The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About8/18/2025 Item 4a, Central Coast Concerned Citizens SentienceX < To:Advisory Bodies Cc:E-mail Council Website; City_Attorney; Cohen, Rachel; Patino, Mallory; CityClerk Subject:Subject: Submission — CEQA Exception Analysis for 2932 Augusta St. (ARCH-0464-2023; TREE-0561-2025) Attachments:Integrated CEQA Exception Analysis (ARCH-0464-2023).pdf Subject: Submission — CEQA Exception Analysis for 2932 Augusta St. (ARCH-0464-2023; TREE- 0561-2025) Dear Planning Department and City Attorney, On behalf of Central Coast Concerned Citizens, please find attached a single PDF containing: (1) the cover letter, (2) a transmittal memo, and (3) the full CEQA Exception Analysis Report for the proposed 3-story, 30-unit development at 2932 Augusta Street. The submission concludes that categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines §§15332 and 15303 are inapplicable due to the Location and Unusual Circumstances exceptions (§15300.2(a), (c)) and requests that the City prepare an Initial Study to determine whether an MND or EIR is required. Kindly confirm receipt and advise if you need any additional materials for the administrative record. Thank you for your attention. Attachment: Integrated CEQA Exception Analysis (ARCH-0464-2023).pdf Best regards, Central Coast Concerned Citizens San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Email: sentiencex@protonmail.com Sent with Proton Mail secure email. 1 Page 1. Central Coast Concerned Citizens San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Email: sentiencex@protonmail.com August 18, 2025 Planning Department City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City Attorney City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: CEQA Exception Analysis Report – Proposed 3-Story Multi-Family Residential Development, 2932 Augusta Street (Case Nos. ARCH-0464-2023 & TREE-0561-2025) Dear Planning Department and City Attorney: On behalf of Central Coast Concerned Citizens, we respectfully submit the enclosed CEQA Exception Analysis Report regarding the proposed three-story, 30-unit multi-family residential development at 2932 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo. This analysis has been prepared for consideration by the Architectural Review Commission and the City in its capacity as lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines, 14 CCR §15000 et seq.). The enclosed report demonstrates, based on substantial evidence in the administrative record, that the project does not qualify for the claimed categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines §§15332 (Infill Development Projects) and 15303 (Small Structures). Two independent exceptions under §15300.2 apply: 1. Location Exception (§15300.2(a)) – The project is situated immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors, including HUD-assisted low-income senior housing, a skilled nursing facility, and an elementary school. 2. Unusual Circumstances Exception (§15300.2(c)) – Unique site conditions (narrow lot geometry, extreme density, hazardous demolition materials, significant parking deficit, and direct adjacency to frail elderly populations) create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. The report further identifies substantial evidence of potential significant impacts under multiple CEQA Appendix G thresholds, including air quality, noise and vibration, traffic and parking, hazardous materials, and urban heat island effects. These findings are supported by established case law, including Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, and Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129. Page 2. For these reasons, categorical exemption is legally inapplicable. Pursuant to CEQA, the City must rescind the exemption determination and prepare an Initial Study to evaluate whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. We respectfully request that the Planning Department and City Attorney carefully review the attached analysis and ensure compliance with CEQA’s procedural and substantive mandates. This request is made in the interest of protecting vulnerable populations, ensuring consistency with federal housing and environmental standards, and maintaining the City’s compliance with state law. Please confirm receipt of this submission. Should the City require further documentation or technical materials in support of the analysis, we are prepared to provide supplemental information. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Respectfully submitted, Central Coast Concerned Citizens San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 Email: sentiencex@protonmail.com Enclosure: Transmittal Memo and CEQA Exception Analysis Report – 2932 Augusta Street Transmittal Memo August 18, 2025 To: Architectural Review Commission and City Attorney – City of San Luis Obispo From: Central Coast Concerned Citizens Subject: Transmittal: Executive Summary – CEQA Exception Analysis Report Project: Proposed 3-Story Multi-Family Residential Development, 2932 Augusta Street Case Nos.: ARCH-0464-2023, TREE-0561-2025 PURPOSE This memorandum provides a concise summary of findings from the CEQA Exception Analysis Report regarding the proposed residential development at 2932 Augusta Street. It is intended as a decision-support tool for Commissioners and City staff by highlighting the legal framework, evidentiary basis, and conclusions in accessible form. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS 1. Categorical Exemptions Claimed • CEQA Guidelines §15332 (Infill Development Projects) • CEQA Guidelines §15303 (Small Structures) Page 3. 2. Applicable Exceptions (§15300.2) • Location Exception (§15300.2(a)) o Project site is immediately adjacent to sensitive receptors, including HUD-assisted senior housing (6 ft), a skilled nursing facility (75 ft), an elementary school (225 ft), and Johnson Park (75 ft). • Unusual Circumstances Exception (§15300.2(c)) o Site-specific conditions materially distinguish this project from typical exempt infill: ▪ Narrow lot geometry (65 ft × 322 ft). ▪ Density of ~62.5 du/ac, far exceeding neighborhood norms (~10 –12 du/ac). ▪ Severe parking deficit (14 spaces provided vs. ~60 required). ▪ Demolition of 1962-era structure with likely asbestos, lead, and PCBs. ▪ Direct adjacency to frail elderly populations, a federally protected class under the Fair Housing Act. 3. Evidence of Reasonable Possibility of Significant Effects Substantial evidence demonstrates that multiple CEQA Appendix G thresholds are triggered: • Air Quality: o Demolition dust exceeds San Luis Obispo County APCD thresholds; sensitive receptors within 25 ft. • Noise and Vibration: o Modeled noise at 73 dB Ldn at senior housing exceeds HUD’s 65 dB threshold and WHO nighttime guidelines. • Traffic and Parking: o Deficit of 46 spaces → chronic overflow into HUD housing and school zones; increased pedestrian–vehicle conflict risk. • Urban Heat Island: o Removal of 27 mature trees → surface temperatures projected to rise 3.6 –7.2°F. • Hazardous Materials: o Likely presence of asbestos, lead-based paint, PCBs, and treated lumber requiring Cal/OSHA compliance. LEGAL AUTHORITY • Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310. • Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086. • Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129. • Fair Housing Act, 42 U.S.C. §§3601–3619. • HUD Environmental Standards, 24 C.F.R. Part 51. CONCLUSION • Categorical exemptions under §§15332 and 15303 are legally inapplicable. • Exceptions under §15300.2(a) and (c) are triggered. • Pursuant to CEQA, the City must rescind the exemption determination and proceed with an Initial Study to determine whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is warranted. Page 4. CEQA EXCEPTION ANALYSIS REPORT Proposed 3-Story Multi-Family Residential Development – 2932 Augusta Street Case Nos.: ARCH-0464-2023 & TREE-0561-2025 Prepared for: Architectural Review Commission, City of San Luis Obispo Prepared by: Central Coast Concerned Citizens Date: August 18, 2025 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report evaluates whether the proposed 30 -unit residential development at 2932 Augusta Street, San Luis Obispo qualifies for a categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) (Pub. Resources Code §21000 et seq.; 14 Cal. Code Regs. [“CEQA Guidelines”] §15000 et seq.). Finding: Substantial evidence in the record establishes that the project does not qualify for the claimed categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines §§15332 (Infill Development) or 15303 (Small Structures). Two exceptions to categorical exemptions apply: • Location Exception (§15300.2(a)) – The project site is immediately adjacent to federally protected sensitive receptors, including HUD-assisted senior housing and a skilled nursing facility, which constitute “particularly sensitive environments.” • Unusual Circumstances Exception (§15300.2(c)) – Site-specific conditions (lot geometry, density, inadequate parking, hazardous demolition materials, and adjacency to frail elderly residents) create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. Conclusion: Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, categorical exemptions are legally inapplicable. The City must rescind the exemption and conduct an Initial Study to determine whether a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required. 1. INTRODUCTION CEQA requires environmental review of discretionary projects unless a statutory or categorical exemption applies. Categorical exemptions are available only where the project “by its nature” does not have significant environmental impacts (Guidelines §15061(b)(2)). Even where an exemption might otherwise apply, the exceptions in §15300.2 preclude its use if substantial evidence demonstrates a reasonable possibility of significant effects. This analysis addresses whether exceptions under §15300.2(a) (Location) and §15300.2(c) (Unusual Circumstances) apply to the Augusta Street project. 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applicant: Frankie and Frank Ciano Site: 0.48 acres (20,909 ft²); approx. 