HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-01-16 ARC Correspondence - Item 1 (Ansolabehere, Davidson) MEMORANDUM
DATE: July 29, 2016
TO: Architectural Review Commission
FROM: Jon Ansolabehere, Assistant City Attorney
VIA: Doug Davidson, ARC Liaison
SUBJECT: 71 PALOMAR
The ARC is scheduled to conceptually review and generally comment on the proposed
development project at 71 Palomar. In the ARC’s August 1, 2016 staff report for this project, the
status of environmental review states “Mitigated Negative Declaration Pending.” City staff has
received some concerns regarding the use of this wording and the appropriateness of the ARC’s
consideration of this item while environmental review is still in process. The purpose of this brief
memo is to address some of the points raised and to explain the ARC’s role in the conceptual
review process relative to its duty to consider the potential environmental impacts pursuant to the
CEQA process.
First, a little background regarding the environmental review for this project. On March 18, 2016,
the City completed an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (“IS” or “IS/MND”)
(Attachment 1) for the proposed project as required under CEQA. The IS reviewed 17 different
environmental factors (i.e. aesthetics, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology
and soils, land use, noise, etc.) and concluded that, as mitigated, the project would not have a
significant environmental impact. In June of this year, the City’s environmental consultant
prepared an addendum (Attachment 2) to the IS/MND based on modifications to the project
description. As this project has moved forward through the planning review process, the City has
received a significant amount of public input and testimony regarding the potential environmental
impacts of the project. Because of these comments, staff determined that it was appropriate to
perform additional environmental review primarily in the areas of aesthetic impacts and biological
resources, sections 1 and 4 of the IS. Until the revised IS is complete and ready for further public
review, the final determination of the potential environmental impacts in these areas is
undetermined. Completion of the IS and further public review of the final environmental document
is anticipated to be completed by end of September of this year. This body will consider the project
and environmental document in mid-October.
The purpose of the ARC’s conceptual review of this project is to provide additional opportunities
for public participation and feedback regarding the proposed project. The current draft IS/MND is
attached to this memo. The role of the ARC for Monday’s meeting is to take public comment and
to provide preliminary, conceptual and general comments on the project in light of the information
and environmental analysis that has been performed thus far. No decisions or any formal action
will be made. The ARC will consider the project for decision only after the supplemental
environmental analysis is complete and the public review period has ended based on the entire
administrative record at that time.
It has been suggested that the City’s scheduling of the ARC’s hearing for conceptual review
violates the purpose of CEQA. Providing additional conceptual hearings exceeding legal
requirements for further public input and feedback based on environmental analysis which is
available is entirely within the spirit and intent of CEQA. Furthermore, in terms of processing,
CEQA Guidelines section 15004(c) states, in part: “The environmental document preparation and
review should be coordinated in a timely fashion with the existing planning, review, and project
approval processes being used by each public agency. These procedures, to the maximum extent
feasible, are to run concurrently, not consecutively.” The City’s coordination of environmental
analysis with its planning and review process for this project is consistent with this objective and
consistent with the objective to enhance the public’s participation in the planning process.
Attachments: 1. Addendum Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
2. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration
Addendum
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration
For the
71 Palomar Avenue Multi-Family
Residential Project
San Luis Obispo, California
Prepared for:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Prepared by:
Oliveira Environmental Consulting, LLC
3155 Rose Avenue, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
805.234.7393; jeffo@olive-env.com
www.olive-env.com
June 2016
Attachment 1
Table of Contents
Section Page
1.0 Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 Project Background............................................................................................................. 3
1.2 Purpose of This Addendum…............................................................................................... 4
1.3 Regulatory Framework for Addendum….……….................................................................... 4
2.0 Project Information........................................................................................................................... 5
2.1 Project Location................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Original Project Description…............................................................................................... 5
2.3 Revised Project Description…............................................................................................... 5
3.0 Revised Project Environmental Impact Analysis................................................................................ 9
3.1 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects......................................................................... 9
3.2 Conclusion...........................................................................……………………………………………… 9
Figures
Figure 1 – Project Vicinity and Site Location…………………………………………………………………………………. 6
Figure 2 – Revised Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay………………………………………………………………………… 8
Attachment 1
1.0 Introduction
This document constitutes an Addendum to the March 18, 2016 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration (IS/MND) originally prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo for the 71 Palomar Avenue
Multi-Family Residential Project (ARCH 2193-2015). This Addendum evaluates whether the addition
of new information and clarifications in response to project revisions sponsored by the applicant
would result in any new or substantially more adverse significant environmental effects or require
any new mitigation measures not identified in the original project IS/MND.
