up my prior email (Dated 10/7/22 @ 4:59pm) with a statement summary of my
position in regards to the proposed MND for the 841 Patricia Project.
An MND is not appropriate for the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive. As described in my prior email, the
project will result in potentially significant effects on the environment and does not sufficiently avoid or mitigate the
effects to a point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur . In fact, there is substantial
evidence that the project will likely have a significant effect on the environment. Therefore, a full EIR should be
prepared by the City with sufficient opportunity for public comment.
Robert Schroeter PhD
On Fri, Oct 7, 2022 at 4:59 PM Schroeter Family <schroeters617@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Mr. Oetzell,
As stated in the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) Conservation Guidelines, it is
critical to preserve and or restore riparian areas, creeks, wetlands and ephemeral
seeps or springs to a natural state and provide suitable habitat to all native aquatic
and riparian species. The City further states that it is critical to minimize the impacts
of harmful activities in these waterways, wetlands and floodplains to enhance and
preserve their natural function and to protect native fish and amphibian populations
that utilize these areas as habitat.
This project is requesting an exception to riparian forest protection (creek setback)
and if approved, the project will alter and degrade the riparian forest and the
designated habitat corridor. The proposed changes sought by this project are
specifically prohibited as exceptions within setbacks (include structures, paving and
parking lots; San Luis Obispo Municipal Code17.70.030 Creek Setbacks).
It seems reasonable that the city may consider such exceptions when there is
significant and substantial public benefit. However, in this case there is no realized
public benefit and there will be significant environmental costs that do not justify
granting such an exception. In addition, the applied for exception would prevent the
implementation of city adopted plans regarding open space, riparian areas and
habitat corridors and would likely constitute a grant of special privilege since other
projects in the area have not been rewarded with similar exceptions. Finally, there
are many alternatives to having a bridge built over pristine riparian forest including
the relocation of the ADU to the south side of stream, which would leave 100% of
the stream riparian forest intact.
Page 383 of 427
The proposal also underestimates and understates the impacts to the riparian forest
and the habitat corridor, as will be discussed in the following sections that
specifically address the bioloigical resources assessment report (BRA).
BRA is not representative / accurate of true impact to the stream riparian and
corridor:
The authors of the BRA state 17 oak saplings and 20-30 arroyo willow “stems” from
four trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed bridge and that its
construction and presence would have minimal impacts given the already limited
connectivity of the stream corridor.
In total, the 12’ x 50’ bridge will directly impact a minimum riparian forest area of
600 ft2 once constructed and there will likely be extensive additional damage to
riparian plants and the soil and stream substrate as a result of the construction
activities. In addition, it cannot be assumed that the removed forest vegetation will
return at the bridge crossing as it would need to be continuously cut to maintain
access. Any shaded plants under the bridge will also likely not survive the
modification.
Furthermore, the use of the term stems is misleading. Stems are any above ground
plant structure, but the reality of the proposed construction activities will be the
removal of large limbs and possibly trunks of the existing arroyo willow to
accommodate the space needed for the bridge. The size of the stems removed
should be identified. The entire riparian forest on the property is very healthy and
dense, thus using the affected area (600 ft2) is the best estimate of total impact and
an appropriate mitigation would be the addition of riparian forest equivalent to the
size that was removed.
According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Heather Rodriguez)
removal of any riparian limb exceeding 2” in diameter would require mitigation and
any limb exceeding 4” diameter would require the application for a 1600 permit.
Having clarity on the size of limbs removed would allow for greater assessment of
impact and appropriate permitting next steps.
It is important to point out that the landowners applying for this permit have already
extensively thinned the riparian forest on this property. This occurred in the Fall of
2020. It is not clear what if any permits were obtained for this tree removal work, but
since all work stopped once it was reported to city officials, it is likely that no permit
was obtained. Many of the cut tree branches had diameters exceeding the 2-4”
diameter criteria. The city biologist Freddy Otte can attest to scale of impact and the
proposed mitigation that was suggested at the time, which was tree replanting. It is
not clear if any mitigation has taken place to date. Furthermore, it is not clear as to
the extent of the riparian forest that was removed from those activities.
The proposed mitigation for this projects stream riparian impacts, which include
planned “stem” and oak sapling removal is planting more willow and oaks into
Page 384 of 427
existing riparian forest. As already stated, this will not mitigate the loss of 600 ft2 of
riparian forest as it will only further crowd the existing plants in already established
upstream riparian forest.
BRA states that the wildlife corridor provides little value to wildlife since it is
blocked at the upper and lower end by culverts.
No data is provided within the BRA and the city biologists also provide no data on
the use of this area by wildlife. My personal observations and accounts made by the
surrounding homeowners are that the site is extensively used by wildlife. I carried
out a site visit on 10/6/22 and observed turkey, quail, numerous species of small
birds and there were signs of extensive deer use (droppings, deer rubs and game
trails) along the edge and within the riparian forest. There was also a deer fawn
carcass scattered between the stream channel and the upper flood plain suggesting
that larger predators such as mountain lion are actively feeding in the area.
The BRA alludes to the fact that there is limited direct connectivity of the habitat
corridor at the project site to Bishops Peak, due to upstream culverts. Although it
would be best to have direct connectivity, wildlife do have access to bishops peak
and other surrounding riparian and upland habitat through the culverts and via
backyards and side yards. The limited upstream access in no way should be an
excuse to degrade and or diminish the value of the existing riparian forest at the
project site.
BRA – Assessment conducted during drought year 2021
The BRA depends on a single year of assessment (April and October 2021) of
biological life from an extreme drought time period 2021 as a basis for their
ecological studies report. This is not a good way to gauge the potential impact of
the proposed study because the full inventory of species use is not likely to be
reflective of potential species (both aquatic and terrestrial) use under more natural
non drought conditions and will prevent thorough consideration of the overall impact
of the project. As Freddy Otte can attest to, bullfrogs are found on occasion within
this drainage which indicates that habitat is suitable for other multistage amphibians
including red legged frog.
Additional Concerns:
Stream Riparian edge depicted as a straight line, which is not accurate.
Natural riparian systems and their associated forests typically do not occur in
straight lines. Current staking of the edge of riparian forest cuts off an extension
measuring 15’ x 25’ which is 375 ft2 of riparian forest that would be excluded from
protection as it is now staked. The current staking pattern runs counter to the
“measurement of creek setbacks” listed in the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.
70.030C. This area is on the North side of the property close to the proposed ADU
driveway. The actual existing riparian forest edge should be corrected for accuracy
and for further protection of this important habitat.
Page 385 of 427
Sincerely,
Robert Schroeter PhD
Page 386 of 427
Patricia Drive Response to Comments
Kathy apRoberts – October 3, 2022
Comment Response
I would like to specifically comment on the San Luis Obispo County CEQA Air
Quality Handbook which evaluates project-specific impacts and determines if
potentially significant health impacts could result from a project. "The project site
is a flag lot and is directly adjacent to residential development in all directions.
Construction activities, such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging,
and building construction would result in construction vehicle emissions and dust
that will impact neighbors within 1,000 feet." Initial Study Environmental
Checklist, page 18.*
Earth Moving - 841 Patricia plans
• In the recent past, we have had neighbors diagnosed with Valley Fever. To
provide context, it's important to understand how much earth moving will be
involved during proposed construction.
• "Project construction would require approximately 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of
cut and 650 cy of fill, for a total of 2,582 cy total cut/fill. Construction is
anticipated to last approximately 24 months. Construction would result in
approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance and
would replace approximately 12,540 square feet of previous surface area."
Valley Fever - How does it relate to the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive?
• SLO County has the third-highest number and rate of cases in California,
after Kern and Kings counties. With Valley Fever, knowledge is power.
Valley Fever (or Coccidioidomycosis) is an infection caused by inhalation of
spores of the fungus, Coccidioides, which lives naturally in the soil. It is
highly endemic in Arizona and some areas of California, including San Luis
Obispo County, Monterey County and the Central Valley region.
• SLO County Health Department - "Although the fungus that causes Valley
Fever can live anywhere in our county, many local cases are from the
northern part of the county where conditions are especially dry and windy.
As discussed in the Initial Study and reiterated by the
commenter, project construction would require
approximately 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill,
for a total of 2,582 cy of total cut/fill. Construction is
anticipated to last approximately 24 months and would result
in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground
disturbance and would replace approximately 12,540 square
feet of pervious surface area. Although the project would not
result in significant construction-related emissions,
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook recognizes
special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive receptors,
that require implementation of standard construction
mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling and fugitive dust.
Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential
areas, standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive
dust are required and have been included as Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
As the commenter identifies, many local cases of Valley
Fever are from the northern part of the county where
conditions are especially dry and windy. The project is
located within western-central portion of the county in the
city of San Luis Obispo. SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook does not include guidance for evaluating
potential impacts related to valley fever.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 includes numerous requirements
for dust control during construction activities, including
spraying and covering dirt stockpile areas and using water
trucks and/or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. The risk of
Valley Fever is low due to the project location. In addition,
Page 387 of 427
When this soil is disturbed by wind, construction, or other causes — people
can breathe in the spores from this fungus and develop Valley Fever. "
Please include this letter in the case file for 841 Patricia Drive. (City Files EID -
0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021)
because construction-related dust would be controlled and
managed within the project site, impacts to surrounding
residents related to Valley Fever would be less than
significant.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Kathy apRoberts – October 4, 2022
Comment Response
The City’s Zoning Regulation 17.70.030 clearly established the purpose of Creek
Setbacks. First, these setbacks are intended to “protect scenic resources, water
quality, and natural creekside habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement.” The second stated purpose is “the restoration
of damaged or degraded habitat, especially where a continuous riparian habitat
corridor can be established.”
Regarding Creek Setback Expectations, we understand that there are eight
findings that must be made in order for the Director to approve such an
exception. Within the design of the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive, we
believe there are five findings that are not possible to meet. They are:
1. Minimal impact should mean that there is no development in the creek
itself. The location and design of the proposed bridge will absolutely not
minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat,
including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest and movement.
2. There are no circumstances applying to t his site, such as size, shape or
topography that would deprive the property privileges enjoyed by other
property in the vicinity with the same zoning.
3. This exception would constitute a grant of special privilege. A creek
setback exception would be inconsistent with the limitation upon other
properties in the neighborhood.
As noted in the IS/MND and supporting documents, the
span bridge has been located in a more open and less
densely vegetated area of the riparian habitat that minimizes
vegetation removal. The span bridge has footings above the
100-year water surface elevation to allow for unimpeded
high flows and the project includes a revegetation plan to
compensate for the proposed vegetation removal in order to
maintain the riparian corridor for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement. With implementation of identified mitigation, the
existing riparian corridor would be preserved within the
required creek setback consistent with City policies to
maintain availability of habitat for the existing wildlife use.
As stated on page 2 of the IS/MND, the project includes a
proposed Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception to
the creek setback requirement for the placement of the
bridge and associated footings and supports within this
setback area. The requested exception would thus allow the
use of the eastern portion of the site for the ADU residential
unit. Without the bridge crossing, this eastern portion of the
site would not be accessible by vehicle. To be approved, the
exception must meet the requirements of the Zoning Code
specified in Section 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). The question of
Page 388 of 427
4. Site development can be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the
project.
5. Redesign of the project would not deny the property owner reasonable
use of the property given comparable development scale in the
neighborhood, even on a larger than average lot.
We believe that incorporation of five of the mitigation measures into the project
at 841 Patricia Drive will not reduce the significant impacts of the project. Please
include this correspondence in the case file: EID-0547-0201, ARCH-00402021.
whether the necessary findings can be made is a question
of policy interpretation and not an environmental issue.
The potential impacts of the project on the riparian and
wildlife corridor areas were evaluated in Section 4,
Biological Resources, of the Initial Study. The analysis
included therein concluded that potential impacts could be
reduced to less than significant with implementation of
identified mitigation measures. Therefore, evaluation of an
alternative project layout is not required.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Victoria Frydenlund and Daniel Alvarez – October 4, 2022
Comment Response
The purpose of this letter is to provide comments to the initial study
environmental checklist and draft Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for 841
Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo in City Files EID-0547-2021 and ARCH-0040-
2021 and per the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Draft Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the Michaels Residence Project.
