HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/05/2000, 5 - CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A NEW SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION (APPLICATION NO.67-96) council "'`cd�'�July 5,00
j agenda REpom 5�'`
CITY OF SAN LU IS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director 9
Prepared By: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF ADOPTING A NEW SAFETY ELEMENT OF THE
GENERAL PLAN,AND AN ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
(APPLICATION NO. 67-96)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving the Planning Commission recommendation to approve a negative
declaration of environmental impact and to adopt a new Safety Element, replacing the 1975
Seismic Safety Element and the 1978 Safety Element.
DISCUSSION
Situation
State law requires that the City's General Plan address several aspects of public safety
(attachment 45). When the requirements were first established, the City responded by adopting a
Seismic Safety Element in 1975 and a Safety Element in 1978. The general principles of deciding
acceptable risk and many of the hazards have not changed. However, some new hazard
information is available and many standards and programs have changed since the 1970's. As a
result, in 1996 the City decided to participate with most other cities within San Luis Obispo
County and with the County government to update the safety elements. A transfer of the areawide
task from one consulting firm to another, and other priorities for City staff,delayed production of
a draft tailored to San Luis Obispo.
Consultants have prepared a technical report and geographic information system files for all the
participating jurisdictions, and draft elements for each jurisdiction. The County has adopted its
update. City staff has refined the map information, the text discussion, and the recommended
policies and programs for a better fit with the City's information and General Plan.
Issues and Changes
The public has not brought forth any issues specifically to be addressed in the update. Since
adoption of the elements in the 1970's, the City has experienced the Las Pilitas fire and the
flooding of 1995. Flooding and creek bank-erosion received attention following the 1995 flood,
and are one subject for a Waterways Management Plan currently in preparation. Exposure to
electromagnetic fields from power lines was raised during early discussions on the Margarita
Area Specific Plan and a proposed office development north of Prado Road at Elks Lane. Pilots
and airport managers continue to express concerns about development near the airport, and are
participating in an update of the County Airport Land Use Plan.
5-1
Council Agenda Report—Safety Element update
Page 2
The principal differences between the adopted elements and the proposed-element are:
• The proposed element acknowledges the existence of the relatively long, offshore Hosgri
fault, a group of faults extending through the Laguna Lake area, and a State-designated fault
zone along Los Osos Valley Road north of the Diablo Drive neighborhood(pages 10 and 12).
The existence of these faults will be an issue in review in any proposed land use change.
• The proposed element addresses electromagnetic fields (page 18). Responding to the
continuing uncertainty over the relationship between electromagnetic fields and harmful
effects, and State guidance on "prudent avoidance," the element identifies major power
transmission lines and calls for avoiding prolonged exposure to strong fields, particularly
where site planning can put more sensitive uses farther from the wires.
• The proposed element reflects State requirements, program decisions, and land development
since the previous elements were adopted. The City has adopted several State-sanctioned
revisions to the Uniform Building Code and updated emergency plans since the 1970's. A
major step for the City was adopting new code requirements for existing, unreinforced-
masonry buildings. The code now requires such buildings to be evaluated and strengthened
when certain types of remodels, repairs, or changes in occupancy occur, but not later than the
year 2017. Development in the Laguna Lake and Edna-Islay areas has reduced wildland fire
risk within the developed areas. (One aspect of the City's element that is not changing to
match the countywide update is the classification of wildland fire hazard. It would continue
to use the four-level classifications established by the 1978 element rather than the County's
three levels. Also, it would use the more detailed slope and vegetation information available
for the immediate San Luis Obispo area [pages 6 and 8].)
Relationship to Other Elements
According to State law, the General Plan must be comprehensive and internally consistent.
Allowed land uses need to be compatible with the types and severity of identified hazards.
Therefore, the Safety Element, the Land Use Element, and the Open Space Element in particular
are bound by consistency issues. Under State law, several types of hazards require certain
disclosures to prospective buyers, site-specific professional studies, or project design features.
However, the State has delegated to cities and counties the basic decision on what land uses are
appropriate. Like the adopted elements, the update identifies hazard levels where urban
development is not appropriate. It also identifies locations .where site-specific studies are
warranted to determine the actual hazard.
The Land Use Element was based on hazard information available prior to 1994. As noted above,
the most significant change is State designation of an earthquake fault zone at the edge of the
Diablo Drive neighborhood. The General Plan designates most of that zone, which is outside the
city limits, as Open Space. The small part of the zone that is inside the city limits is designated
Low-density Residential, and is completely developed. Staff does not propose designating the
developed area Open Space based on the existence of the fault zone. Under Safety Element
policies, the fault lines which led to the State designation, as well as other mapped fault lines in
the area, will trigger close scrutiny of any proposal to develop or redevelop land in the city, and
would logically prevent changes from Open Space or Park designations to land-use categories
allowing urban development.