As verified in this Addendum, the analyses and the conclusions in the original project IS/MND remain
current and valid. The new information and project clarifications contained in this Addendum would
not cause new significant effects not previously identified in the MND nor increase the level of
environmental effect to substantial or significant; and as such, no new mitigation measures would be
necessary to reduce significant effects. No change has occurred with respect to circumstances
surrounding the proposed project that would cause new or substantially more severe significant
environmental effects than were identified in the original IS/MND. In addition, no new information
has become available that shows that the project would cause new or substantially more severe
significant environmental effects that have not already been analyzed in the original IS/MND.
Therefore, no further environmental review is required beyond this Addendum. This Addendum
incorporates the mitigation measures detailed in the original MND dated March 18, 2016. With this
Addendum, the proposed project would still be within the framework of the evaluation for the
project as documented in the original IS/MND.
1.1 Project Background
The City of San Luis Obispo received an architectural review application for the development of a 41-
unit multi-family residential project at 71 Palomar Avenue in the City of San Luis Obispo on October
16, 2016. The project was deemed complete on December 12, 2015 and a MND was published on
March 18, 2016. The City’s Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) reviewed the proposed project and
CEQA analysis on March 28, 2016 and decided to continue the project with direction to be reviewed
at a future date. Direction provided by the CHC included the following:
1) Maintain aspects of the cultural landscape of the Sandford House by reducing the extent to
which it is relocated and increase the distance between the historic house and the right-of-
way and the new development; and
2) Re-evaluate ways in which to reduce the scale and massing and detailing of the new
development to ensure that the new construction does not overwhelm the prominence of the
historic residence;
a. New construction should not mimic the historic house, but elements such as
fenestration, window patterns and other detailing should be considered that highlight the
historic elements of the Sandford House.
Attachment 1
1.2 Purpose of This Addendum
The purpose of this Addendum is to evaluate whether the additional new information and
clarifications resulting from the proposed project design revisions would result in any new or
substantially greater significant environmental effects or require any new mitigation measures not
identified in the original IS/MND. The City when considering approval of the proposed project will use
this Addendum, together with the original IS/MND.
1.3 Regulatory Framework for Addendum
For proposed project modifications or the addition of environmental information to a published
IS/MND, State CEQA Guidelines (Sections 15162 and 15164) state that an Addendum to an MND may
be prepared if only minor technical changes or additions are necessary or none of the following
conditions calling for the preparation of a subsequent MND have occurred:
• Substantial changes in the project which require major revisions to the MND due to the
involvement of new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity
of previously identified significant effects;
• Substantial changes with respect to the circumstances under which the project is undertaken
which require major revisions to the MND due to the involvement of new significant
environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified
significant effects; or
• New information of substantial importance, which was not known and could not have been
known with the exercise of reasonable diligence at the time of MND adoption, shows any of
the following:
i. The project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the MND,
ii. The project will result in impacts substantially more severe than those disclosed in
the MND,
iii. Mitigation measures or alternatives previously found not to be feasible would in fact
be feasible and would substantially reduce one or more significant effects of the
project, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation measure or
alternative, or
iv. Mitigation measures or alternatives that are considerably different from those
analyzed in the MND would substantially reduce one or more significant effects on
the environment, but the project proponent declines to adopt the mitigation
measure or alternative.
This Addendum provides additional environmental information and clarifications resulting from
project design revisions and demonstrates that the proposed project does not trigger any of the
conditions described above. Based on the analysis provided below, an Addendum to the original
IS/MND is appropriate.
Attachment 1
2.0 Project Information
2.1 Project Location
The proposed project is located at 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-162-007), near the intersection with
Ramona Drive, south of Foothill Boulevard, in the northwest portion of the City of San Luis Obispo,
California. The project parcel is 1.32 acres in size and is zoned “R-4” (High Density Residential). Please
refer to Figure 1, Site Vicinity/Site Location, for a depiction of the project location.