As property owners adjacent to the 841 Patricia parcel, we have concerns
regarding the extent of development within Twin Ridge Creek, the creek set-
back requirements and the City’s declaration of a Riparian Wildlife Corridor on
the property. The initial study and MND provide for actions to mitigate impact to
Twin Ridge Creek and Wildlife Corridor; however there are errors, omissions and
potentially additional mitigations necessary to reduce impact to this sensitive
environment on the property.
We appreciate the desire to develop the property at 841 Patricia Drive, and
given the unique characteristics of the property it is important to preserve wildlife
and the creek environment. We believe it is possible to develop on this parcel
without harming the creek and wildlife corridor by placing all structures within the
building envelope on the west side of the creek and thus not disturb the creek
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of an alternative project layout is not
required. As noted in the IS/MND and supporting
documents, the span bridge has been located in a more
open and less densely vegetated area of the riparian habitat
that minimizes vegetation removal. The span bridge has
footings above the 100-year water surface elevation to allow
for unimpeded high flows and the project includes a
Page 389 of 427
area or wildlife corridor. In doing so, much of the MND actions would become
unnecessary and thus preserve this precious environment within the
neighborhood. We do not claim to be land use planners, so simple common
sense is what is driving our intentions for providing comments.
Attached please find comments to the documents including proposed additional
information needed in order to correct and or include within the study and MND.
Please feel free to contact us should you have any questions regarding these
comments.
revegetation plan to compensate for the small amount of
vegetation removal in order to preserve the riparian corridor
for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. With
implementation of identified mitigation, the existing riparian
corridor would be preserved within the required creek
setback consistent with City policies to maintain availability
of habitat for the existing wildlife use.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Page 1: Last paragraph
The description does not include the length of the bridge. According to the
project plans in Attachment 1, the bridge is described as 55 feet long by 12 feet
wide. The description states that the bridge is to accommodate small vehicles
(e.g. electric cart). The size of this bridge and the permeable driveway and
parking area surrounding the ADU will accommodate standard vehicles and
trucks as it is as wide as a freeway lane or single lane in a street. If the bridge is
envisioned to accommodate small vehicles such as an electric cart (golf cart),
those vehicles are typically 48” wide and thus the bridge should be reduced in
width for that type of vehicle. In doing so, it would allow for less destruction
within the creek and wildlife corridor.
The description should be revised to include the length of the bridge and the
MND should recommend reducing the width of the bridge to 6-8 feet wide to
accommodate the envisioned small vehicles e.g. electric cart.
The description of the bridge has been revised to identify the
proposed length (55 feet).
At this time, the bridge has not been fully designed; the 12-
foot-width represents a maximum potential bridge width. The
final design and width of the bridge will be as required by the
City, consistent with safety and emergency access
requirements.
As noted in the IS/MND and supporting documents, the
span bridge has been located in a more open and less
densely vegetated area of the riparian habitat that minimizes
vegetation removal. The span bridge has footings above the
100-year water surface elevation to allow for unimpeded
high flows and the project includes a revegetation plan to
compensate for the small amount of vegetation removal in
order to preserve the riparian corridor for wildlife habitation,
rest, and movement. With implementation of identified
mitigation, the existing riparian corridor would be preserved
within the required creek setback consistent with City
policies to maintain availability of habitat for the existing
wildlife use.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
Page 390 of 427
Page 2: In the fourth paragraph and Table 1
These statements in paragraph 4 and Table 1 are in conflict with the statement
about the creek set-back exception. The information in the fourth paragraph and
Table 1 should be revised to state that there is an exception to the creek-set
back and the proposed minimum setbacks are zero (0) for creek set-back due to
the bridge, associated vehicle roadway, paving/parking and the exceptions being
requested. In addition Table 1 states the allowed/required set-back for the ADU
is 4 feet per city code, but for this property there is a sewer line easement that
requires a 15 foot set-back and the 15 feet plus 4 feet should be listed in Table 1
under allowed/required.
Paragraph 5 in the IS/MND clearly states the project "would
provide a minimum setback of 5 feet from the interior side
yards, 15 feet from the rear property line, and 20-feet from a
line representing the edge of riparian vegetation associated
with the creek."
As shown in Figure 2 (Site Plan Map) of the IS/MND, the
project includes a 20-foot creek setback to the nearest
residential structure, as established by the City Biologist.
This has been further clarified in the footnotes on page 2.
The project plans also reflect the 15-foot-wide sewer and
access easement along the rear property line. The 15-foot-
wide access easement is consistent with the proposed 15-
foot rear setback, which is depicted in Table 1, and is
coterminous with and overlaps the required/allowed 4-foot
rear ADU setback. Because of the easement, the proposed
rear setback would be more than triple the standard required
setback for an ADU. This comment has been provided to
decision makers for consideration.
Page 2: In the second paragraph
This description is incomplete as the design includes per Figure 2 (on page 6)
includes a swimming pool. Furthermore, per Figure 2 the design includes a wall
within the creek set- back area but is not described in this section of the
document. The wall height is depicted in the project plans as 5.5 feet above
ground and is shown to span entirely in the set-back. Please revise this
information to include the pool and that the 5.5 foot wall and roadway is ent irely
within the set-back area. The wall should be included in what is being requested
in the exception for the set-back area.
The pool is located within the footprint of the proposed
residence and is depicted on Figure 2 (Site Plan Map) of the
IS/MND. Paragraph 2 of the Description of the Project
clearly states that “Proposed site amenities include an
infinity pool, an outdoor kitchen, outdoor decking, a
gym/spa, and outdoor shade structures.”
Per Section 17.70.030 of the City Zoning Ordinance, walls
or fences are allowed within the creek setback area as long
as they do not extend beyond the top of bank into the creek
channel; will not cause the removal of native riparian
vegetation; will not reduce any flooding capacity in
compliance with the city’s flood damage prevention
regulations; in total occupy not more than one-half of the
total required creek setback area; and are consistent with
Page 391 of 427
other property development standards of the zoning
regulations.
The IS/MND provides that “the project includes a proposed
Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception to the creek
setback requirement for the placement of the bridge and
associated footings and supports within this setback area,
and for any encroachment of associated paving and vehicle
parking area into the required Creek Setback area
(emphasis added)”. This section has been revised to further
clarify that “associated paving” includes the internal access
road and retaining wall, as shown in Figure 2. This comment
has been provided to decision makers for consideration.
Pages 2-3: The last sentence on page 2
This sentence appears to be incomplete in terms of the type of accessibility
being stated. The eastern portion of the site is accessible by foot based upon the
numerous visits to the site by the project manager, the project planner and City
staff. Does this sentence imply the eastern portion is not accessible by a
vehicle? If so, it should be revised to be clear on what type of access in not
accessible.
This section has been clarified to refer to vehicular access.
Page 3: In the fourth paragraph
What is the basis of the assumption that trenching/undergrounding would be
most impactful to the environment? Would this type of activity impact the trees if
the undergrounding was sufficiently deep underground to not disturb the trees
and vegetation? It is also unclear in the plans provided in Attachment 1 that the
utilities would be placed underground as it appears they are alongside the
bridge. There is no description in the plans that the utilities will be
trenched/undergrounded. Please clarify where in the plans it is stated the utilities
will either be underground or on the bridge span.
Given the sensitive nature of Twin Ridge Creek and Riparian Wildlife Corridor, it
would be a better option to develop the ADU on the western portion of the parcel
within the building envelope and thus mitigating all impacts to the creek and set-
As discussed in the Description of the Project,
trenching/undergrounding would be considered more
impactful to the environment compared to hanging the
utilities from the bridge span or within the bridge
decking/enclosure. The Description of the Project has been
clarified to explain this is because it would require additional
undergrounding, trenching, and/or ground disturbance
below the riparian corridor and/or within the creek. Because
both possibilities are shown on the project plans, the
IS/MND assumes that the project could include the
trenching/undergrounding of the utilities below the creek to
capture worst-case scenario impacts. Mitigation has been
identified in Section 4, Biological Resources, which requires
all utilities to be placed within or attached to the bridge span.
Page 392 of 427
back. Why isn’t there a mitigation calling for revised conceptual plans that would
not disturb the creek and creek-set back areas at all?
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of an alternative project layout is not
required.
Page 16: In the fourth paragraph in the Evaluation section
This section of the evaluation does not include information regarding Valley
Fever (coccidioides sp.) infections and the hazards related to Valley Fever.
Valley Fever is known to be in San Luis Obispo County, which is amongst the
three highest counties in the state to harbor the fungus. Thus, there is risk of
infection to persons exposed to the airborne spores from this fungus. This risk
should be included in the evaluation and proposed mitigations should be
included to minimize the risk to both workers and adjacent neighbors from the
significant disruption of the ground for this project (0.8 acres out of 1.4 acres
according to the plans). There should be sampling and testing for this fungus in
the ground similarly to the Asbestos testing by the retention of a geologist as in
AQ-3 on Page 20. There should be a separate mitigation defined for the risks
associated with Valley Fever. Neighbors, not just those adjacent, should be
notified of the risks of NOA and Valley Fever. Furthermore, are the mitigations
listed in AQ-2 sufficient to reduce the risk and harms from Valley Fever? If not
additional mitigations should be proposed. Reference:
https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CID/DCDC/Pages/Coccidioidomycosis.aspx
SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook does not include
guidance for evaluating potential impacts related to valley
fever. However, SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook
recognizes special conditions, such as proximity to sensitive
receptors, that require implementation of standard
construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling and
fugitive dust. Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding
residential areas, standard measures for reducing DPM and
fugitive dust are required and have been included as
Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2 includes numerous requirements
for dust control during construction activities, including
spraying and covering dirt stockpile areas and using water
trucks and/or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. The risk of
Valley Fever is low due to the project location. In addition,
because construction-related dust would be controlled and
managed within the project site, impacts to surrounding
residents related to Valley Fever would be less than
significant.
Page 393 of 427
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Page 24: Under section 4-Biological Resources
On numerous occasions we have observed a Cooper’s hawk on our back fence
which is adjacent to the eastern portion of 841 Patricia. Hawks hunt for prey in
the Wildlife Corridor on 841 Patricia and carry their prey to our fence. The
potential is much higher for Cooper’s hawk to reside and use the riparian
corridor within Twin Ridge Creek. It is unclear the basis of this low occurrence
assessment. It is recommended to revise this statement to Moderate to High
occurrence since we have observed this bird to be present in the Riparian
Wildlife corridor.
The IS/MND and supporting documents acknowledge the
potential for Cooper’s hawks to occur as it is commonly
associated with riparian habitats. They can be seen
throughout the year (breeding, migrating, winter nomad) in
and around San Luis Obispo and beyond. With
implementation of identified mitigation, the existing riparian
corridor would be preserved and/or restored within the
required creek setback consistent with City policies to
maintain availability of habitat for the existing wildlife use.
The proposed single-family residential use of the project site
would be consistent with surrounding residential uses and
would not substantially alter ambient conditions for wildlife.
Additionally, mitigation has already been included to require
preconstruction nesting bird surveys and identifies the
protocol to be followed if birds are found nesting within the
project area to reduce project impacts on nesting birds,
including Cooper’s hawk.
Page 27: Section (d)
This statement is incorrect for a couple points. Specifically, 1) there are
additional flows from the storm drains located at 221 Twin Ridge Drive and
across the street from 221 Twin Ridge Drive. This location is a low point from
either end of Twin Ridge Drive. These two collection points drain all of the runoff
into Twin Ridge Creek. During the rainy season, these two storm drains empty
large volumes of run-off into Twin Ridge Creek; and 2) we observe deer on a
regular basis using the creek and riparian corridor to move through 841 Patricia
and surrounding areas. One recent observation was on September 23, 2022
where there was a young buck, a doe and fawn using the creek corridor.
Furthermore, in Attachment 3, the Biological Resources Assessment, it states
“the site can provide habitat for a variety of wildlife species that have become
adapted to the urban environment such as raccoons, opossums, skunks, with
evidence of deer, gopher and ground squirrels observed”. We have observed
The IS/MND and supporting BRA established evidence of
deer, gopher, and ground squirrel usage of the site. A
“movement corridor” suggests connectivity between habitat
areas. The IS/MND and supporting documents establish the
creek goes underground several blocks downstream of the
project site thus lacking connectivity as a movement corridor
between habitat areas. Wildlife usage of the site was
established in the IS/MND and supporting documents;
additional clarifying language has also been added to this
section.