5-2
Council Agenda Report—Safety Element update
Page 3
The text of the new element indicates which policies exist in whole or in part in other elements.
Staff recommends that these policies be deleted from the other elements, and replaced with
references to their locations in the Safety Element. Those replacements will be brought forth as
amendments or updates as those other elements come to hearings.
In the glossary, most deletions reflect the technical background report no longer being a part of
the element, and most replacements reflect the current State guidelines.
CONCURRENCES
On June 14, 2000, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one member absent) to
recommend approval (minutes are attachment 44). Commissioners and staff briefly discussed
information and policies concerning earthquakes and flooding. There was no public testimony. In
response to Commission comments on a related item at a previous hearing, staff had revised the
original version of the hearing draft to clarify the maps showing earthquake faults and the policy
on avoiding faults.
The new element was prepared with the help of the City's police, fire, utilities, and public works
departments. As required by State law, staff has sent the draft element to the California Division
of Mines and Geology for review and comment. No comments have been received; based on
experience with the countywide update,none are expected.
ALTERNATIVES
Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information. The
Council would need to identify the specific type of additional information desired. If the Council
believes there may be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, an environmental impact
report would need to be prepared before the element is adopted.
The Council may continue action. There is no State-mandated deadline to complete the update..
Attachments
41 Draft resolution approving negative declaration, repealing previous elements, adopting new
element, and amending General Plan glossary
#2 Policy comparison of adopted and proposed elements
#3 Initial environmental study
#4 Planning Commission minutes for June 14, 2000
45 State law excerpt
Distributed separately: Draft element
mfetyen CAR
5-3
Attachment 1
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT,
ADOPTING A NEW SAFETY ELEMENT,AND AMENDING
THE GENERAL PLAN GLOSSARY(67-96)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on July 5, 2000, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action,and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed element update, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council determines that the element update will have no significant effects on the environment.
The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
SECTION 2. Repeal of Previous Elements. The Seismic Safety Element adopted in
1975 and the Safety Element adopted in 1978 are hereby repealed, on the effective date of the
Safety Element adopted by this resolution.
SECTION 3. Adoption of New Element. The revised Safety Element, consisting of a
text dated June 2000,on file in the City Clerk's Office, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 4. Amendment of General Plan Definitions. Definitions of certain terms used
in the Safety Element are hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 5. Publication and Availability. The Community Development Director shall
cause the newly adopted element to be published andprovided to City officials, concerned
agencies, and public libraries, and made available to the public at a cost not to exceed the cost of
reproduction.
SECTION 6. Effective Date. The newly adopted element shall be effective on the
thirtieth day after passage of this resolution.
5-4
Attachment 1
Resolution No:
Page 2
On motion of----- -- ----- - ----: seconded by ---- - —_— --------,.and
on the following roll call.vote-
AYES:
NOES:-
ABSENT:
the:foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 2000.
Mayor Allen K..Settle:
ATTEST:
City clerk Lee Price; CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ty#or Jo nsen
Safetyel\ccies.doc
5=5
Attachment 1
Resolution No.
Exhibit A: Page 1 of 5
CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN DEmITIONS
AS PART OF SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE
Key: text not changed .,..,�ted text added
the relatively near. fiAwe. DefiBi4iens for-p! emend en the ef 10,006 yeaFs
Active Fault :-' A 'tat. has `:exhibited. surface displacementwithin Holocene time
(Approximately the past 1;1,000,years).
Alluvial = D_eposited by a stream or running water.
(AGI, 1972)
Alluvium - A general term for clay, silt, sand, gravel, or similar unconsolidated detrital material
deposited during comparatively recent geologic time by running water
AMP, Af ffh—n at 4—he base ef a Eaeunudfl slepe. (AGI, 1972)
Alquist=Priolo.Earthgnake Fault Zone A iegulatoryzone, delineated by the;State Geologist;
wlthm ;which"<site specific .geologic studies are requued to•.iiienufy .and ;avoid fault rupture
)iazaidspnor to_subdiyision.oflund and/or constiuctionof most.structure"s for human occupancy;
Bleekgfide A#a;;'JAtiA;;AI landslide in which the slide mass mmains ,
Gehension Sheaf s4eF44h in a sediment not related te inter-paitiesle fiie4ieE�: (ACA, 1972)
,
material or-r-eek fiegEnents depesited ehiefly by Rims waging, astWly at the base ef a steep Slepe
pes. (AGI, 1972)
5-6
Attachment 1
Resolution No.