2.2 Original Project Description
The originally proposed project, as analyzed in the March 2016 IS/MND, consisted of the
rehabilitation, adaptive reuse, and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property
as part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project.
The originally proposed project includes:
• Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
• Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;
• Repositioning the house approximately 40 feet southeast of its current location;
• Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s leasing
office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
• Removal of all the existing trees on the site (mostly eucalyptus ranging in size from 51 inches
to 10 inches) with the exception of 2 trees and replanting the site with 21 trees;
• Construction of four apartment buildings (two, 2-story structures; one 3-story structure; and a
4- story structure built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 33 feet) with a total of 41
residential units (six studios, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom apartments);
• 90 parking spaces and 86 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the north
apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
• Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.
Please refer to the March 2016 IS/MND for a detailed discussion of the originally proposed project
elements.
2.3 Revised Project Description
The original project discussed above has been revised to address directional items provided by the
CHC (see Section 1.1. above). The revised project proposes to reposition the Sandford House forward
33 feet east and 16 feet south. The previous proposal moved the house approximately 29 feet east
and 45 feet south. The new relocation places the Sandford House 49 feet away from the right-of-way
of Luneta Drive. The revised project is also located 40 feet away from the newly revised residential
structures. The previous project was located 15 feet away from the new development. By
repositioning the house in the revised location, the structure retains its position at the center of the
property along Palomar Avenue and increases the distance between the Historic House and the new
construction.
Attachment 1
Site Location
Site Location
1 in = 1,500,000 ft
Figure 1
Site Vicintiy/Site Location1 in = 8,000 ft City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi Family Residential Development
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
The revised project also proposes to reduce the massing and scale of the project and reduce the total
number of residential units. The previously proposed building to the west of the Sandford House has
been reduced from three stories to two stories and smaller structures have been substituted for the
larger structures originally proposed. The newly constructed apartment buildings will include five 2-
story structures and a 4-story structure built into the hill with a total of 33 residential units (five
studios, 16 two-bedroom, and 12 three-bedroom apartments) as opposed to 41 units proposed in the
previous project.
Parking for the site is proposed to be located in the semi-subterranean garage of the structure
located at the north side of the site. The revised project will have total of 63 vehicle parking spaces,
66 bicycle long-term parking spaces and 22 short-term bicycle spaces. The previous project proposed
90 vehicle spaces, 82 long-term parking spaces and 4 short-term bicycle spaces.
The original historic orientation of the Sandford House will remain the same with the house facing
Palomar Avenue from the crest of the small slope on the project site. The overall property height will
be lowered slightly across the slope. As originally described, the historic two-story residence will be
rehabilitated following the City Historic Preservation Guidelines and Secretary of the Interior (SOI)
Standards. As with the original project, non-historic rear additions to the Sandford House will be
removed and the residence, currently serving as student housing, will become amenity space (leasing,
computer and conference rooms, fitness room, etc.) for residents and management at the proposed
new development.
The revised project also includes modifications to the proposed tree removal and tree planting plan
for the site. A Certified Arborist report was prepared A&T Arborists (2016) that identifies all of the
trees on the site and their condition. The report identifies that the project will include the
preservation of the Norfolk Island pine and two Island Date palms. The new landscape plan shows
over 30 new trees will be planted on the site. The previous project proposed to retain the two Island
Date palms and replant the site with 21 trees.
Please refer to Figure 2, Revised Site Plan/Aerial Overview, for a detailed depiction of the revised
project layout and footprint on the project site.
Attachment 1
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Luneta Drive
AdjacentMulti-Family
AdjacentMulti-Family
Adjacent Residential
Slide House Forward (39' East & 16' South)
New Landscaped Medians with Cutouts for Access to existing Driveways
Parking Easement for Adjacent Housing
New Curbs and Gutters to Connect Existing
Existing Sanford House
Adjacent ParcelNot Part of Easement
Figure 2
Revised Site Plan/Aerial OverviewCity of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Residential Development - Revised
Street Boundary
New Sandford House Location
Multi-Family Appartments
Parcel Boundary
Walkway
0 25 5012.5 Feet
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
3.0 Revised Project Environmental Impact Analysis
As stated above, the purpose of this Addendum is to introduce new project information and
clarifications resulting from project revisions based on direction from the City’s Cultural Heritage
Committee. In addition, this Addendum demonstrates that the new project information and
subsequent revised environmental impact analysis discussed below do not trigger any of the
conditions described under CEQA Guidelines Sections 15162 and 15164 which outline the conditions
for requiring the recirculation of a published MND.