Page 394 of 427
these animals as well as rabbits, turkey vultures and wild turkeys. The sentence
on page 27 should be revised to be consistent with the BRA report and reflect
that deer and other wildlife actually do use the Twin Ridge Creek as a movement
corridor.
Page 28-29: Mitigation Measures, Bio-3
Why doesn’t this mitigation measure specifically state the minimum requirements
for replanting trees that were removed? The BRA addendum in Attachment 4,
proposes to replant the up to 17 oak trees with 1 gallon trees and to replace the
Arroyo Willow’s with 20 willow sprigs. According to the City’s Tree Regulations
(Municipal Code 12.24), per 12.24.090 (C.2), removal of a tree in a creek set -
back area requires a permit. Therefore, it should be clearly stated that there
needs to be a permit requested to remove any trees in the creek set-back area.
Some of these trees are being removed within the creek proper. Section
12.24.090(J), Compensatory Tree Planting, states “Tree removals authorized
under subsection E or F of this section shall be compensated by planting a
minimum of one new tree for each tree authorized to be removed when planted
on the same property (on site).” Further in this section is a table indicating the
size of tree to be replanted based upon diameter of the tree removed and the
City’s engineering standards. According to this table, trees that are between
0.75” and 1.5” are to be replanted with a 15 gallon tree. Trees between 1.5” and
2.5” are to be planted with a 24” box. However, according to the proposed
replanting plan in the BRA addendum, the sizes of the trees are 1 gallon for the
Oak trees and sprigs for the Arroyo Willows. Bio-3 should be revised to
recommend the same standards as defined by the City Code for Tree Removal
12.24.090 and to require larger trees to be replanted to ensure revegetation of
the creek corridor. What are the implications if the project causes more trees that
defined in the BRA addendum need to be removed?
We strongly urge the City to preserve this wildlife corridor by asking that the
project be redesigned to mitigate impacts to the creek by building all dwellings
on the west side of the building envelope.
By design, tree removal has been minimized for the project
and will be subject to review as part of this discretionary
project. One gallon planting stock is appropriate in natural
settings and has shown a greater level of survivorship than
larger container of box trees.
The project would require the removal of 17 coast live oak
saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from
approximately four trees within the riparian corridor for
construction of the new bridge crossing over the portion of
Twin Ridge Creek on-site. Following construction activities,
the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-
gallon trees (10 one each side of the corridor), four
California bay laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of
the corridor), four California sycamore one-gallon (two on
each side of the corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees
(throughout the creek channel), which is consistent with the
City’s Municipal Code (12.24.090), which requires the
replanting of removed trees on-site at a minimum 1:1 ratio.
The size requirements in the referenced table apply to street
trees and are not relevant to the revegetation plan or this
project. Replanted trees would be irrigated for three years
and maintained and monitored for five years to meet an 80%
survival success. Other riparian trees would be protected
through provision of a Creek Setback as determined by the
City Biologist and depicted in plans.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
Page 395 of 427
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of an alternative project layout is not
required.
Page 29: Conclusion
This statement is incorrect. It should be revised given that the project is not set-
back 20 feet from the approximate top of bank because the bridge and roadway
encroaches both the creek set-back and creek itself. The plans do conflict with
local plans and policies and thus the need to mitigate harms and risks as well as
requiring a request for an exception to the set-back criteria defined by City
Municipal Code. This conclusion needs revision for accuracy to the facts of the
proposed development.
The IS/MND provides that “the project includes a proposed
Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception to the creek
setback requirement for the placement of the bridge and
associated footings and supports within this setback area,
and for any encroachment of associated paving and vehicle
parking area into the required Creek Setback area”. The
improvements that would be located within the Creek
Setback, if approved as part of the requested Creek Setback
Exemption are shown in Figure 2. Refer to additional
responses above.
The conclusion on Page 29 of the IS/MND has been revised
to consistently summarize the description of the project and
analysis in the IS/MND. A Creek Setback Exception is
allowed per the City’s Municipal Code if necessary findings
are made, and would, therefore, not constitute a conflict with
local plans or policies.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Page 38: Greenhouse Gas Emissions-Table 6
This statement should reference Attachment 1, Project Plans to be specific
where this commitment is proposed. As well, is it either dwellings or just the main
house that is mixed fuel? It should be clear that all calculations are based upon
which dwellings.
A reference to Attachment 1 has been added to this section.
The main residence is proposed to be mixed fuel and the
ADU would be all electric. As stated in Table 6, the project
would be required to document compliance with the City's
Energy Reach Code and CBC requirements on final
construction plans to be approved by the City.
Page 396 of 427
Given the mixed fuel use with this project, it should be very clear that the project
should be fully compliant with CBC requirements for mixed fuel dwellings.
Pages 40-42: Hazardous and Hazardous Materials
This evaluation does not include the hazard of airborne illness due to the Valley
Fever fungus (Coccidioides sp). This section should be revised to be consistent
with the Air Quality Section regarding this risk of hazard within the ground to be
disrupted during construction.
Potential impacts related to Valley Fever are evaluated in
the Air Quality section of the IS/MND and comment
responses related to Air Quality above.
Page 44: The evaluation in paragraph (b)
What is meant by other hardscapes? This should be revised to be specific to
include walkways, a swimming pool, pool deck, patios, etc.
The next statement quoted is not consistent as while the creek may remain
intact, there is a 55 foot by 12 foot steel bridge constructed within the creek. This
fact should be explicitly stated. Furthermore, there is nothing stated in the initial
study to remove or reduce the driveway width where feasible, so this point
should also be revised. There should be a specific point to reduce the size of the
bridge and driveways to be consistent with the use of an electric cart as
previously stated in the document.
The project should be redesigned to mitigate impacts to the creek by building all
dwellings on the west side of the building envelope.
Impact discussion 10.(b) states that the project would result
in 12,540 sf of new impervious surfaces, which would result
in an approximate 20% increase in impervious surface areas
at the project site. The Description of the Project makes
clear that this amount includes the single-family residence,
the ADU, internal roadways and span bridge, and
associated impervious components including, i.e., a
swimming pool, pool deck, patios, and all other impervious
surfaces that would be developed at the site. No changes to
the IS/MND are necessary.
The 55-foot-long and 12-foot-wide bridge is clearly
described in the Description of the Project. The estimate of
resulting pervious/impervious surface areas that would
result from the project is accurately stated. At this time, the
bridge has not been fully designed; the 12-foot-width
represents a maximum potential bridge width. The final
design and width of the bridge will be as required by the
City, consistent with safety and emergency access
requirements. Within the scope of this environmental
document, no potentially significant impact was identified
that would provide a nexus for a mitigation requirement to
reduce the size of the bridge or access way.
Page 397 of 427
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. Therefore, evaluation of an
alternative project layout is not required.
Page 44: The evaluation in paragraph (c,i-iii)
Is the 2 feet of freeboard recommended sufficient to mitigate flooding especially
from debris that could be carried in Twin Ridge Creek to the bridge? Should
there be additional clearance for flows given the topography of the site and creek
area? In this era of climate change, is a 100 year flood standard reasonable?
We have observed flooding of this area in the past given the creek channel is
very shallow. We recommend there be additional mitigations to address flooding
risk from the alterations to the creek due to construction of the bridge. Those
mitigations should include removing the bridge from the plans and building the
ADU on the western side of the property.
As discussed in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality,
according to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
06079C1066G, effective date November 16, 2012, the
project site is located within Zone X, area of minimal flood
hazard. Based on the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared
by Chacon Associates, LLC for the project, the proposed
bridge soffit would be constructed a minimum of 2 feet
above the calculated 100-year peak flow water surface
elevation. Standard regulatory requirements require projects
to be designed to withstand a 100-year flood, and the
proposed bridge has been designed consistent with this
requirement. As concluded in the IS/MND, impacts would be
less than significant; therefore, mitigation is not necessary.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. Therefore, evaluation of an
alternative project layout is not required.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
Pages 45-46: Land Use and Planning
This section does not include the points that the project requires an exception to
the creek and creek set-back regulations in the City Municipal Code. This
section should be explicit that while the use is consistent with the zoning of the
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, the project includes
a proposed Creek Setback Exception to allow an exception
to the creek setback requirement for the placement of the
bridge and associated footings and supports within this
Page 398 of 427
property, the project is requiring exceptions in order to build an ADU on the
eastern portion of the property. The impacts could be reduced if the project did
not build on the eastern portion of the property and maintained all dwellings
within the western side of the property.
setback area, and for any encroachment of associated
paving and vehicle parking area into the required Creek
Setback area. To be approved, the exception must meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code specified in Section
17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). A Creek Setback Exception is allowed
per the City’s Municipal Code if necessary findings are
made, and would, therefore, not constitute a conflict with
local plans or policies. Approval of an exception is subject to
the required findings set out in that section, including
consideration of whether site development can be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project and whether
redesign of the project would deny reasonable use of the
property. Evaluation of the exception request against these
required findings is beyond the scope of environmental
review of the project, but will be a primary consideration as
the City considers final action on the project.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of an alternative project layout is not
required. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Pages 47-50: Noise
This statement is incorrect. This is not a mixed residential use
(residential/commercial) as defined in the City Code for Noise Control-9.12. This
project should be defined as residential per 9.12.020-Definitions. Furthermore,
under 9.12.060, Exterior Noise limits states, “At residential properties, the
Page 48 of the IS/MND has been revised to reflect the
maximum allowable noise-level (75 dB) at single-family
residential properties during construction activities.
Mitiation Measure N-3 requires that additional noise
attenuation techniques (such as sound blankets, shielding,
Page 399 of 427
maximum noise level from 7am-7pm daily except Sundays and Holidays is 75
dBA. Thus, the statement on Page 48 should be revised to reflect the City Code
for Noise Control of 75 dBA. Furthermore, the equipment listed in Table 8 on
page 48 exceeds the Noise Control limits. It is unclear whether the mitigations
listed in N-1 to N-3 are sufficient to reduce the noise levels to an acceptable
level below 75 dBA. Further evaluation is warranted and subsequent mitigat ions
to reduce the noise level to the allowable maximum limit.
and barriers) be employed as needed to ensure noise levels
are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code. As discussed on page 71 of the
IS/MND, all construction noise reduction measures shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Community
Development Department prior to issuance of
grading/building permits. Additionally, compliance with
Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 shall be verified by the
City prior to the start of construction and during regular
inspections, as necessary. Required monitoring programs
would ensure construction-related noise is consistent with
City standards for maximum allowable noise-level at single-
family residential properties during construction activities.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
Page 57: Utilities and Service Systems-under (b)
Does this evaluation take into account the water usage by having an in -ground
pool at the property? It should be clearly stated in the evaluation that the
estimates include not only used based upon the number of residents, but also
that there is a swimming pool planned for the project.
The IS/MND evaluated an additional water demand of
approximately 0.8 acre-feet per year (af/yr), with 0.491 acre
of that estimate being landscaping, based on an individual
review and estimate provided by the City’s Utilities
Department. As evaluated in Section 19, Utilities and
Service Systems Impact (b), the project would be provided
water through the City’s water system, which has four
primary water sources—Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas
Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for
irrigation)—with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental
source. Development of this site is consistent with the City’s
long-range planning documents and, thus, has been
anticipated by the City’s water supply planning, which
considers the uses and type of development allowed in a
particular location based on the site’s zoning designation
and types of uses allowed within that particular zone.
Swimming pools are a common residential amenity that are
accounted for in water supply and demand planning for
residential development. The City’s diversification of water
sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to
maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest
Page 400 of 427
years on record. The commenter's letter has been included
in the case file for 841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to
decision makers for consideration.
Pages 60-61: Mandatory Findings of Significance
This section on does not include the description of the 55 foot long by 12 foot
wide steel bridge across the creek and within the creek area as well as the
associated driveways and parking areas necessary to place the ADU in the
eastern portion of the property. This span creates impact to the City’s own
Municipal Code for creek preservation and requires an exception to those
regulations. This section should state those facts and that the exception needs
approval in order to build the bridge in the creek which significantly impacts the
creek area. It should also be stated that other mitigations could be done, such as
to build the project in the western side of the property within the building
envelope and thus to not disturb the creek and maintain the creek s et- back.