Exhibit A: Page 2 of 5
Critical:`Facility — A'facility.which either (l),:provides emergency services .or. (2) houses or
serves:many. people who would be injured or lolled in case;;of mayor;damage t.o.the'facihty
Examples include hospitals, fire stations, police and emergency:,services"'facilities, utility
facilities,and aominunications fac "tim.
Damping The Fesistmee t vi _..tie thin , e ., aeea y ,.f...etie., v4s—h .;..,e „_ dist nee
the diminishing amplitude ef an eseillatien. (AGI, 1972) .
diFeetien ineludes dip slip and dip sepaFation. (AGI, 1972)
(AGI, )
Fault A fracture or zone of closely associated fractures along which rocks on one side have
been displaced;with respect to chose ori the other side. A fault;zone is a zone;of related faults
wlnch'commonly are braided,'tut which inay tie branching A fault trace is the line formed by
the inter-section ofsi fault and>tlie eartt 's:surfice
Foul!system :A;ffle A-F M-teff-Pe iffi4er-eenneefing fi-wh sets. (ACA, 19:72)
rapid aemmWatien of maeff of sur-faee wateFs from any soufee. Flood pr-ene areas aFe ar-e—es
v.4—hin t—he year-fleed plain (zeses A and B es FENIA maps), W1 alse inelude areas in%4i
Flooding Anse in the level`of a water body;or the rapid accumulahoa of runoff• iacludu
related'Mu. es and land subsidence, .that results �n the temporary mimdatton of land that is
usually dry Rzvenne flooding;coastal flooding;mud flows;lake flooding,alluvial fan floocTing
flash flooding, ."levee_ amis,,and fluvial stream flooding;=.,aznong_the many forms
that I Ilbodmi-44kes-,
ef its elaskie waves. Syn. hypeeeater-; seismic feeus� eeauvm(see hatFedue4ien). (ACA, 1972)
5-7
Attachment 1
Resolution No.
Exhibit A: Page 3 of 5
.
Hazards include landslides and soil creep, flooding, potentially active or active earthquake
faults, liquefaction areas, wildland fires, and dangers associated with locating too near to an
airport(aircraft crashes).
epieewef and the leeal geelegy at the peiFA. (AGI, 1972)
the same. iris usually a elesed ewie aa'c tad the epieenten-Syn. isese line;
i
Ground'.Failure=.`Mudslide;-landslide liquefaction;or.on C;oMPaction.
Hazardous Bb&j -A building that.:may' _' be.hazardous to life m:the event,of an earthquake
becauseof partial or complete:collapse Hazardous buildings may include:
1 Those constructed.:pnor fo the adoption and enforcement of'local codes requiring eaith=
quake resistant building design;
2..Those:constructed:of.unreinforced:masonry;
K.Those;Which exhibit:any;of the;following cl_iaracteristics
exterior parapets;or ornamentation whichfall on passersby;
ae exterioi walls that are not.anchored to the floors,roof or foundatgn;
sheeting oti roofs or floors uicapabl' of vyithstandu g ateral loads;
•laige.openings_in�walls that may cause„damage fiom torsional forces;
lack of an:effective system to resist lateral forces,:or
non-dnctile.concrete;fiameconsti uEtgn
Hazardous 1Vlatenal='An nus substance;:including pes tc des,herbici... toxic metals;and
ehemicaLs,lrquefied natinal gas;.explostyes,volatile chemicals,LLand nuclear fuels:
I:aads)Gde:-'A` general term for a,falFing, sliding, or,,flowu►g_massof sotl,_rocks, water,;and
dMis.Includes mndslt.es,,debrl9 flows,:and delins;torrents
I.igaefaction = A process by wlucdi water saturated giaaular soils;trapsfelm-, om a solid,tq ya
liquud state av g Win'ground shabng.
5-8
Attachment 1
Resolution No.
Exhibit A: Page 4 of 5
the range of Raehter faagaitude 3.0 efmore. (This-ese,-fnefgfi�e--�idnem
released by it; asdiete-m—kxed-by seismegmphie ebsepv�sde€raedby eter--irilegar-idims
> te the base 10,
;
damping eepistant 0.8) at a distm Fek, Reff 1-0-0 i6leemieterrs fiFein the epieepAen (AGI, 197-2)
Feseaant ftequeney.