3.1 Analysis of Potential Environmental Effects
The original project IS/MND found that the proposed multi-family residential development would
result in impacts that were either less than significant or less than significant with mitigation
incorporated. As described above in Section 2.3, the applicant has revised plans in response to CHC
direction and an analysis of the revised project is provided below.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project is located on a site which is designated by the City as a Master List Historic
property. The Historic Sandford House was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the
basis of architectural significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American
architecture. The revised project proposes to rehabilitate the Sandford House exactly as proposed in
the original project, consistent with the City Historic Preservation Guidelines and the Secretary of
Interior’s (SOI) Standards.
The project includes the demolition of two non-original additions that were installed after the period
of significance; however, the project would retain, rehabilitate and reuse more than 75% of the
original framework, roof and exterior bearing walls and cladding of the building. The project design
will retain and repair the architectural features that define the character, form, scale and appearance
of the Sandford House. Repairs or replacements will use materials similar in size, shape, quality and
appearance when compared to the historic structure. The project will not introduce new or
conflicting architectural elements to the building exterior. The project also proposes to remove the
twin chimneys on the west side of the house and place a compatible patio off of the north side of the
house.
A revised historic analysis by Applied Earthworks (May 2, 2016) was prepared to address the revised
relocation of the Historic Sanford House and the re-designed residential units adjacent to the
structure. The Report identified the original historic landscape and setting have been materially
altered by prior development of the surrounding area, including the subdivision of the original 15-
acre parcel and construction of new roads, infrastructure, and neighboring residential development
that ended the property’s relatively isolated location. As a result, the integrity of the historic
landscape and setting has been substantially diminished by prior development and the property’s
historic character is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel.
Attachment 1
The proposed repositioning and slight reduction in elevation of the residence will retain the
structure’s prominence on the parcel and will serve as an architectural anchor of the site. The
architectural design of the new structures proposed for development has been revised to reduce
their massing and scale and maintain the prominence of Sandford House on the site. The revised
project includes architectural elements that highlight historic elements of the Sandford House, yet
remains sufficiently modern and differentiated from the historic buildings to allow clear distinction
between the historic and new. Neutral colors and lower heights will minimize contrast, while the
rhythm of the facades and multi-light windows will still highlight the historic elements of the house.
Project revisions also include an increase in the distance between the new construction and historic
residence and the proposed new construction will assume a secondary position on the site. Visual
intrusions resulting from new construction will be further reduced through reductions in
development scale and massing and screening by vegetation.
As proposed, the revised project is consistent with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance, Historic
Preservation Program Guidelines, and the SOI Standards for Rehabilitation. Please refer to the
original, 2015 Applied Earthworks report for a detailed discussion of the six specific recommendations
established under the SOI Standards to guide rehabilitation and adaptive reuse of the Master List
building and new residential units.
OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ISSUE AREAS
As described above in the project description, the revised project would include changes to the
original project design primarily related to the siting of the historic Sandford House and reductions in
the scale and massing of the new construction. The proposed changes in the revised project would
not substantially alter the original IS/MND analysis since the revised project consists of an overall
reduction in site development. The revised project would have similar impacts compared to the
original project, including the less than significant with mitigation incorporated impacts to Air Quality,
Biological Resources, Cultural Resources, Geology/Soils, Hydrology/Water Quality,
Transportation/Traffic, Utilities/Service Systems, and Mandatory Findings of Significance, and less
than significant impacts related to Aesthetics, Agricultural Resources, Greenhouse Gas Emissions,
Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Land Use/Planning, Mineral Resources, Noise, Population/Housing,
Public Services, and Recreation.
The revised project components would neither increase the severity of any significant impacts
associated with the proposed development, nor result in new or substantially different
environmental effects.