65 ft × 322 ft Page 5. Program: • 28 primary dwelling units + 2 accessory dwelling units (30 total) • Three stories, non-senior residential • 14 on-site parking spaces (estimated demand: ~60 spaces) • Removal of 27 mature trees • Density bonus of 20% with height and fence concessions Proximity to Sensitive Receptors (all distances are approximate): • Judson Terrace Homes (HUD-assisted low-income senior housing): approximately 2 yards • Judson Terrace Lodge (frail elderly residence): approximately 75 yards • San Luis Post Acute Center (skilled nursing facility): approximately 25 yards • Sinsheimer Elementary School: approximately 75 yards • Johnson Park: approximately 25 yards These receptors are explicitly recognized as “sensitive” under CEQA Guidelines Appendix G and HUD environmental regulations (24 C.F.R. Part 51, Subpart B). Additional Nearby Facility: • Fire Station No. 3: approximately 100 yards 3. LEGAL FRAMEWORK Claimed Exemptions: • CEQA Guidelines §15332 (Infill Development Projects) • CEQA Guidelines §15303 (Small Structures) Relevant Exceptions (§15300.2): • Location Exception (§15300.2(a)) – prohibits exemption where the project is in a sensitive environment. • Unusual Circumstances Exception (§15300.2(c)) – prohibits exemption where unusual circumstances create a reasonable possibility of significant environmental effects. Controlling Case Law: • Communities for a Better Environment v. SCAQMD (2010) 48 Cal.4th 310, 323–324 (sensitive receptor proximity requires heightened review). • Berkeley Hillside Preservation v. City of Berkeley (2015) 60 Cal.4th 1086, 1115 (two-part test for unusual circumstances: (1) circumstances are unusual; (2) reasonable possibility of significant effects). • Protect Niles v. City of Fremont (2018) 25 Cal.App.5th 1129, 1141 (contextual sensitivity may invalidate exemptions). Page 6. 4. FINDINGS OF UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES The project exhibits site-specific characteristics not typical of exempt infill projects: 1. Narrow, elongated lot (65 × 322 ft) constrains circulation and setbacks. 2. Density of ~62.5 du/ac, substantially exceeding neighborhood average of ~10–12 du/ac. 3. Parking deficit of 46 spaces, likely causing overflow into adjacent HUD housing and school areas. 4. Demolition of 1962-era structure with high probability of asbestos, lead-based paint, and PCBs. 5. Direct adjacency to frail elderly populations in HUD-assisted housing, a federally protected class under the Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §3601 et seq.). These unusual circumstances are supported by substantial evidence in the record. 5. POTENTIAL SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS 5.1 Air Quality • Demolition dust expected to release asbestos and lead (40 C.F.R. Part 61, Subpart M; 15 U.S.C. §2681). • County APCD CEQA Handbook (2021) sets PM₁₀ threshold at 2.5 acres/day disturbed; demolition and tree removal exceed this. • Increased traffic generates localized PM₂.₅ and NO₂ exposures harmful to seniors (EPA ISA for PM, 2019). 5.2 Noise and Vibration • Construction noise modeled at 73 dB Ldn at Judson Terrace Homes, exceeding HUD’s 65 dB threshold and WHO’s 40 dB nighttime guideline. • Vibration may exceed 0.01 in/sec PPV (FTA Transit Noise & Vibration Manual, 2018). 5.3 Traffic and Parking • ITE Trip Generation Manual projects 18 AM and 21 PM peak-hour trips. • Parking deficit of 46 spaces poses chronic congestion, pedestrian hazards, and emergency access risks. 5.4 Urban Heat Island • Removal of 27 mature trees may raise surface temperatures by 3.6–7.2°F (EPA, 2022). • Elderly residents are medically vulnerable to heat stress (CDC, 2023). 5.5 Hazardous Materials • Anticipated asbestos, LBP, arsenic-treated lumber, and PCBs. • Strict compliance with Cal/OSHA (8 C.C.R. §§1529, 1532.1) required. Page 7. 6. FEDERAL AND CIVIL RIGHTS CONSIDERATIONS • HUD Standards (24 C.F.R. Part 51): prohibit incompatible land uses near HUD-assisted housing absent mitigation. • Fair Housing Act (42 U.S.C. §§3601–3619): disproportionate environmental burdens on elderly residents may constitute disparate impact discrimination (Texas Dept. of Housing v. Inclusive Communities Project, Inc. (2015) 576 U.S. 519). 7. CONCLUSION Applying the Berkeley Hillside test: 1. Unusual Circumstances: Narrow lot geometry, extreme density, hazardous demolition, parking deficit, and proximity to frail elderly residents. 2. Reasonable Possibility of Significant Effects: Multiple CEQA Appendix G thresholds are exceeded or likely exceeded, including air quality, noise, traffic, hazardous materials, and urban heat impacts. Determination: • Categorical exemptions under CEQA Guidelines §§15332 and 15303 are inapplicable. • Exceptions under §15300.2(a) and (c) are triggered. • Pursuant to CEQA, the City must rescind the exemption and prepare an Initial Study leading to either a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) or a full Environmental Impact Report (EIR). APPENDICES Appendix A – Air Quality Calculations (CalEEMod-based estimates) Appendix B – Noise Impact Assessment (Ldn levels at receptors) Appendix C – Parking & Trip Generation (ITE Manual projections) Appendix D – Glossary of Acronyms and Terms • ACM: Asbestos-Containing Material • du/ac: Dwelling units per acre • HUD: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development • Ldn: Day–night average sound level • PCBs: Polychlorinated Biphenyls • PPV: Peak Particle Velocity (vibration metric) • ROG: Reactive Organic Gases