NeFmal fault A CaWt in whieh the hanging wall appears to have meved devapwaW relative te
the feevwah. The angle of the fault-is usi Wly 45 90 This is dip sepamfieE, W4 there
nmy er-Eaay not be dip slip. >
1972)
Potentially Active Fault A;:.:.;RU which shows evidence of surface:displacement during
Quaternary tune(the last.;million years):
FFedeminaot-period The period ef the—aeeeleFatien, eleeir- _ displaeement whir,
,
aeeeFding—tepeF}ed er 4egeeney. The stmetimes we neFM.413 single degree of fie°a,._.
-
C„ .ey D_..0 PaperCAA E)
_.
peads and lakes at the time e
> voks,
passage ef seismie waves fmm an eaFthquake (U S G I S y Pr-ef-. Paper-54 4-E)
Seiche An earthquake induced wave'm a lake,reserver.,:or harboi;
Seismically Induced Surface:'Rupture A bleak in. ' `ground° �siiface':aIIdwassociated
the s:�
deformation_resultu►g from;the movement of a faulf
Seismic Hazard.Zone :A regulatory zone,delineated by the State Geologist,within which site=
specific g�logfc,`soils,sand foundation eng�neenng stupes are.requued to identify=and avoid
earthgnake-caused ground faituie hazards, or;.', selected other earthquake hazards;;;pnor to
subdivision of land'and'for�comstructionof most�structures for hurnauoccupancy'",
5-9
Attachment 1
Resolution No.
Exhibit A: Page 5 of 5
slide relatively te eaeb ether-in a dirvetien pamllel te their-Oleme of eeFAaet; speeifieally,the Eatie
ef t—he i-e-I-efive displaeemeot ef these paFts te the distanee beWmen them. (AGI, 1972)
Shear leave OF S vmwe hype of seismie bedy wave whish is p epagated by a sheni�g
peiats en eitl3er side-e€ the fault. Slip is tlfee difaeasiepA, whereas sepamtien is-tine
dimemiewd. (AGI, 1972)
&-a&. (A!1T> 197-2)
r
Subsidence . Tlie. gradual, local settling orsinking of-the-:`earth's"surface;:with .little or;no
lonzantal motion .:(subsidenc.a is usually the ,.result of. ..gas, oil,: or: water extraction,
hydrocompaction,or peat oxidation,and,not the result of a landslide'or slope failure):
the eeean > pfineipally by a sMlew subEamine ea#hquake,
but also by subm&F�ae eaAh
> >
AGA km h leng . .el...gth (up to 200 1.... ) 1..ng p ed is min. to ,, few 1.,.um geneFatly 10
60 min.), and lew obseFvable emplitude en the epen sea; akheugh it may pile up te gFeat heights
Tsunami- A:wave;commonly called a.tidal wave, caused by,an'underwater-seismic distii=bance;
such as siidden falilting,�landsliAde,or volcanic activriy - - --
upper-paFt ef the - - - -
r
Unconsolidated material-A sediment that is loosely arranged or unstratified or whose particles
are not cemented together,occurring either at the surface or at depth. (AGI, 1972)
(ACA, 1972)
-- - - . ._._... .
Wildlaud.Fie=A-fire occumng in a suburban.'or rural:.area wtuch contaws tuicuttivated lands,
timber,range, watershed, brush or grasslands This meludes areas where_there is a mmglwg of
developed
mal.uadeveloed ran%is,
5-10
Safety Element Update -Poucy Comparison Attachment 2
Adopted Policies Change Proposed Policies
Number Title Code Number Comment
Seismic Safety Element
1.1.1 Minimize injury U Goal 1
1.1.2 Minimize damage U Goal 2
1.1.3 Minimize social and economic ... U Goal 3
1.2.1 Adopt new ordinances R 8.6 more explicit
1.2.2 Identify and evaluate structural... R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.2.3 Hazard reductions R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.2.4 Scientific analysis R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.2.5 Regulate land use R 3.1, 3.2, 3,3, 8.1, 8.3 more explicit
1.2.6 Community education U 8.5
1.2.7 Disaster response plans R 8.2.6, 8.2.9 more explicit
1.2.8 Seismic safety element revisions U 8.2.8
1.3.1 Adopt new ordinances R 8.6.4 reflects changes in State law
1.3.2 Adopt the Uniform Building Code R 8.6.4 reflects changes in State law
1.3.3 Amend the Uniform Building Code R 8.6.4 1 reflects changes in State law
1.3.4 Require engineering in high risk... R 13.1, 3.2, 3.3, 8.6.4
1.3.5 Identify and evaluate existing R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.6 Inspection priority U 8.6.1
1.3.7 Caltrans review U 8.6.1
1.3.8 Southern Pacific Railroad Co. ... U 8.6.1
1.3.9 Pacific Gas and Electric Co. ... U 8.6.1
1.3.10 Ri hetti Dam . D reservoir not in urban reserve