3.2 Conclusion
The proposed revisions to the original project would not cause new significant impacts not previously
identified in the original IS/MND, and no new mitigation measures would be necessary to reduce
significant impacts. No changes have occurred with respect to circumstances surrounding the
proposed project that would cause significant environmental impacts to which the project would
contribute considerably, and no new information has become available that shows that the project
Attachment 1
would cause significant environmental impacts. As such, the new project information and
clarifications discussed above do not trigger any of the conditions described under CEQA Guidelines
Sections 15162 and 15164 which outline the conditions for requiring the recirculation of a published
MND.
Attachment 1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
ARCH-2193-2015
March 18, 2016
1.Project Title:
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AT 71 PALOMAR AVENUE
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:
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
805-781-7574
Prepared By:
Jeff Oliveira, Principal Environmental Planner
Oliveira Environmental Consulting LLC
4.Project Location:
71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052-161-007)
5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
LR Development Group, LLC
400 Continental Boulevard, 6th Floor
El Segundo, CA 90245
Project Representative Name and Address:
Arris Studio Architects
1306 Johnson Avenue
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Attachment 2
6. General Plan Designation:
Residential
7. Zoning:
R-4 (High Density Residential)
8.Description of the Project:
The proposed project is located at 71 Palomar Avenue (APN 052‐162‐007), in the City of San
Luis Obispo, CA. The project parcel is 1.32 acres in size and is zoned “R‐4” (High Density
Residential). Please refer to Figure 1(Attachment 1), Site Vicinity/Site Location, for a detailed
depiction of the project location. The applicant is proposing the rehabilitation, adaptive reuse,
and repositioning of the Master List Historic Sandford House property as part of a 41-unit multi-
family residential project.
The project includes:
•Removal of the non-historic additions to the main structure;
•Removal of the non-historic garage, carport and the secondary residential building;
•Repositioning the house approximately 40 feet southeast of its current location ;
•Rehabilitation of the historic structure and adaptive reuse for the proposed project’s
leasing office and amenity space (study room, fitness room, etc.);
•Removal of all the existing trees on the site (mostly eucalyptus ranging in size from 51
inches to 10 inches) with the exception of 2 trees and replanting the site with 21 trees;
•Construction of four apartment buildings (two, 2-story structures; one 3-story structure;
and a 4- story structure built into the hill - all with a maximum height of 33 feet) with a
total of 41 residential units (six studios, one one-bedroom, and 34 two-bedroom
apartments);
•90 parking spaces and 86 bicycle parking spaces within a two-level garage beneath the
north apartment building, accessed from Palomar Avenue; and
•Road improvements to Luneta Drive including two-way traffic and raised medians.
Please refer to Figure 2 (Attachment 2), First Floor Site Plan/Aerial Overview, for a detailed
depiction of the project development footprint.
9.Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The subject property is located at the corner of Palomar Avenue and Luneta Drive just south of
Foothill Boulevard and west of Broad Street. The project site contains three buildings: a main
residence, a secondary residential building, and a remodeled garage with adjacent carport,
expansive lawns, and mature trees are present throughout the site. The site is accessed by two
driveways along Luneta Drive and a pedestrian access from Palomar Avenue.
Attachment 2
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD, High
Density Residential.
North: Developed with multi-family residential uses (Valencia Apartments), zoned R-4-PD,
High Density Residential.
East (across Palomar Avenue): Developed with multi-family residences/senior housing, zoned
R-4-PD.
South: (across Luneta Drive): Developed with single-family residential homes, zoned R-1-PD,
Low Density Residential.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
The project requires environmental review (this document), architectural review and approval by
the Architectural Review Commission (ARC).
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): None
Attachment 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
X
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning X
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
X
Utilities / Service Systems
X
Geology / Soils
Noise X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME 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).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
Attachment 2
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.
X
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 of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
March 18, 2016
Signature Date
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
Attachment 2
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects
were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
Attachment 2
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,5,
24, 31
--X--
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?
5, 11,
31
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,11,
31
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
10,11,
17, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: the Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest
into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is
generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as
Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits
of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge
where development has remained in the lower elevations.