This entire section should be revised to reflect the numerous mitigations that are
necessary in order to mitigate the impacts of building the bridge and associated
driveways and parking spaces for the eastern side of the property.
Page 60 of the IS/MND clearly states that the creek would
be protected through provision of a Creek Setback as
determined by the City Biologist and depicted in plans. This
section has been clarified to restate the required findings for
the proposed Creek Setback Exception, including a finding
that the location and design of the features receiving the
exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water
quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for
wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 through BIO-4 have been identified to reduce or avoid
potential impacts to migratory birds, the on-site creek, and
associated riparian habitat. The IS/MND and supporting
documents establish the span bridge is located in a more
open area of the riparian habitat that minimizes vegetation
removal. The span bridge has footings above the 100-year
water surface elevation to allow for unimpeded high flows
and the project includes a revegetation plan to compensate
for the small amount of vegetation removal in order to
preserve the riparian corridor for wildlife habitation, rest, and
movement. With implementation of identified mitigation, the
existing riparian corridor would be preserved within the
required creek setback consistent with City policies to
maintain availability of habitat for the existing wildlife use.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
Page 401 of 427
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of an alternative project layout is not
required. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Pages 67-72: Required mitigation and monitoring plan
These sections should be revised based upon the comments provided for the
specific sections of the initial study document to be consistent with the initial
study corrections needed to make the report accurate and complete.
No additional mitigation measures are warranted nor do
existing mitigation measures require revision as a result of
public comments on the IS/MND. This comment has been
provided to decision makers for consideration.
Page 69: Required mitigation and monitoring plan
The proposed compliance verification for BIO- 2 appears to be in error since it
refers to the nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2 mitigation is about the
extension of the utilities and that no trenching across the creek shall occur for
the extension of utilities. This error should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would seem more appropriate that
compliance for BIO-2 should be included in the plans for grading and/or
construction, including the details on where the utilities will be located for the
extensions. Verification then would be done through regular inspections of the
project by City staff.
Page 69 of the IS/MND has been revised to reflect this
clarification.
Page 70: Required mitigation and monitoring plan
The proposed compliance verification for BIO- 2 appears to be in error since it
refers to the nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2 mitigation is about the
extension of the utilities and that no trenching across the creek shall occur for
the extension of utilities. This error should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would seem more appropriate that
compliance for BIO-2 should be included in the plans for grading and/or
construction, including the details on where the utilities will be located for the
extensions. Verification then would be done through regular inspections of the
project by City staff.
Page 70 of the IS/MND has been revised to reflect this
clarification.
Page 402 of 427
Page 71: Required mitigation and monitoring plan
The proposed compliance verification for BIO- 2 appears to be in error since it
refers to the nesting birds survey. However, BIO-2 mitigation is about the
extension of the utilities and that no trenching across the creek shall occur for
the extension of utilities. This error should be corrected as it appears in several
monitoring programs in the MND. It would seem more appropriate that
compliance for BIO-2 should be included in the plans for grading and/or
construction, including the details on where the utilities will be located for the
extensions. Verification then would be done through regular inspections of the
project by City staff.
Page 71 of the IS/MND has been revised to reflect this
clarification.
We believe this initial study/MND is in need of significant revision due to errors,
omissions and additional mitigations needed. We would like to express our
severe concerns about the project plans specifying the steel bridge across Twin
Ridge Creek will be 12 feet wide by 55 feet long. The plans also show a retaining
wall 5.5 feet high spanning about half of the property’s length. The wall is located
within the riparian vegetation and creek set-back. The proposed bridge design is
sufficiently wide to allow a car or truck to drive from the main house through a
roadway, cross the bridge and park at the ADU. As our home is adjacent to 841,
we are very concerned that headlights will add to the already increased light
pollution created by this project.
The extensiveness of this development impacts the creek and wildlife corridor to
such a degree that it is not consistent with the surrounding habitat and we
believe the creek’s riparian vegetation will be negatively impacted. The trees
surrounding the creek and wildlife corridor are native and protected. Even w ith
any defined mitigations, the risks to permanently damaging this sensitive
environment are too high. We do not think that the scale of the bridge and
driveway are appropriate for this type of development and should not be allowed
due to harmful impacts to the creek, wildlife corridor and neighborhood.
This comment summarizes the detailed comments above.
Please refer to above responses.
As evaluated in Section 1, Aesthetics, nighttime lighting for
the project is required to comply with the Lighting and Night
Sky Preservation Ordinance (17.70.100) standards for
outdoor lighting and new development to avoid introducing
new sources of light or glare within the project area.
Therefore, the project would be consistent with existing
surrounding uses and would not generate a source of
significant light pollution in the area. Further, the bridge
would be subject to limited use by project occupants and
would not be substantially different than other residential
traffic in the project vicinity. Therefore, impacts related to
additional lighting from headlights would be less than
significant. The commenter's letter has been included in the
case file for 841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to
decision makers for consideration.
The proposed development project should be revised to place all dwellings on
the western side of the creek set-back. This redesign would mitigate all the
impacts to Twin Ridge Creek due to placing the roadways, walls, parking area
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
Page 403 of 427
and extremely large bridge within the creek and set- back of the riparian
vegetation by eliminating these design features and need for a creek set- back
exception
According to San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations under Creek Setbacks,
17.16.025(G.4),
Discretionary Exceptions,
a. Intent. Discretionary exceptions to creek setback standards are
intended to allow reasonable use of sites that are subject to creek set-
backs, where there is no practicable alternative to the exception.
Generally, such exceptions are limited to small parcels that are
essentially surrounded by sites that have been developed with setbacks
smaller than those in subsection E of this section. In the case of
pedestrian paths, bicycle paths and bridges, the site may be large but
there are no options for avoiding a crossing of the creek or encroaching
into the creek setback.
The development at 841 Patricia does not fit the intent of an exception given
there are other options to develop on the 1.4 acre parcel and those options
include redesign of the dwellings to all be located on the western side of the
creek and within the larger building envelope of the parcel. Allowing such a large
exception to the creek setback at 841 Patricia would set a damaging precedent
for San Luis Obispo in this R-1 zoned area.
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, to be approved the
proposed Creek Setback Exception must meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code specified in Section
17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). Approval of an exception is subject to
the required findings set out in that section, including
consideration of whether site development can be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project and whether
redesign of the project would deny reasonable use of the
property. Evaluation of the exception request against these
required findings is beyond the scope of environmental
review of the project, but will be a primary consideration as
the City considers final action on the project.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and will be provided to decision makers
for consideration.
Dr. Bob Holzhauer and Ruth Holzhauer – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
After coming home from a vacation last week, we learned of building plans for a
home in our neighborhood. Although we walk our dogs past 841 Patricia Drive
almost daily, no sign has been posted to notify us of this project. We had no idea
plans had been submitted. Why not?
Project applicants are encouraged to consult with neighbors
of a proposed project early in the development application
process, and the applicant has described meetings and
discussions held with neighbors to this site. This Department
regularly publishes on the City’s website current listings of
Planning and construction permit applications under review.
Page 404 of 427
Some changes affect us. We are writing to ask for reconsideration of this
proposal.
Adequate Public Notice has not been given to neighbors. I contacted three
neighbors just this morning to ask if they were aware of the plans. They were
not. It is the city's obligation to notify neighbors.
Several interested parties, including project neighbors, have
been in communication with the City to stay updated on the
details and status of the proposed project.
Public notice for development applications is provided to
owners and occupants of property near a subject site. In this
case, such notice will be provided at least 10 days prior to
consideration of the application by the appropriate decision
making authority (e.g., Community Development Director,
Planning Commission, etc.).
Creek and Public Access Alterations
The San Luis Creek is a U.S. Blue Line Stream. It provides for run off of waters
from Bishop Peak and surrounding areas. Where will this water be draining with
the projected project?
This stream has been documented for many years by the U.S. government. It is
a real creek. Throughout those years our wildlife has thrived in the wetlands. For
example and contrary to the project biologist, two years ago a red-legged frog
was found in a neighbors yard a mile from the breeding prompt. Additionally, it is
a wildlife corridor. Naming only a few examples, deer walk down our street,
Patricia Court, from Bishop Peak to the creek. We watch wild turkey and quail
walk their young up from the creek to Bishop Peak. It is an active area. Has
proper permitting been received by CA Fish and Wildlife Stream Bed Alteration
and the Water Quality Control Board? I didn't observe them in the packet. In
reading the material provided, I would say this wildlife corridor, riparian area has
clearly been underestimated.
As evaluated in Section 10, Hydrology and Water Quality, of
the IS/MND, San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific
Ocean just west of Avila Beach and has six major tributary
basins: Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East
Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See
Canyon. The project site supports a portion of Twin Ridge
Creek that flows in a north to south direction and bisects the
central portion of the project area. The portion of Twin Ridge
Creek on-site begins at a culvert in the northern portion of
the project site and ultimately provides connection to other
creeks within the city.
Proposed physical improvement of the project site would be
required to comply with the drainage requirements of the
City’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted
for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper
drainage within the city’s watershed. As part of these
requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set
of minimum designated Best Management Practices (BMPs)
and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps
taken to minimize or control the amount of pollutants and
runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting
materials and/or exposure of potential pollutants to rainwater
or other sources of runoff. Additionally, the project would be
required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for
short- and long-term erosion control in compliance with the
City’s stormwater requirements. Therefore, potential impacts
Page 405 of 427
related to drainage and runoff were determined to be less
than significant.
As specified in Mitigation Measure BIO-3, the project is
required to obtain and provide copies of the
permits/authorizations from affected resource agencies prior
to issuance of grading and building permits. A completed
CEQA document is a requirement of regulatory permit
applications; therefore, permits are issued after completion
of the CEQA process.
The IS/MND and supporting BRA established evidence of
deer, gopher, and ground squirrel usage of the site. A
“movement corridor” suggests connectivity between habitat
areas. The IS/MND and supporting documents establish the
creek goes underground several blocks downstream of the
project site thus lacking connectivity as a movement corridor
between habitat areas. Wildlife usage of the site was
established in the IS/MND and supporting documents.
Additional language has been added to this section to clarify
the extent and type of wildlife observed using the area and
surrounding neighborhoods.
Additionally, I also noticed much of the current percolating surface in the design
will be covered with impervious surfaces. This is a concern. Provision has
not been made clear for sheet flow and the water drainage.
As stated on page 44 of the IS/MND, the project would
maintain approximately 80% of the site as pervious surface
area. The project would maintain the on-site creek and
associated corridor, would construct driveways with
permeable pavers, and would reduce driveway width where
feasible. Proposed measures are included in the Stormwater
Control Plan prepared for the project in accordance with the
City’s post-construction stormwater requirements and would
be subject to City review and approval. These requirements,
and those of the Regional Water Quality Control Board,
require stormwater flows to be managed onsite.
Page 406 of 427
Mitigation for Plant Replacement
Mature trees help stabilize soil preventing rapid run-off of rainwater, erosions
and provide a buffer to filter pollutants out of water. Overhanging vegetation
provides insects for wildlife and shade for animals and humans. Ripping out
approximately 43 mature trees, 17 of them being mature oak trees, upsets this
entire balance. The project has called for a one for one replacement of a mature
tree with a one gallon baby tree. This is pathetic. How has the city ensured for
the die ratio? For maintanence of the immature trees?
As described in the IS/MND and supporting BRA
Addendum, the project would require removal of
approximately 17 small coast live oak saplings (not mature
oaks) and between 20-30 arroyo willow stems from four
trees may need removal or pruning for placement of the
span bridge on the footings. The bridge location was sited in
a more open and less vegetated area of the riparian corridor
to minimize impacts on riparian vegetation. The project
includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees
(10 on each side of the creek corridor), four California bay
laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of the creek
corridor), four California sycamore one-gallon trees (two on
each side of the creek corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees
(throughout the creek channel).
The Applicant’s proposed compensatory riparian mitigation
will provide supplemental irrigation for three years, and will
be maintained and monitored for five years, to ensure the
project meets 80% survival success criteria after two years
without supplemental irrigation. (David Wolff Environmental
2021b; Attachment 4).
This home and land is on a portion of the creek that provides an interface of
urban and rural life. Both the lives of people and the animals who live in the area
would be effected. Please open the comment period, with proper notification,
and allow the people who live in this area (and pay high property taxes) another
thirty days.