1.3.11 Hazard reduction R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.12 Conformance to earthquake... R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.13 Review committee D no need for committee
1.3.14 Relocation assistance D displacement is being avoided
1.3.15 Scientific analysis R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.3.16 Liquefaction potential study D addressed by 3.3
1.3.17 Slope stability U 3.2
1.3.18 Site-by-site studies U 3.3, 8.6.4
1.3.19 Investiation of proposed graded... R 8.6.2, 8.6.4
1.3.20 Strong-motion instrumentation D few bld s. over 5 stories; State fee
1.3.21 Ri hetti Reservoir D reservoir not in urban reserve
1.3.22 Land use regulation R 13.1, 3.2, 3,3, 8.1, 8.3 more explicit
1.3.23 Seismic zone development R 8.6.4 more explicit
1.3.24 Slope stability investigation U 3.2
1.3.25 Location of critical facilities U 3.3, 8.3
1.3.26 CommunitV education U 8.5
1.3.27 Information release U 8.5
1.3.28 Community training U 8.5.1.0
1.3.29 Disaster response plans R 8.2.6, 8.2.9
1.3.30 Civil defense and disaster... R 8.2.6, 8.2.9 more explicit
1.3.31 Emergency drills U 8.2.4.0
1.3.32 Seismic safety element revisions R 8.2.8
1.3.33 Implementation D re laced in part by 8.2.1
1.3.34 Annual review U 8.2.8, LU 9.3
Change codes:
U-essentially unchanged
R-revised
D-deleted
5-11
Safety Element Update - volicy Comparison Attachment 2
Adopted Policies Change Proposed Policies
Number Title Code Number Comment
SafefWyElement
1.1.1 Injury and losss of life U Goal 1
1.1.2 Damage to property U Goal 2
1.1.3 Social and economic dislocations U Goal 3
1.2.1 Existing structural hazards U 18.6.1
1.2.2 New development design criteria R 8.6.2, 8.6.4 more explicit
1.2.3 Land use R 8.1, 8.3 more explicit
1.2.4 Emergency response R 8.2 more explicit
1.2.5 Scientific analysis R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.2.6 Education R 8.5 more explicit
1.2.7 Review R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.3.1 Hazard abatement R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.2 Building inspection R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.3 Caltrans U 8.6.1
1.3.4 South Pacific Transportation Co. U 8.6.1
1.3.5 PG&E U 8.6.1
1.3.6 Righetti Reservoir D reservoir not in urban reserve
1.3.7 Risk reduction R 8.6.1 more explicit
1.3.8 lCondemnation D a last resort under 8.6.1
1.3.9 Relocation assistance D Idisplacement is being avoided
1.3.10 New development R 8.6.2, 8.6.4 1 more explicit
1.3.11 Building regulations R 8.6.1, 8.6.2, 8.6.4 more explicit
1.3.12 New construction U 8.6.4
1.3.13 Design standards U 8.6.2
1.3.14 Public facilities U 8.6
1.3.15 Land use R 8.1, 8.3 more explicit
1.3.16 100-year flood plain U 1.1, 8.3
1.3.17 Development in wildland fire areas R 2.1 more explicit
1.3.18 Off-road vehicles D I not an issue in City jurisdiction
1.3.19 Seismic and geologic hazards U 3.1, 3.2, 3.3
1.3.20 Emergency response R 8.2 more explicit
1.3.21 Emergency plan R 8.2 more explicit
1.3.22 Rural fire protection R 8.2.10 not limited to rural fires
1.3.23 Diablo Canyon emergencies U 9.2.1, 8.2.4
1.3.24 Scientific analysis of hazards R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.3.25 Landslide-generated waves in... D reservoir not in urban reserve
1.3.26 Water impoundments U 1.2
1.3.27 Li uefaction R 3.3 clarified
1.3.28 Education R 8.5 more explicit
1.3.29 Information dispersion R 8.5 more explicit
1.3.30 Volunteers R 8.5.1.0 more explicit
1.3.31 Elementary education U 8.5.1.1)
1.3.32 Secondary education R 8.5.1.1)
1.3.33 Safety Element review R 8.2.8 more explicit
1.3.34 Implementation progress R LU 9.3 covered by annual report
1.3.35 Comprehensive revision R 8.2.8
IChange codes:
U-essentially unchanged
R-revised
D-deleted
5-12
Attachment 3
INITIAL STUDY
ER 67m96-
ENVIRONMENTAL
7=96ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: General Plan Safety Element Update
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number. Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
805 781-7165 e-mail: gmatteso@slocity.org
4. Project Location:
The revised element would affect land in or annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
955 Morro Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
7. Zoning:
The element mainly affects land inside the City's urban reserve line, which has several
designations and zones.