The project site vicinity within the residential neighborhoods south of Foothill Boulevard exhibit a more suburban character
than those in the downtown core. The street pattern is a rectilinear grid, providing a degree of formality and long visual
sightlines along some streets. As elsewhere in the City, these neighborhoods enjoy the benefits of mature street trees and the
unique visual backdrop provided by Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop Peak. Please refer to the project site plans for
elevations showing views of the project development from public vantage points along neighboring streets.
a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on a site that has generally flat topography, sloping gradually
toward the north and east. Although the project site exhibits a fairly open lot configuration dominated by the Sandford House
and associated outbuildings, the project site is surrounded by similar higher density residential development (with the
exception of the single-family neighborhood to the south) and does not contain unique visual features that would distinguish
the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista. The proposed project would have a less than
significant impact on scenic vistas, as there would be no change to existing conditions regarding scenic vistas or scenic
resources. The proposed project does not include any components that would change the overall character of the project site,
block significant views from or in the vicinity of the project site, or change the nature of scenic resources.
b) Located approximately 0.33 miles to the east, Highway 1 is the closest state-designated scenic highway to the project site.
The project site is not visible from the highway or on/off ramps. There are no state scenic highways in the project area from
which the project is visible. Impacts are considered less than significant.
c) Visual resources in the vicinity of the site are discussed above and include views of Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop
Peak. The City of San Luis Obispo regulates aesthetics of buildings and public spaces through implementation of adopted
policies and programs. The City’s General Plan Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update, Conservation and Open
Space Element, as well as the implementing statutes of the Municipal Code/Zoning Code and Community Design Guidelines
are the core of this mechanism.
The applicant proposes development of a multi-family residential apartment complex on a site with a Master List Historic
House and accessory structures (discussion of impacts on the Historic Resource are discussed in Section 8 below). Adjacent
parcels to the site are developed with multi-family development to the north, east and west and single-family units to the
south. Residential structures range in height between one and two-stories. The site is zoned for high-density residential
development and was previously disturbed with buildings and site development associated with the Historic Sandford House.
The project proposal will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission for conformance with the City of San Luis
Obispo Community Design Guidelines and code which address compatibility of proposed development on the site and in
relation to surroundings. Based on the existing development surrounding the site, previous development on the subject site
and the design review requirements, the project is not expected to degrade the existing visual character of the site. Impacts
Attachment 2
are considered less than significant.
e) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring commercial and residential uses as
well as light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project would result in a general increase in
residential density and development within the subject site. The project is required to conform to the City’s Night Sky
Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) and General Plan Policy 9.2.3 which sets operational standards
and requirements for lighting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. As
such, impacts resulting from creating new sources of light will be less than significant.
Conclusion: The project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 19,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
31
--X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
18
--X--
Evaluation
The city is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key
agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local
economy. It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism
industry, which in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending.
a) The project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use.
b) The project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
Residential uses in the General Plan and is zoned R-4 (High Density Residential). The project site is surrounded by
developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for
agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract.
c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site
agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site.
Conclusion: No impacts to agricultural resources are anticipated.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
c) 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
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
9, 20,
21,
13, 31
--X--
Attachment 2
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
9, 21,
13, 31
--X--
Evaluation
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only
limited barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California
Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County
is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the
monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions.
a), b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have
established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of
contaminants representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient
air quality standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are
described in criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas
that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently
designated as nonattainment for the state and federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well
as the state standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution
control district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. In April 2012 the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution
Control District (SLO APCD) adopted The Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County. The CAP is a comprehensive
planning document identifying thresholds of significance to assist local jurisdictions during the review of projects that are
subject to CEQA, and is designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from
motor vehicle use. These thresholds of significance were designed to establish the level at which the SLO APCD believed air
pollution emissions would cause significant environmental impacts under CEQA. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may
result from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead
agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under
CEQA, the SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to
cause adverse impacts to air quality.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air
quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods.
Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant.
Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The
SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA
Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any
construction activities. As such, impacts are considered significant but mitigable.
The project will include extensive grading and demolition, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in
older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can
have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the
Attachment 2
requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos
NESHAP). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of existing structures on the subject site are considered to be
significant but mitigable.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close
proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, impacts related to
fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction activities are considered significant but mitigable.
Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, and may be subject to California Air
Resources Board or APCD permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other
equipment listed in the APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Truck trips associated with the
16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to
APCD permitting requirements, subject to specific truck routing selected. The specific requirements and exceptions in the
regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf and
www.arb.ca.gov/react/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are considered
significant but mitigable.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment building (low rise) with less
than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT
CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded by the proposed
project (maximum size for exemption stated at 94 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are
considered less than significant.
e) The project includes the development of a multi-family residential apartment complex, as anticipated in the R-4 High
Density Residential zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce
objectionable odors in the area.
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic
evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption
request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines
shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which
include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the
APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal
requirements of identified ACM.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following
particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify
practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community
Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and
from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased
watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities
during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-
control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
Attachment 2
d. 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.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. 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.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction
site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the
APCD’s 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 APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all
equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. 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:
1. 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,
2. 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 5.0 minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel
idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize
impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Attachment 2
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on air
quality.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
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 Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
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?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
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?
5,17,
18,
26, 31
--X--
Evaluation
The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: the Los Osos
Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and the San Luis Valley which drains to the south‐
southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and
Brizzolara Creeks, and numerous tributary channels pass through the city, providing important riparian habitat and migration
corridors connecting urbanized areas to less‐developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City.
Much of area outside the city limits consist of open rangeland grazed year round, along with agricultural lands dominated by
annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the
City, and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of
which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native
habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits.
The following discussion, as outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, provides a general overview of the habitat type found on the
project site:
Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the
characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed” habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the
developed portions of the City, and in discrete areas adjacent to Highway 1 and Broad Street/Highway 227. These areas
typically provide low potential to support native plant or animal species occurrences. Within the City limits, occurrences of
sensitive natural habitats are present in low‐lying areas (riparian and wetland areas), and on undeveloped hills and steep
slopes above the Urban Reserve or development limit lines (coastal scrub, chaparral, woodlands, and grasslands). Wildlife
occurrences within urban/developed areas would consist primarily of urban‐ adapted avian species such as house sparrow
(Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the abundant tree canopy and concentrated
food sources, common animal species adapted to human presence such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis
Attachment 2
virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and aquatic, semi‐aquatic, and terrestrial species resident in or utilizing
riparian areas.
(a-d) The project site was visited by Oliveira Environmental Consulting (February 10, 2016) and observations indicated that
the site does not support riparian or wetland areas, undeveloped hills or steep slopes associated with a higher potential for the
presence of native plant or animal species. The project site is void of undisturbed native habitat and open spaces across the
site are dominated by fairly mature landscaping including trees, shrubs and lawns, including a stand of mature eucalyptus
trees near the existing Sandford House. The mature landscaping present at the project site provides the tree and shrub
habitats that have the potential to support wildlife habitat limited primarily to urban-adapted avian species discussed above.
It is not anticipated that any areas meeting the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands will be disturbed by the project and the
project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan.
(e-f) No heritage trees or significant native vegetation exist on the portion of the site to be developed. Multiple small to fully
mature native and non-native landscaping trees would be removed as part of the proposed project development. This includes
mulberry trees/shrubs, pine trees, olive trees, decorative palms, larch or spruce trees, eucalyptus and redwood trees. The
proposed project includes a conceptual landscape plan showing the removal of all of the existing vegetation with the
exception of a 28-inch diameter eucalyptus tree at the southwest corner of the site and a 74-inch palm tree midway along the
east property boundary. The landscape plan indicates a robust planting scheme that includes evergreen shade trees, landscape
median trees (Luneta Drive median), deciduous flowering shade trees, hedges, shrubs, lawns and ground cover species.
Please refer to the project Conceptual Landscape Plan for a detailed list of proposed landscaping scheme and planting palate.
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting birds, construction
activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September), unless a City-approved and applicant
funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and determined that no nesting bird activities would be adversely
impacted. If any evidence of nesting activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur
during the nesting period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with possible
recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Conclusion: With the recommended mitigation measure, the project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
5, 23,
24,26,
31
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
23,
24,
26, 31
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
5, 26,
31
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
5, 24,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native
American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native
American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating
that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. 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, including the Arroyo Grande area, and from
the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes
from archaeological sites along the coast.