Potential impacts to the environment were evaluated
through preparation of an Initial Study, consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. This
environmental review process included a 30-day review and
comment period running from September 8th through
October 7th, 2022.
In addition, the City encourages public participation in
decisions made on development applications. Public notice
will be provided to owners and occupants of property near
the project site at least 10 days prior to consideration of the
application by the appropriate decision making authority
(e.g., Community Development Director, Planning
Page 407 of 427
Commission, etc.). The application will be considered at a
public hearing which includes a public comment period.
Kathy apRoberts – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis
Obispo:
Looking at the property at 841 Patricia Drive, the lot area contained by the
minimum lot and creek setbacks and excluding the ‘flag’ for the driveway -
effectively the ‘by-right’ developable envelope- is approximately 15,500 square
feet. At 40% maximum coverage (6,200 square feet) this project and the ADU
(5,260sf + 830sf = 6,120 sf) could be designed and constructed to be together
on the west side of the creek. This very conservative approach to developable
area and lot coverage clearly demonstrates the project could be redesigned to
avoid the need for the requested creek setback exception - a request that is
undeniably one of choice, not necessity.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, to be approved the
proposed Creek Setback Exception must meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code specified in Section
17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). Approval of an exception is subject to
the required findings set out in that section, including
consideration of whether site development can be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project and whether
redesign of the project would deny reasonable use of the
property. Evaluation of the exception request against these
required findings is beyond the scope of environmental
review of the project, but will be a primary consideration as
the City considers final action on the project.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Page 408 of 427
Outside of the building footprints, the site development also includes a large
pool, extensive patios and terraces, all choices made that inhibit the potential for
the ADU to be included on the west side of the creek. With adjustments to those
outdoor areas – and perhaps even by requesting a creek setback exception for
the pool – additional space could be maintained on the west side of the creek
and facilitate placement of the ADU without compromising separation and
privacy between the two homes, and without requiring the severe impacts of
installing a road and bridge to cross over and through the creek bed. The road
and bridge are substantially larger impacts than the ADU itself in terms of
surface area and creek encroachment.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, to be approved the
proposed Creek Setback Exception must meet the
requirements of the Zoning Code specified in Section
17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). Approval of an exception is subject to
the required findings set out in that section, including
consideration of whether site development can be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project and whether
redesign of the project would deny reasonable use of the
property. Evaluation of the exception request against these
required findings is beyond the scope of environmental
review of the project, but will be a primary consideration as
the City considers final action on the project.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
Per the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.70.030.G.4.c findings must be made
to grant an exception to the required creek setbacks. Finding #4 indicates that
there needs to be “circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or
topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same
zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity with the same zoning.” Over 6,000 square feet of building footprint,
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, to be approved, the
Creek Setback Exception must meet the requirements of the
Zoning Code specified in Section 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). The
question of whether the necessary findings can be made is
a question of policy interpretation and not an environmental
issue. Approval of an exception is subject to the required
Page 409 of 427
large terraces, and a pool to not reflect a deprivation of privilege, is quite the
opposite. Finding #7 requires that “site development cannot be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project.” As noted above, a redesign is
entirely feasible, it just would not have a bridge. This is supported by text
regarding Finding #8 that “in the case of new development (reasonable use of
the property) may include less development than indicated by zoning.”
findings set out in that section, including consideration of
whether site development can be feasibly accomplished with
a redesign of the project and whether redesign of the project
would deny reasonable use of the property. Evaluation of
the exception request against these required findings is
beyond the scope of environmental review of the project, but
will be a primary consideration as the City considers final
action on the project. This comment has been provided to
decision makers for consideration.
The Initial Study mentions that “without the bridge crossing, the eastern portion
of the site would not be accessible.” This may be true, but the property owner
has no right to vehicular access across a waterway. Undoubtedly, outside of the
rainy season, access by foot across the creek would be easily achieved.
The comment is noted. The decision-making authority may
consider the feasibility of alternative means of providing
adequate access to the proposed ADU in evaluating
whether the required findings for a creek setback exception
(set out in Zoning Regulations §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)) can be
made. While evaluation of alternative means of access is
beyond the scope of environmental review of the project, it
may be a consideration as the City considers final action on
the project.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
The commenter requests that correspondence be included in the City Files EIR -
0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Jud and Nara Clark – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
We are curious if all parties involved within the City have actually walked the
property at 841 Patricia drive and witnessed what the creek and wildlife corridor
look like in person? Although the City has in place protections for the creek and
the surrounding riparian area, its hard to protect something that you've never
seen. Our hope is that all parties involved take the time to visit the site and to
Representatives of City departments and divisions including
Planning, Engineering, and Natural Resources have
conducted several site visits with the applicant team through
the course of application review. A site survey was
conducted at initiation of the environmental review process,
Page 410 of 427
take in the surrounding area as the proposed bridge through the creek and
riparian area are not what the City laws have in place to protect. We believe the
owners have every right to build on their property however feel that there is
ample room to have an ADU and storage shed on the main development site
without having to encroach upon a protected creek, riparian area, and wildlife
corridor.
with City staff and the City’s environmental consultant in
attendance. No revisions to the IS/MND are necessary in
response to this comment. This comment has been provided
to decision makers for consideration.
We would like further information on the initial study environmental checklist as
to why an Environmental Impact Report is currently not required? We don't feel
like the Mitigated Negative Declaration truly delves into the negative
environmental effects that will take place by cutting down a large quantity of
naturally occurring willows along the creek to make way for a 55 foot long 12 foot
wide bridge to cross the creek to get to an ADU unit and storage shed that will
also impact a large portion of the riparian and wild life corridor areas.
The potential impacts of the project on the riparian and
wildlife corridor areas were evaluated in Section 4,
Biological Resources, of the Initial Study. The analysis
included therein concluded that potential impacts could be
reduced to less than significant with implementation of
identified mitigation measures; therefore, an Environmental
Impact Report is not necessary for the project pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines Section 15063. The IS/MND and
supporting documents establish the span bridge is located in
an open area of the riparian habitat that minimizes
vegetation removal. In order to fully mitigate for the oak and
willow tree riparian habitat removal, the proposed project
includes planting of 20 coast live oak, four California bay
laurel, and four California sycamore 1-gallon trees, and 20
willow sprigs planted throughout the channel bottom. The
proposed compensatory riparian mitigation will add plant
species diversity and density to increase the riparian habitat
values on site.
Impacts to creeks are commonly evaluated in an MND for
CEQA purposes due to the availability and applicability of
well established mitigation options.
HYDROLOGY/FLOODING: We have lived in this neighborhood since 2002 and
have witnessed on multiple occasions heavy rainfall that has resulted in the
entire open are behind our house and within the proposed shed, ADU unit, and
bridge flooded with water. As homeowners that back up to the proposed project,
we are extremely worried that any change to the creek flow can result in a
disastrous flooding situation that can affect neighbors within the entire creek
area including further downstream from the project. We don't believe the impact
CEQA generally does not require that public agencies
analyze the impact existing environmental conditions might
have on a project’s future users or residents, according to
the California Supreme Court’s decision in California
Building Industry Association v. Bay Area Air Quality
Management District (S213478, December 17, 2015). The
IS/MND evaluated the potential for the project to result in
Page 411 of 427
study takes into account current models of precipitation that could impact our
area due to the adverse affects of climate change. Last year we didn't get much
annual rainfall but the one big storm we had dropped almost 7 inches of rain in a
2 day period that did cause considerable ponding and areas of localized
flooding. This is a situation that could happen more frequently than previously
planned for based on the traditional 100 year or 500 year storm models.
impacts related to flooding in Section 10, Hydrology, Impact
Discussions (c) and (d). According to Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map
06079C1066G, effective date November 16, 2012, the
eastern portion of the project site is located within Zone X,
an area with limited potential for annual flooding. As
described in the IS/MND and supporting documents, the
span bridge would be placed on footings located above the
100-year water surface elevation to allow for unimpeded
high flows. Therefore, no built structures or facilities would
be constructed within the 100-year flood zone.
Implementation of the project would result in minor
alterations to the on-site creek for construction of the span
bridge and associated footings and supports. However,
contours within the limited area of disturbance would be
returned to existing conditions upon completion of
construction. The minor alterations would not reduce the
flood capacity of the existing creek or impede or redirect
flood flows because the channel would be maintained and
all built structures would be located outside of the flood
zone. Therefore, the project would not worsen or exasperate
existing flood potential within the project site, and potential
impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood
flows would be less than significant. No revisions to the
IS/MND are necessary in response to this comment. This
comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
We would also like to challenge the report under Aesthetics letter a: This project
if approved with the bridge and ADU and shed, will have a potentially significant
and substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. I'm confused as to why the
initial report is checked with a less than significant impact. This may be true for
the main building site but not the bridge, ADU, and shed. Not only will neighbors
that back up to the project have a significant aesthetic impact but anyone
walking or running on Patricia past the creek area will be exposed to an anomaly
that is not congruent with the aesthetics for the rest of the neighborhood or open
As discussed in Section 1, Aesthetics, a scenic vista is
generally defined as a high-quality view displaying good
aesthetic and compositional values that can be seen from
public viewpoints. Based on the City’s COSE, the project
site is not located within or within close proximity to a
designated scenic vista. Development of a single-family
residence and ADU on the project site would therefore not
change existing views within a designated scenic vista. The
Page 412 of 427
space. We would also like to challenge letter c: and believe that approval of the
bridge, ADU unit and Shed will have a significant impact and degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site and its
surroundings. Under letter d) we also feel that the ADU unit and shed will create
a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or
nighttime views in the area. We would like to add that having the ADU unit will
not only create light pollution for our neighborhood but potential noise issues as
well depending on who the owners rent the property to.
project would not block or result in significant adverse
change in public views from within the surrounding
neighborhood. The single-family residential uses proposed
are consistent with existing uses surrounding the project site
on all sides and the project site is not visible from any scenic
roadways designated in the City’s COSE. For these
reasons, the project would not substantially degrade the
existing visual character or quality of public views of the site,
nor would the project conflict with regulations that have been
established for the purpose of preserving scenic quality or
resources. Although the project would add built components
across the creek and on the east side of the parcel, the
channel and riparian habitat would be maintained and/or
enhanced through replacement plantings. Thus, impacts to
visual character would be less than significant.
Existing sources of nighttime lighting near the project site
include residential street lighting and intermittent vehicle
lighting from vehicles traveling along Patricia Drive.
Nighttime lighting for the residence is required to comply
with the Lighting and Night Sky Preservation Ordinance
(17.70.100) standards for outdoor lighting and new
development, which include, but are not limited to,
requirements for new outdoor light sources to be shielded
and directed away from adjacent properties and public
rights-of-way, requirements for minimum levels of lighting
consistent with public safety standards, and limits to hours
of lighting operation. Therefore, impacts from new sources
of light or glare would be consistent with surrounding uses
and less than significant.
Noise levels are regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance,
which identifies maximum exterior and interior noise limits
for residential areas. In the project vicinity, the Noise
Ordinance prohibits exterior noise in excess of 50 dBA and
interior noise in excess of 40 dBA between the hours of
10:00 pm and 7:00 am. Noise generated from the ADU
would be expected to be similar to comparable small
Page 413 of 427
housing units. Excessive noise in excess of established
limits would be subject to City enforcement actions.
No revisions to the IS/MND are necessary in response to
this comment. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Land Use and Planning letter b: We would also like to challenge the finding that
this project will have less than a significant impact with mitigation incorporated
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: We believe the City has standards and laws in place to protect the creeks,
riparian areas and wildlife corridors for a reason. It is one of the City's missions
and to establish a precedent of approval to build a bridge, ADU unit and shed
across a protected creek, riparian area and wildlife corridor goes against what
the City of San Luis Obispo is trying to protect. If approved this project will
literally pave the way for any landowner with property spanning across a creek,
riparian area and wildlife corridor in San Luis Obispo to ask for an exception to
build a bridge, ADU unit and storage sheds in what was once a protected area. I
will reiterate, we are not against the owners building on the primary site,
however feel it is unnecessary given the lot size and dimensions to encroach or
build through a riparian area by removing naturally occurring protected willows
over a protected creek into a wildlife corridor.