8. Description of the Project:
Replace the Seismic Safety Element adopted in 1975 and the Safety Element adopted in
1978 with a new Safety Element. The new element would contain updated information and
City policies concerning the hazards of flood, fire, soil instability, earthquake, radiation,
hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, aircraft operations, and falling trees. The
element identifies land that, due fo hazards, is not suitable for urban development
generally and for essential facilities in particular. It also identifies areas where potential
conditions warrant specific types of evaluations for individual proposed development sites,
to make sure hazards are avoided or mitigated. The element outlines City efforts to avoid
and to be prepared for disasters.
The proposed element differs from the adopted elements mainly by:
• Acknowledging the existence of more recently identified landslides and earthquake
faults;
• Addressing electromagnetic fields;
• Reflecting statewide requirements, program decisions, and land development since
the previous elements were adopted.
5-13
Attachment 3
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
Adoption of a new Safety Element.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The San Luis Obispo area is subject to hazards from flood, fire, soil instability, earthquake,
radiation, hazardous materials, electromagnetic fields, aircraft operations, and falling trees.
The characteristics of the land, vegetation, and existing buildings and facilities make some
locations more prone to these hazards. The Safety Element identifies acceptable levels of
risk for certain types of land use. The Land Use Element is based on hazard information
existing in 1994. No large-scale changes to land-use designations are likely to result from
the new hazard information, though project-specific evaluations and requirements may be
more stringent in some locations.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
None.
2 5-14
Attachment 3
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at
least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the
following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
EWater
JJNoise Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance
ublic Services
Transportation and tilities and Service
Circulation stems
FISH AND GAME FEES:
X There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on
fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project qualifies
for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
0 and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
3 5-15
Attachment 3
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
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 the mitigation measures described on attached sheets
will be part of the project 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 one or more significant effects 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, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or is "Potentially
Significant Unless Mitigated." 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, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been
analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment, but(1)
the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report
pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for some
potential cumulative impacts, and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not
previously been made have been avoided, or mitigated by measures described on attached sheets.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY:
� Z/
Sig re Date
J n Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager
4 5-16
Attachment 3
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 analysis in each section. 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 (for example, 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 (for
example, 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 impacts that are off-site as well as on-
site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is
required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless 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 17, "Earlier Analysis," 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).
er
analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts(such as 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. A
source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the
discussion.
5 . 5-17
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pote,,,,ally Potentially loss Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Safe Element Update Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan X
designation, or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations(such as impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land X
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low-income or minority X
community)?
a) The Land Use Element was based on hazard information available prior to 1994. The most significant
new information is State designation of an earthquake fault zone at the edge of the Diablo Drive
neighborhood. The Land Use Element designates most of that zone, which is outside the city limits and is
undeveloped, as Open Space. The part of the zone that is inside the city limits is designated Low-density
Residential, and is completely developed. It contains all or part of 36 lots. Safety Element policies would
discourage the type of subdivision and development that were approved at that location several years ago.
The City has no code requirements that make the existing houses nonconforming based on location within
the fault zone, so they may be maintained, remodeled, enlarged, or replaced subject only to the code
requirements in place at the time such work is proposed. This is not a significant conflict, but an example of
how new information can show that past planning and development decisions may not meet current
standards.
b) The Safety Element calls for mitigation of hazards in locations where the type and level of hazard allow
some development. Hazard mitigation can have secondary impacts. An example is providing a "defensible
space" around dwellings near wildland vegetation, which could require removal of grass and brush. Other
examples are creek changes to reduce flooding, and removal of old buildings that do not meet fire or
earthquake standards. However, mitigation of hazards must conform with the policies of other General Plan
elements, including the Open Space Element, to avoid land-use incompatibility, policy inconsistency, and
significant impacts to natural resources (in particular the habitat of species listed as threatened or
endangered).
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly(for example, through projects in an undeveloped X
area or major infrastructure)?
c Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
No hazard abatement policies or programs are expected to require the removal of housing.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential im acts involvin :
a) Fault rupture? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) Seiche, tsunami,or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or mudflows? X
6 5-18
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Unless
Safety Element Update Issues Mitigation Impact
Incorporated.
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
i Unique geologic or physical features? X
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate X
and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding?
a) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality(including temperature, dissolved oxygen or X
turbidity)?
b) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
c) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
d) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
e) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
f) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
g) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or projected air quality violation(noncompliance with X
APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X
c) After air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d Create objectionable odors? X
S. TRANSPORTATIONICIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X
b) Hazards to safety from design features(such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses X
(such as farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate general or emergency access? X
d) Insufficient parking.capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation(such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts(incompatibility with X
Airport Land Use Plan)?
7 5-19
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Pott...sally potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
nless
Safety Element Update Issues Mit on Impact
incorporated
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (such as heritage trees)? X
c) Locally designated natural communities(such as oak X
forest, coastal habitat)?
d) Wetland habitat(marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
b) The Safety Element calls for mitigation of hazards in locations where the type and level of hazard allow
some development. Hazard mitigation can have secondary impacts. Examples are providing a "defensible
space" around dwellings near wildland vegetation, which could require removal of grass and brush and
creek changes to reduce flooding. However, mitigation of hazards must conform with the policies of other
General Plan elements, including the Open Space Element, to avoid land-use incompatibility, policy
inconsistency, and significant impacts to natural resources (in particular the habitat of-species listed as
threatened or endangered).
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X
b) Use non-renewable resources wastefully or inefficiently? X
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource that would be of future value to the region and
the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances(including oil, pesticides, chemicals or X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X
emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any Health hazard or potential health X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X
or trees?
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? X
b) Exposure of people to"unacceptable" noise levels as X
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
Element?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? X
8 5-20
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Safe Element Update
Issues unless Impact
p Mitigation
Incorporated
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e Other governmental services? I X
The element would not increase the number of residents, workers, or visitors in the city, which are the
primary cause of public service demands. The element does call for adequate public safety services and
refers to recommended service standards for police and fire. However, it does not mandate specific
service levels.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? I X
Local or regional water supplies? X
The element would support modifying, relocating, replacing facilities to avoid hazards and to better
withstand disruptive events. The decisions to actually carry out these types of changes are made within a
broader context of agency and corporation budgets, and State and Federal requirements. As a result,
adoption of the new element alone would not trigger new facilities or substantial changes to existing
facilities.
13.AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X
c Create light orglare? X
The element supports implementing the recommendations and requirements of the police and fire
departments through the development-review and permitting process. Those recommendations and
requirements can conflict with goals for appearance in the following ways. Typical mitigations are also
noted.
Safety feature and impact Outdoor lighting for security can create glare.
Aesthetic mitigation: Use shielded fixtures that avoid off-site illumination.
Provide adequate but not excessive power.
Safety feature and impact Visibility from public areas for security can preclude landscaping and reduce
privacy.
Aesthetic mitigation: Provide visibility from frequently occupied private areas.
Use plant mass at ground-cover and tree-canopy level, with an open line-of-site
from standing eye level.
Safety feature and impact Providing easily accessible connections for fire-protection hardware can be
visually intrusive, particularly for projects in residential and historical settings.
Aesthetic mitt abon: Incorporate the hardware within the building.
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the. roosal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values?
9 5-21
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information ciources Sources Potei:_-ry Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
nless
Safety Element Update Issues Mitiga on Impact
Incoorated
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
Removing or strengthening damage-prone structures can affect historically and architecturally valuable
buildings. Adoption of the new element would neither delay nor hasten building removal or strengthening
under the City's adopted program for unreinforced masonry structures. Removal and strengthening
activities are subject to the City's demolition regulations and historical preservation policies. The general
result is that the outward appearance of new or altered buildings will be as compatible with neighborhood
character as the previous building.
Removing or strengthening damage-prone buildings
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b Affect exis nq recreational opportunities? X
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to 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 X
plant or animal community, 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 orprehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term,
to the disadvantage of long-tern, environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited,
but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively
considerable"means that the incremental effects of a X
project are considerable when viewed in connection with
the effects.of past projects,the effects of other current
rti acts, and the effects of prribable futureprojects)
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectV.
10 5-22
Attachment 3
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiahy rotentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Safe Element Update
Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
17.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.
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 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
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080(c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1,21083, 21083.3,21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal.App. 3d 296(1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal.App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
19. MITIGATION MEASURES 8r MITIGATION MONITORING
No mitigation measures are proposed as part of this environmental study.
safetyeRies.doc
5-23
Attachment 4
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JUNE 149 2000
CALL TO ORDERIPLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:04 p.m. on
Wednesday, June 14, 2000, in Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Jim Aiken, Mary Whittlesey, Stephen Peterson, Alice Loh,
Orval Osborne, and Chairman Paul Ready
Absent: Commr. Allan Cooper
Staff Recording Secretary Leaha Magee, Associate Planner Peggy Mandeville,
Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, Long Range Planning
Manager John Mandeville, City Engineer Jerry Kenny, and Assistant City
Attorney Gilbert Trujillo.