The potential impacts of the project on the riparian and
wildlife corridor areas were evaluated in Section 4,
Biological Resources, of the Initial Study. The analysis
included therein concluded that potential impacts could be
reduced to less than significant with implementation of
identified mitigation measures.
The project includes a proposed Creek Setback Exception
to allow the placement of the bridge and associated footings
and supports within this setback area, as well as other
project components (e.g., retaining wall, internal access
road, pool deck). The requested exception would thus allow
the use of the eastern portion of the site for the ADU
residential unit. Without the bridge crossing, this eastern
portion of the site would not be accessible. To be approved,
the exception must meet the requirements of the Zoning
Code specified in Section 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). The City’s
Zoning Regulations allow for exceptions to established
creek setbacks if certain mandatory findings can be made.
The project proposes a Creek Setback Exception pursuant
to the Zoning Regulations and is, therefore, not in conflict
with City Zoning Regulations. Approval of an exception is
subject to the required findings set out in that section,
including consideration of whether site development can be
feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project and
whether redesign of the project would deny reasonable use
of the property. Evaluation of the exception requests against
these required findings is beyond the scope of
environmental review of the project, but will be a primary
consideration as the City considers final action on the
project. Future proposals that include creek crossings and/or
Page 414 of 427
requests for a creek setback exception would be subject to
the same discretionary review process and mandatory
findings. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Biological Resources Assessment: I would like to state that in fact there are
multiple areas along the creek within the building area that have ponding that
can be present into late May and sometimes June depending on how much rain
we received in the prior months. Years ago when my daughter was 7 or 8 years
old we were cleaning up debris in the creek and were surprised and excited to
find turtles in one of the ponding areas located within the proposed buildin g site.
We haven't seen turtles in a long time but haven't been specifically looking for
them. We can also say with certainty that Coopers Hawk's frequent the creek
and riparian areas almost daily. We have also witnessed the yellow-breasted
chat on occasion. The creek and riparian areas also have many deer on a year
round basis and higher rates during birthing months.
The IS/MND and supporting documents acknowledge
the potential for Cooper’s hawks to occur as it is
commonly associated with riparian habitats. They
can be seen throughout the year (breeding,
migrating, winter nomad) in and around San Luis
Obispo and beyond. Additionally, mitigation has
already been included to require preconstruction
nesting bird surveys and identifies the protocol to be
followed if birds are found nesting within the project
area to reduce project impacts on nesting birds,
including Cooper’s hawk and yellow-breasted chat.
As identified on page 25 of the IS/MND, the riparian
corridor associated with the on-site creek does not
provide habitat for special-status riparian species
(i.e., special status turtles, frogs) due to the lack of
understory shrub and natural debris. The IS/MND
and BRA Addendum field survey established the
existing conditions of the creek corridor and lack of
onsite suitable aquatic habitat for California red-
legged frog (long duration ponding) within the narrow
and shallow braided channel topography through the
property. The IS/MND and supporting BRA
established evidence of deer, gopher, and ground
squirrel usage of the site; additional information has
been added to the MND to clarify other observations
of wildlife within the site. With required mitigation and
plantings, the existing riparian corridor would be
preserved within the required creek setback
consistent with City policies to maintain availability of
habitat for the existing wildlife use. The proposed
compensatory riparian mitigation will add plant
species diversity and density to increase the riparian
habitat values on site. The project would not
Page 415 of 427
substantially alter drainage patterns within the site or
the ability for the site to support ponding, similar to
existing conditions.
Is it possible for the City to post at the entrance to the 841 property the proposed
project with a concept design so the community can better understand the
significance of this project and how it will negatively impact the creek, riparian
area, and wildlife corridor? It's easy for community members to not know what's
going on unless something is visibly in place for them to read while they are out
and about on a walk or run.
Potential impacts to the environment were evaluated
through preparation of an Initial Study, consistent with the
provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The
Initial Study concluded that potential environmental impacts
to biological resources would be reduced to a less than
significant level with incorporation of certain mitigation
measures described in the Mitigated Negative Declaration
that is the subject of this comment.
The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, which
include site plans and project drawings, have been made
available on the City’s website. Planning staff are available
for contact by phone, email, or visit to the Community
Development Department offices to answer questions or
concerns about environmental review of the project, and the
project application materials are available at our offices for
review.
Thomas E. and Mary Kay Eltzroth – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
Please consider this response to the Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a
Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Michaels Residence Project (City
Files EID- 0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021). Project Location 841 Patricia Drive.
We own and reside permanently at 847 Patricia Drive. Ours is the property
immediately to the left of the Michaels' driveway and immediately in front of the
main portion of the proposed residence. We are responding to a portion of The
Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration. Specifically we are responding
to the 21-page document that is referred to as "Project Plans (Jun [sic] 17,
2022)", also sometimes referenced as Attachment 1. We are uncertain about the
exact title and date of this document because dates other than Jun/June 17,
The applicant’s project architect confirmed the referenced
elevation heights are in keeping with the design of the
residence and are not expected to increase above the
reference points noted. The roof structural assembly would
need to be coordinated during preparation of construction
documents to finalize roof materials and insulation thickness
required for code compliance. The roof material thickness
may adjust in thickness but would be negligible to the overall
height of the project.
Page 416 of 427
2022 appear on several pages of the document, so to make clear which
document we are referencing it is included as an attachment to this email with
the title we have given it - "Referenced Document". Please consider the
attachment as part of our response.
From our reading and careful review of the referenced document, it is our
understanding that:
1. As shown in "Site Section 2 @ Living" (page A4?) the highest point of
the residence roof will not exceed an elevation of 375.57
2. As shown in "Site Section 1 @ Garage" (page A4?) the highest point of
the garage roof will not exceed an elevation of 376.48
3. As shown in the "Schematic Site Plan" (AS-1) no portion of the
residence will be closer than 27' 11" to our back property line
Overall, we are favorably impressed by the plans as shown in the referenced
document. More specifically, we favor the style, color scheme, and exterior
materials and details of the buildings as called out in the plans. We are also
happy to see the planned use of extensive permeable paving and a landscape
plan that suggests the intention to use what appears to be appropriate plants,
mulching, and hardscaping along with appropriate irrigation technology. We note
that several plants have been called out that are favorable to birds, bees,
butterflies, and other pollinators.
Landscape plans are sometimes difficult to read and interpret, in part because of
the use of symbols that are very similar to other symbols on the plan;
consequently, we make this note regarding the landscape plan as presented:
from the Master Landscape Plan (L-1) it appears that Citrus X sinensis will be
planted along the left side of the driveway parallel to our property. The ultimate
height of Citrus X sinensis varies depending largely on cultivar selection,
rootstock, and ongoing maintenance – especially pruning. In a typical residential
setting most selections of Citrus X sinensis are kept at about 8’ to 10’ tall for
convenience of harvesting, maintenance, etc. However, many cultivars of this
species can reach an ultimate height of nearly 30’, especially if left unattended.
At that height the plants will possibly negatively impact solar collection on
existing and/or future solar panels.
The citrus x sinensis would be maintained to a typical
residential setting height. No revisions to the IS/MND are
necessary in response to this comment.
Page 417 of 427
Though grading and drainage are somewhat addressed in the referenced
document, we want to express this concern: any changes in grading and/or
drainage in the referenced project shall not cause water to flow onto or seep or
otherwise permeate into any neighboring property other than what may be
occurring presently.
Grading of the site would be designed to drain away from
the neighboring parcels to maintain proper drainage with the
proposed improvements. As discussed in Section 10,
Hydrology and Water Quality Impact Discussion (c), the
project would be required to develop and implement a
SWPPP that includes BMPs to protect stormwater runoff,
including measures to prevent soil erosion. In addition, the
project would be required to prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with the City’s
stormwater requirements to reduce the potential for short-
and long-term erosion from implementation of the project.
Following project construction, the project site would be
developed with new residential units, hardscapes, or
otherwise landscaped areas, reducing the potential for
substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. Implementation of the
project would result in new impervious surfaces that have
potential to increase polluted or other surface runoff.
However, the project would maintain the majority of the site
as pervious (approximately 80%) and would further reduce
impervious surface area by maintaining the on-site creek
and associated corridor, constructing driveways with
permeable pavers, and reducing driveway width where
feasible as required by the City’s post-construction
stormwater requirements. Standard Regional Water Quality
Control Board requirements require that all stormwater be
controlled and managed within the project site. Compliance
with existing regulations would minimize potential impacts to
drainages during project construction. No revisions to the
IS/MND are necessary in response to this comment.
Jim apRoberts – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
Page 418 of 427
Regarding Creek Setback Exception Request for 841 Patricia Drive, San Luis
Obispo:
Looking at the property at 841 Patricia Drive, the lot area contained by the
minimum lot and creek setbacks and excluding the ‘flag’ for the driveway -
effectively the ‘by-right’ developable envelope- is approximately 15,500 square
feet. At 40% maximum coverage (6,200 square feet) this project and the ADU
(5,260sf + 830sf = 6,120 sf) could be designed and constructed to be together
on the west side of the creek. This very conservative approach to developable
area and lot coverage clearly demonstrates the project could be redesigned to
avoid the need for the requested creek setback exception - a request that is
undeniably one of choice, not necessity.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Outside of the building footprints, the site development also includes a large
pool, extensive patios and terraces, all choices made that inhibit the potential for
the ADU to be included on the west side of the creek. With adjustments to those
outdoor areas - and perhaps even by requesting a creek setback exception for
the pool - additional space could be maintained on the west side of the creek
and facilitate placement of the ADU without compromising separation and
privacy between the two homes, and without requiring the severe impacts of
installing a road and bridge to cross over and through the creek bed. The road
and bridge are substantially larger impacts than the ADU itself in terms of
surface area and creek encroachment.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration. This comment has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Per the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 17.70.030.G.4.c findings must be made
to grant an exception to the required creek setbacks. Finding #4 indicates that
there needs to be “circumstances applying to the site, such as size, shape, or
topography, which do not apply generally to land in the vicinity with the same
As discussed on page 2 of the IS/MND, to be approved, the
Creek Setback Exception must meet the requirements of the
Zoning Code specified in Section 17.70.030 (G)(4)(c).
Approval of an exception is subject to the required findings
Page 419 of 427
zoning, that would deprive the property of privileges enjoyed by other property in
the vicinity with the same zoning.” Over 6,000 square feet of building footprint,
large terraces, and a pool to not reflect a deprivation of privilege, is quite the
opposite. Finding #7 requires that “site development cannot be feasibly
accomplished with a redesign of the project.” As noted above, a redesign is
entirely feasible, it just would not have a bridge. This is supported by text
regarding Finding #8 that “in the case of new development (reasonable use of
the property) may include less development than indicated by zoning.”
set out in that section, including consideration of whether
site development can be feasibly accomplished with a
redesign of the project and whether redesign of the project
would deny reasonable use of the property. Evaluation of
the exception request against these required findings is
beyond the scope of environmental review of the project, but
will be a primary consideration as the City considers final
action on the project. This comment has been provided to
decision makers for consideration.
The Initial Study mentions that “without the bridge crossing, the eastern portion
of the site would not be accessible.” This may be true, but the property owner
has no right to vehicular access across a waterway. Undoubtedly, outside of the
rainy season, access by foot across the creek would be easily achieved.
The comment is noted. The decision-making authority may
consider the feasibility of alternative means of providing
adequate access to the proposed ADU in evaluating
whether the required findings for a creek setback exception
(set out in Zoning Regulations §17.70.030 (G)(4)(c)) can be
made. While evaluation of alternative means of access is
beyond the scope of environmental review of the project, it
may be a consideration as the City considers final action on
the project.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
The commenter requests that correspondence be included in the City Files EIR -
0547-0201, ARCH-0040-2021.
The commenter's letter has been included in the case file for
841 Patricia Drive and has been provided to decision
makers for consideration.
Robert Schroeter – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
As stated in the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) Conservation Guidelines, it is
critical to preserve and or restore riparian areas, creeks, wetlands and
ephemeral seeps or springs to a natural state and provide suitable habitat to all
native aquatic and riparian species. The City further states that it is critical to
minimize the impacts of harmful activities in these waterways, wetlands and
The project includes a proposed Creek Setback Exception
to allow the placement of the bridge and associated footings
and supports within this setback area, as well as other
project components (e.g., retaining wall, internal access
road, pool deck). To be approved, the exception must meet
Page 420 of 427
floodplains to enhance and preserve their natural function and to protect native
fish and amphibian populations that utilize these areas as habitat.
This project is requesting an exception to riparian forest protection (creek
setback) and if approved, the project will alter and degrade the riparian forest
and the designated habitat corridor. The proposed changes sought by this
project are specifically prohibited as exceptions within setbacks (include
structures, paving and parking lots; San Luis Obispo Municipal Code17.70.030
Creek Setbacks).
It seems reasonable that the city may consider such exceptions when there is
significant and substantial public benefit. However, in this case there is no
realized public benefit and there will be significant environmental costs that do
not justify granting such an exception. In addition, the applied for exception
would prevent the implementation of city adopted plans regarding open space,
riparian areas and habitat corridors and would likely constitute a grant of special
privilege since other projects in the area have not been rewarded with similar
exceptions. Finally, there are many alternatives to having a bridge built over
pristine riparian forest including the relocation of the ADU to the south side of
stream, which would leave 100% of the stream riparian forest intact.
the requirements of the Zoning Code specified in Section
17.70.030 (G)(4)(c). The City’s Zoning Regulations allow for
exceptions to established creek setbacks if certain
mandatory findings can be made. There is no required
finding that the project provide a “public benefit”. Approval of
an exception is subject to the required findings set out in
that section, including consideration of whether site
development can be feasibly accomplished with a redesign
of the project and whether redesign of the project would
deny reasonable use of the property. Evaluation of the
exception request against these required findings is beyond
the scope of environmental review of the project, but will be
a primary consideration as the City considers final action on
the project.
In accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6,
consideration and discussion of alternatives is only required
when a lead agency is preparing an EIR and an identified
alternative would substantially lessen significant effects
identified in the EIR. No significant and unavoidable impacts
were identified in the IS/MND. The potential impacts of the
project on the riparian and wildlife corridor areas were
evaluated in Section 4, Biological Resources, of the Initial
Study. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures.
Therefore, evaluation of a project redesign is not required.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
The proposal also underestimates and understates the impacts to the riparian
forest and the habitat corridor, as will be discussed in the following sections that
specifically address the bioloigical resources assessment report (BRA).
As described in the IS/MND and supporting documents, the
span bridge has been located in a more open and less
vegetated area of the riparian habitat that minimizes
vegetation removal. The span bridge has footings above the
100-year water surface elevation to allow for unimpeded
Page 421 of 427
BRA is not representative / accurate of true impact to the stream riparian and
corridor:
The authors of the BRA state 17 oak saplings and 20-30 arroyo willow “stems”
from four trees will need to be removed to accommodate the proposed bridge
and that its construction and presence would have minimal impacts given the
already limited connectivity of the stream corridor.
In total, the 12’ x 50’ bridge will directly impact a minimum riparian forest area of
600 ft2 once constructed and there will likely be extensive additional damage to
riparian plants and the soil and stream substrate as a result of the construction
activities. In addition, it cannot be assumed that the removed forest vegetation
will return at the bridge crossing as it would need to be continuously cut to
maintain access. Any shaded plants under the bridge will also likely not survive
the modification.
high flows and the project includes a revegetation plan to
compensate for the limited amount of vegetation removal.
The project would require the removal of 17 coast live oak
saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from
approximately four trees within the riparian corridor for
construction of the new bridge crossing over the portion of
Twin Ridge Creek on-site. In order to fully mitigate for the
oak and willow tree riparian habitat removal, the proposed
project includes planting of 20 coast live oak, four California
bay laurel, and four California sycamore 1-gallon trees, and
20 willow sprigs planted throughout the channel bottom,
which is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code
(12.24.090), which requires the replanting of removed trees
at a minimum 1:1 ratio when planted on-site. The proposed
compensatory riparian mitigation will add plant species
diversity and density to increase the riparian habitat values
on site. Replanted trees would be irrigated for three years
and maintained and monitored for five years to meet an 80%
survival success. Other riparian trees would be protected
through provision of a Creek Setback as determined by the
City Biologist and depicted in plans.
This comment has been provided to decision makers for
consideration.
Furthermore, the use of the term stems is misleading. Stems are any above
ground plant structure, but the reality of the proposed construction activities will
be the removal of large limbs and possibly trunks of the existing arroyo willow to
accommodate the space needed for the bridge. The size of the stems removed
should be identified. The entire riparian forest on the property is very healthy a nd
dense, thus using the affected area (600 ft2) is the best estimate of total impact
and an appropriate mitigation would be the addition of riparian forest equivalent
to the size that was removed.
According to California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Heather Rodriguez)
removal of any riparian limb exceeding 2” in diameter would require mitigation
and any limb exceeding 4” diameter would require the application for a 1600
See previous response. The size of all trees/stems to be
removed are shown on Sheet L-1 attached to the BRA
Addendum (refer to IS/MND Attachment 4 – BRA
Addendum).
As reflected on Page 4 of the IS/MND, a permit/approval
from CDFW would be required for the proposed project. As
discussed in the IS/MND, implementation of Mitigation
Measure BIO-3 would require the Applicant to provide
copies of the permits/authorizations from affected resource
agencies, including a final revegetation plan that is
consistent with the revegetation plan provided in the
Page 422 of 427
permit. Having clarity on the size of limbs removed would allow for greater
assessment of impact and appropriate permitting next steps.
Addendum to the BRA for approval by the City Natural
Sustainability and Natural Resources Official, Community
Development Department. Plans submitted for grading and
building permits would be required to show tree removals
consistent with the November 2021 revegetation plan,
including the locations and quantities of the maximum
number of trees identified for removal to facilitate the bridge
construction. Vegetation removal would be required to be
kept to the minimum necessary for bridge clearance and
construction of the necessary footings and supports. Initial
removal of vegetation would be monitored full-time by a
qualified biologist, and weekly spot-check monitoring would
continue throughout the construction of the bridge structure.
Supplemental irrigation would be provided to the
revegetated area of the riparian corridor for three years, and
maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80%
survival success criteria after two years without
supplemental irrigation. Monitoring reports demonstrating
compliance with the revegetation plan would be prepared
and submitted to the affected resource agencies and the
City annually. Permits and/or authorizations from the
regulatory agencies (CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control
Board, and USACE), or documentation from the respective
agency that the permit/authorization is required, would be
submitted to the City prior to any grading and/or construction
activities within the on-site riparian area. This comment has
been provided to decision makers for consideration.
It is important to point out that the landowners applying for this permit have
already extensively thinned the riparian forest on this property. This occurred in
the Fall of 2020. It is not clear what if any permits were obtained for this tree
removal work, but since all work stopped once it was reported to city officials, it
is likely that no permit was obtained. Many of the cut tree branches had
diameters exceeding the 2-4” diameter criteria. The city biologist Freddy Otte
can attest to scale of impact and the proposed mitigation that was suggested at
the time, which was tree replanting. It is not clear if any mitigation has taken
This comment does not require any revisions to the IS/MND
prepared for the project. This comment has been provided
to decision makers for consideration.
Page 423 of 427
place to date. Furthermore, it is not clear as to the extent of the riparian forest
that was removed from those activities.
The proposed mitigation for this projects stream riparian impacts, which include
planned “stem” and oak sapling removal is planting more willow and oaks into
existing riparian forest. As already stated, this will not mitigate the loss of 600 ft2
of riparian forest as it will only further crowd the existing plants in already
established upstream riparian forest.
As discussed in the IS/MND, Mitigation Measure BIO-3
would require vegetation removal to be kept to the minimum
necessary and would require revegetation, supplemental
irrigation for the revegetated area for three years, and
maintenance and monitoring of the revegetated area for five
years to meet 80% survival success criteria after two years
without supplemental irrigation. Monitoring reports
demonstrating compliance with the revegetation plan would
be prepared and submitted to the affected resource
agencies and the City annually. . The proposed
compensatory riparian mitigation will add plant species
diversity and density to increase the riparian habitat values
on site.
No data is provided within the BRA and the city biologists also provide no data
on the use of this area by wildlife. My personal observations and accounts made
by the surrounding homeowners are that the site is extensively used by wildlife. I
carried out a site visit on 10/6/22 and observed turkey, quail, numerous species
of small birds and there were signs of extensive deer use (droppings, deer rubs
and game trails) along the edge and within the riparian forest. There was also a
deer fawn carcass scattered between the stream channel and the upper flood
plain suggesting that larger predators such as mountain lion are actively feeding
in the area.
The IS/MND and supporting BRA established evidence of
deer, gopher, and ground squirrel usage of the site.
Additional information has been added to the IS/MND to
clarify the extent and type of wildlife observed using the area
and surrounding neighborhoods. A “movement corridor”
suggests connectivity between habitat areas. The IS/MND
and supporting documents establish the creek goes
underground several blocks downstream of the project site
thus lacking connectivity as a movement corridor between
habitat areas. Twin Ridge Creek flows onto the property
through an underground culvert under Patricia Drive and is
undergrounded again south of the project site at Westmont
Avenue. The lack of a consistent open channel impedes
larger wildlife, such as deer, from effectively using the creek
as a movement corridor; however, deer and other wildlife
(wild turkey, quail) that have become adapted to the urban
environment have been seen within the site and vicinity.
Therefore, wildlife usage of the site was established in the
IS/MND and supporting documents.
Page 424 of 427
The BRA alludes to the fact that there is limited direct connectivity of the habitat
corridor at the project site to Bishops Peak, due to upstream culverts. Although it
would be best to have direct connectivity, wildlife do have access to bishops
peak and other surrounding riparian and upland habitat through the culverts and
via backyards and side yards. The limited upstream access in no way should be
an excuse to degrade and or diminish the value of the existing riparian forest at
the project site.
As discussed in the BRA and IS/MND, given the infill urban
setting, the lack of accumulated cover (vegetation and
debris), and likely sheet flows through the bottom of the
corridor, the riparian creek corridor is considered to have
low potential for special-status wildlife species and other
riparian-associated species. Twin Ridge Creek flows onto
the property through an underground culvert under Patricia
Drive and again along Westmont Avenue. The lack of a
consistent open channel impedes larger wildlife, such as
deer, from effectively using the creek as a movement
corridor, though it may not prohibit movement entirely, as
suggested by the commenter. Regardless, the corridor’s
current value as a wildlife corridor is limited. The addition of
a span bridge over the creek, a single-family residence, and
an ADU adjacent to the creek on the project site, consistent
with the surrounding residential development on all sides of
the project site, would not substantially alter wildlife
movement throughout the area. Deer and other wildlife (wild
turkey, quail) that have become adapted to the urban
environment would continue to traverse the site and
surrounding areas in substantially the same manner.
The BRA depends on a single year of assessment (April and October 2021) of
biological life from an extreme drought time period 2021 as a basis for their
ecological studies report. This is not a good way to gauge the potential impact of
the proposed study because the full inventory of species use is not likely to be
reflective of potential species (both aquatic and terrestrial) use under more
natural non drought conditions and will prevent thorough consideration of the
overall impact of the project. As Freddy Otte can attest to, bullfrogs are found on
occasion within this drainage which indicates that habitat is suitable for other
multistage amphibians including red legged frog.
Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15125, the baseline
for the project includes the physical environmental
conditions in the vicinity of the project as they exist at the
time the environmental analysis is commenced. As
discussed in the BRA, the methods included a biological
resources reconnaissance and floristic inventory and rare
plant survey and follow-up field reconnaissance to evaluate
existing conditions. Based on these surveys, the BRA
included a complete list of species observed at the project
site. The IS/MND also reviewed historical records and other
available data to identify additional species that have the
potential to occur at the project site, even if not observed,
due to the presence of suitable habitat to support the
Page 425 of 427
species. Therefore, the IS/MND included a review of all
species with the potential to occur at the project site.
As identified on page 25 of the IS/MND, the riparian corridor
associated with the on-site creek does not provide habitat
for special-status riparian species (i.e., special status turtles,
frogs) due to the lack of understory shrub and natural debris.
The IS/MND and BRA Addendum field survey identified the
existing conditions of the creek corridor and lack of onsite
aquatic habitat suitable for California red-legged frog (long
duration ponding) within the narrow and shallow braided
channel topography through the property. With
implementation of identified mitigation, the existing riparian
corridor would be preserved and/or restored within the
required creek setback consistent with City policies to
maintain availability of habitat for the existing wildlife use.