3. Citywide, GPA 67-96: Update Safety and Seismic Elements of the General Plan;
City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a negative declaration
of environmental impact and adopt a new Safety Element.
Commissioner Loh had staff comment on staff report page 2, Issues and Changes,
relating to runoff and creek flood hazards in the Mid-Higuera Street area.
Commissioner Peterson referred to the map on page 10 of the Safety Element and
asked if the County is aware of the potentially active earthquake fault area shown in
white on the map.
Associate Planner Matteson replied yes.
Commissioner Whittlesey asked if Policy S 3.1 is a new addition to the Element.
Associate Planner Matteson responded that it is a rewording and expansion of the
previous policy.
Commissioner Aiken asked for staff comment on Commissioner Cooper's previous
statement about the proposed location of Home Depot in relation to an active fault.
5-24
Draft Planning Commission MinuLes Attachment 4
June 14,2000
Page 2
Associate Planner Matteson stated on-site investigations have shown in the Froom-
DuVaul areas that the proposed building envelopes are not over the faults. The
proposed policy states that if the site is within 330 feet, a geologist's study is required.
The page 10 map indicates there is a system of faults running through the Los Osos
Valley close to the base of the Irish Hills, so sites in the area should be carefully
investigated, and critical facilities should avoid this area.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
There were no public comments made.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend that the City Council approve the
negative declaration of environmental impact and adopt the new Safety Element.
Commissioner Loh seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Loh, Aiken, Whittlesey, Osborne, and Ready
NOES: None
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commr. Cooper
The motion carried unanimously.
5-25
Attachment 5
CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE-SAFETY ELEMENT PROVISIONS
65300. Each planning agency shall prepare and the legislative body of each county and city shall
adopt a comprehensive, long-term general plan for the physical development of the county or
city, and of any land outside its boundaries which in the planning agency's judgment bears
relation to its planning. Chartered cities shall adopt general plans which contain the mandatory
elements specified in Section 65302.
65300.5. In construing the provisions of this article, the Legislature intends that the general plan
and elements and parts thereof comprise an integrated, internally consistent and compatible
statement of policies for the adopting agency.
65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of development policies and shall include a
diagram or diagrams and text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan proposals.
The plan shall include the following elements...
(g) A safety element for the protection of the community from any unreasonable risks associated
with the effects of seismically induced surface rupture, ground shaking, ground failure, tcnnami,
seiche, and dam failure; slope instability leading to mudslides and landslides; subsidence,
liquefaction and other seismic hazards identified pursuant to Chapter 7.8 (commencing with
Section 2690) of the Public Resources Code, and other geologic hazards known to the legislative
body; flooding; and wildland and urban fires. The safety element shall include mapping of
known seismic and other geologic hazards. It shall also address evacuation routes, peakload
water supply requirements, and minimum road widths and clearances around structures, as those
items relate to identified fire and geologic hazards. Prior to the periodic review of its general
plan and prior to preparing or revising its safety element, each city and county shall consult the
Division of Mines and Geology of the Department of Conservation and the Office of Emergency
Services for the purpose of including information known by and available to the department and
the office required by this subdivision. To the extent that a county's safety element is sufficiently
detailed and contains appropriate policies and programs for adoption by a city, a city may adopt
that portion of the county's safety element that pertains to the city's planning area in satisfaction
of the requirement imposed by this subdivision.
At least 45 days prior to adoption or amendment of the safety element, each county and city shall
submit to the Division of Mines and Geology of the Department of Conservation one copy of a
draft of the safety element or amendment and any technical studies used for developing the
safety element. The division may review drafts submitted to it to determine whether they
incorporate known seismic and other geologic hazard information, and report its findings to the
planning agency within 30 days of receipt of the draft of the safety element or amendment
pursuant to this subdivision.
The legislative body shall consider the division's findings prior to final adoption of the safety
element or amendment unless the division's findings are not available within the above
prescribed time limits or unless the division has indicated to the city or county that the division
will not review the safety element. If the division's findings are not available within those
prescribed time limits, the legislative body may take the division's findings into consideration at
the time it considers future amendments to the safety element. Each county and city shall provide
the division with a copy of its adopted safety element or amendments. The division may review
adopted safety elements or amendments and report its findings. All findings made by the division
shall be advisory to the planning agency and legislative body.
5-26