Natural riparian systems and their associated forests typically do not occur in
straight lines. Current staking of the edge of riparian forest cuts off an extension
measuring 15’ x 25’ which is 375 ft2 of riparian forest that would be excluded
from protection as it is now staked. The current staking pattern runs counter to
the “measurement of creek setbacks” listed in the San Luis Obispo Municipal
Code 17. 70.030C. This area is on the North side of the property close to the
proposed ADU driveway. The actual existing riparian forest edge should be
corrected for accuracy and for further protection of this important habitat.
The IS/MND analysis is based on the field staked and
surveyed edge of riparian vegetation consistent with City
policies for establishing creek setbacks from top of bank or
outside edge of predominant riparian vegetation, whichever
is greater. The City Biologist established the location and
course of the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the
creek based on conditions observed during a site visit
conducted in November 2020 and verified this as the edge
of riparian vegetation during a subsequent site visit
conducted June 30, 2022. This line is depicted and labeled
in plans as “Edge of Riparian Vegetation” (Sheet A2) and
“Surveyed Vegetation Line” (Sheet AS-1).
Robert Schroeter – October 7, 2022
Comment Response
An MND is not appropriate for the proposed project at 841 Patricia Drive. As
described in my prior email, the project will result in potentially significant effects
As detailed in the IS/MND prepared for the proposed
project, mitigation has been identified for all potentially
Page 426 of 427
on the environment and does not sufficiently avoid or mitigate the effects to a
point where clearly no significant effect on the environment would occur. In fact,
there is substantial evidence that the project will likely have a significant effect
on the environment. Therefore, a full EIR should be prepared by the City with
sufficient opportunity for public comment.
significant impacts and have been determined to be
sufficient to reduce impacts to a less-than-significant level;
therefore, an EIR was not determined to be appropriate or
necessary for the project. Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines
Section 21091, the IS/MND was circulated for public review
for 30 days. The commenter's letter has been included in
the case file for 841 Patricia Drive and has been provided to
decision makers for consideration.
The potential impacts of the project were evaluated in the
IS/MND. The analysis included therein concluded that
potential impacts could be reduced to less than significant
with implementation of identified mitigation measures;
therefore, an Environmental Impact Report is not necessary
for the project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15063.
Impacts to creeks, riparian habitat, and similar resources are
commonly evaluated in an MND for CEQA purposes due to
the availability and applicability of well-established mitigation
options.
Page 427 of 427
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Single-family dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and access bridge, on
a sensitive site, with request for exception to the required creek setback
Review the application for consistency with:
▪General Plan policies
▪Residential Development
▪Protection of Natural Resources
▪Zoning Regulations
▪Development Standards, Including Creek Setbacks
(Zoning §17.70.030; 8 Required Findings)
▪Community Design Guidelines
▪Including Creekside Development (CDG §7.1)
Planning Commission Purview
ADU
Primary Dwelling
General Plan Land Use Element -Community Goals
3. Protect and enhance the natural environment, including the quality of air, water, soil, and open space.
4. Protect, sustain, and where it has been degraded, enhance wildlife habitat on land surrounding the city, at
Laguna Lake, along creeks and other wetlands, and on open hills and ridges within the city, so that diverse,
native plants, fish, and animals can continue to live within the area.
7. Protect and restore natural landforms and features in and near the city, such as the volcanic morros,
hillsides, marshes, and creeks.
9. Identify, map and monitor our community's natural assets to preserve and protect them.
Land Use Element Policies –Conservation and Development of Residential Neighborhoods
2.3.7 –The City shall require residential developments to preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site
features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, and plants.
2.3.9(c) –New development shall protect stream corridors and natural drainages
2.3.10 –The City shall require new residential developments to respect site constraints such as property size
and shape, ground slope, access, creeks and wetlands, wildlife habitats, wildlife corridors, native vegetation,
and significant trees.
Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 7.3.3 –Continuous wildlife habitat, including corridors free of human disruption, shall be preserved and
where necessary, created by interconnecting open spaces, wildlife habitat and corridors
Program 7.7.8 –Condition development permits in accordance with applicable mitigation measures to ensure
that important corridors for wildlife movement and dispersal are protected. Features of particular importance
to wildlife include riparian corridors, wetlands, lake shorelines, and protected natural areas with cover and
water. Linkages and corridors shall be provided to maintain connections between habitat areas
Creek Setbacks (Zoning §17.70.030)
Patricia Dr
803 10,500
847 9,350
859 11,550
871 31,500
Twin Ridge Dr
205 10,856
221 10,316
235 10,490
251 11,775
271 15,458
Pasatiempo Dr
895 12,322
819 15,000
805 16,500
Patricia Ct
258 13,070
248 10,300
238 9,310
218 9,450
Applicant Explanation:
▪Limiting the area of the lot would deny the property owner
less development than indicated by City’s zoning standards
and recent legislation regarding ADUs
▪Placement of the ADU on the opposite side of the creek
towards the SW denies overall development allowed by
zoning and would force more extensive site grading
disturbance resulting in more grading cut and fill quantities
▪Removing the bridge would create much more site grading
disturbance and affect other sensitive areas of the site
rendering the project infeasible
Applicant Explanation:
▪Without the ability to cross the creek, the applicants have
no access or reasonable use of the balance of their
property
▪In addition, recent legislation has paved the way for the
streamlined addition of accessory dwelling units
Community Design Guidelines
§7.1 Creekside Development
(B)(2) A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where
biological and habitat value will not be compromised; however, no other
structure, road, parking access, parking space, paved area, or swimming
pool should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area. The
surfacing of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the
type of surface will be based on the need to protect riparian resources
and minimize runoff to the creek channel.
(B)(3) No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian
plant species, or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek
or creekside setback area.
ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia)
Single-family dwelling, Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU), and access bridge, on a sensitive
site, with request for exception to the required creek setback
Recommendation:
Adopt the Draft Resolution denying the Architectural Review application
▪Inconsistency with General Plan Policies for preservation of wildlife habitat and
corridors and for conservation and development of residential neighborhoods
▪Inconsistency with Zoning Regulations regarding Creek Setbacks
▪Does not Minimize Impacts to Resources (Finding #1)
▪Lack of evidence of circumstances depriving property of similar privileges (Finding #4)
▪Lack of evidence that site development with redesign is infeasible (Finding #7)
▪Lack of evidence that redesign would deny reasonable use of the property (Finding #8)
▪Inconsistency with Community Design Guidelines for Creekside Development
(CDG §7.1)
ADUPrimary Dwelling
5.3 -Infill Development
A.1. Infill residential development should be compatible in scale, siting, detailing,
and overall character with adjacent buildings and those in the immediate
neighborhood...
B. An infill residential structure should incorporate the traditional architectural
characteristics of existing houses in the neighborhood, including window and door
spacing, exterior materials, roof style and pitch, ornamentation and other details.
F. Color schemes for infill residential structures should consider the colors of
existing houses in the neighborhood, to maintain compatibility.
Community Design Guidelines
Michaels Residence
Eric & Julie Michaels
ARCH-0040-2021 & EID-0547-2021
841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 | APN #052-520-063
City of San Luis Obispo -Planning Commission
25 January 2023
David Wolff
Environmental, LLC
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive APPLICANT’S REQUEST
That the Planning Commission review the facts and deny staff’s
recommendation with direction to staff to revise the Resolution to
approve the single-family residence, the accessory dwelling unit,
and access bridge; approve the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration; and approve the creek setback request based upon
findings of consistency.
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive THE BASIS OF THE APPLICANT’S REQUEST
“…….while 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.”
Source: IS/MND EID 0547-2021
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
SITE
VICINITY MAP
TRACT 1182 & CONTEXT
SITE
DRAINAGE LEGEND
OPEN CHANNEL
CULVERT
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive SITE CONTEXTPATRICIA CT.VIEW WEST OF PROPOSED BRIDGE
BISHOP’S PEAK
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive BRIDGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS
BRIDGE DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS:
▪Located in an existing opening in the
riparian canopy to minimize vegetation
removal
▪Small footings are above the 100-year
floodplain and outside of the limits of
waters of the U.S.
▪Minimize impacts and mitigate with
riparian plantings to enhance the creek
corridor
HOUSE
ADU
CREEK SETBACK
DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS –MINIMIZE IMPACTS
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS:
▪Minimize Impacts -§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(1): The location and design of the
feature receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources,
water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife
habitation, rest, and movement.
RESPONSE:
“No significant and unavoidable impacts were identified in the IS/MND...
including the creek crossing. … Potential impacts could be reduced to less than
significant with implementation of the identified mitigation measures.”
Source: IS/MND EID 0547-2021
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS:
▪Special Circumstances –§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(4): There are circumstances
applying to the site, such as size, shape, or topography, which do not apply
generally to land in the vicinity with the same zoning, that would deprive the
property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity with the same
zoning.
RESPONSE:
Unique property features
•Bisected by creek
•Larger than surrounding parcels
•Flag lot with one point of access
•Tract improvements graded and modified topography
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS –SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS:
▪Feasibility of Development –§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(7): Site development
cannot be feasibly accomplished with a redesign of the project.
RESPONSE:
Most reliable, safest, and environmentally sensitive method to access eastern
portion of subject property is with mitigated construction of a span bridge.
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS –FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS:
▪Reasonable Use–(§17.70.030(G)(4)(c)(8): Redesign of the project would
deny the property owner reasonable use of the property. “Reasonable use of
the property” in the case of new development may include less development
than indicated by zoning.
RESPONSE:
Prohibiting access and use to a portion of the subject property reaches beyond
“redesign”. Access bridge is the only component to require a creek setback
exception. All other components (Primary Residence, ADU and related site
improvements) comply with zoning, development, and creek setback standards.
CREEK SETBACK FINDINGS –REASONABLE USE
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES –CREEKSIDE DEVELOPMENT:
▪§7.1(B)(2) A path or trail may be located within a creekside setback where
biological and habitat value will not be compromised; however, no other
structure, road, parking access, parking space, paved area, or swimming pool
should be constructed within a creek or creekside setback area. The surfacing
of a path or trail may most appropriately be permeable; the type of surface
will be based on the need to protect riparian resources and minimize runoff
to the creek channel.
▪§7.1(B)(3) No grading or filling, planting of exotic/non-native or non-riparian
plant species, or removal of native vegetation shall occur within a creek or
creekside setback area.
RESPONSE:Zoning regulations for creek setback exceptions supersede CDG
guidelines,supported by site specific circumstances,analysis,and mitigations.
COMMUNITY DESIGN GUIDELINES & COSE –CREEKSIDE DEVELOPMENT
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
STAFF’S FINDINGS ARE TOO BROAD IN THEIR POLICY INTERPRETATIONS
▪CEQA requires site-specific analysis as provided in the IS/MND
▪The creek corridor is protected within the required creek setbacks.
▪Creek setback grassland habitat buffer along the willow riparian corridor
allows for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement through the entire protected
riparian corridor.
▪Span bridge design with abutments are outside the 100-year floodplain, which
allows for continued wildlife movement through the creek bottom to the extent
it exists today.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –THE IS/MND
INITIAL STUDY/MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
▪The IS/MND and supporting peer reviewed biological resources assessment
clearly establishes existing conditions and provides site-specific analysis and
evaluation of potential impacts providing both a regional and local context.
▪All impacts mitigated to a less than significant level.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –IS/MND
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –THE BRIDGE
THE BRIDGE
▪Bridge placement and span is designed to minimize impacts.
▪Footings are above the 100-year elevation.
▪Riparian enhancement plantings provided as compensatory mitigation.
▪Reasonable use of the east side without the bridge would likely create a foot
and equipment path through the creek bottom, with seasonal access
restriction.
▪Staff findings are not consistent with the less than significant impacts
determination by the City’s CEQA document.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS –THE BRIDGE
Michaels Residence
Eric & Julie Michaels
ARCH-0040-2021 & EID-0547-2021
841 Patricia Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 | APN #052-520-063
City of San Luis Obispo -Planning Commission
25 January 2023
David Wolff
Environmental, LLC
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive BRIDGE CROSS SECTION
CREEK SETBACK
DRAINAGE EASEMENT
CONCEPT EXAMPLE
Michaels Residence –841 Patricia Drive SITE PLAN