Attachment 2
Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with
the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
established. By the 1870’s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been
established in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4-square mile
area around what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and
mainline Southern Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth
generally lasted from 1945 to the present. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were
developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time.
According to the City’s Master List of Historic Resources, the subject property at 71 Palomar Drive is referred to as the
historic Sandford House. A cultural resources evaluation was provided by Applied Earthworks (October 2015). Historical
research identified that the subject property was originally patented in 1870.
a) The proposed project is located on a site which is designated locally as a Master List Historic property. The Historic
Sandford House, located at 71 Palomar, was added to the Master List of Historic Resources on the basis of architectural
significance as an excellent example of the Colonial Revival style of American architecture. A historic and archaeological
evaluation identified the period of significance for the structure as circa 1895-1930 (Applied Earthworks, Inc., October 2015,
Attachment 4). The applicant is proposing an adaptive reuse and rehabilitation of the Master List Historic Sandford house as
part of a 41-unit multi-family residential project. The project proposal includes repositioning of the Historic Sandford House
to a slightly lower position, 40 feet southeast of its current location, removing non-original rear additions and accessory
structures and construction of new structures around the Historic Sandford House. The proposed project will be reviewed by
the City of San Luis Obispo Cultural Heritage Committee for compliance with the City Historic Preservation Ordinance (city
Ordinance; Municipal Code Chapter 14.01), the Historic Preservation Program Guidelines, and the Secretary of the Interior’s
Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
The Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Attachment 4) reviewed the proposed project under the Rehabilitation treatment of the
Secretary of Interior Standards (SOI) for the Treatment of Historic Properties and under local City of San Luis Obispo
Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. As discussed below, with incorporation of recommended actions included herein
as mitigation measures, the project was found in conformance with SOI Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties.
Therefore, impacts are considered to be mitigated to a less than a significant level under CEQA Guidelines. (CEQA
Guidelines Section 15064.5(b)(3)).
Repositioning
The original setting of the site has experienced significant change since construction of the house in 1895 with the
development of Palomar Avenue, Luneta Drive and the adjacent homes and apartments. The historic character of the subject
property is expressed today in the prominence of the Sandford House within the parcel. The Applied Earthworks evaluation
found that the proposed repositioning of the house on the site will preserve the prominence of the structure on the site and its
historic orientation on a slope facing east overlooking the City of San Luis Obispo. The Sandford House will retain the ability
to convey its historical significance and repositioning of the Sandford House will not materially alter the physical
characteristics or immediate surroundings such that its historic significance would be materially impaired.
Rehabilitation and Adaptive Reuse
The overall visual character of the residence, and historically significant features, which includes building shape, the
principal and secondary entries to the building, roof and related features, prominent portico projection, two-story solarium,
and historic-age materials such as stucco cladding will remain intact. The stucco cladding of the Sandford House will be
repaired and painted an appropriate color and reroofed with appropriate composition shingle material. Prominent architectural
elements, such as the distinctive portico with its Tuscan columns, entablature, original multi-light wood-framed sash
windows, and wood paneled front door with fanlights and sidelights will be maintained. The deteriorated two-story solarium
addition will be repaired and its windows and door replaced with appropriate in kind materials. With incorporation of
recommendations of the Applied Earthworks Evaluation (Mitigation Measures CR1-6) the proposed rehabilitation and
adaptive reuse will not result in adverse impacts to the historical significance of the Sandford House.
New Development
As noted above, the setting surrounding of the Historic Sandford House has experienced significant urbanization with the
development apartment buildings and modern single-family residences all around the property. The new apartment buildings
on the site are designed to assume a secondary position to the Master List Structure. The buildings are clearly differentiated
Attachment 2
from the Master List Sandford House through their low-profile hipped roofs, subdued neutral colors, and lower heights. The
new apartment buildings share similar architectural features, such as the rhythm of their facades and use of stucco finishes
and multi-light windows. The new buildings would not overwhelm the scale of the Sandford House and would not obscure
views of the primary elevations of the structure. As discussed in the Applied Earthworks Report while spatial relationships
would be altered, the distinctiveness of the Historic Sandford House would remain intact and would continue to convey its
historic significance.
b-d) The property does not contain any known prehistoric or historic archaeological resources identified on City maintained
resource maps, but is considered an archaeologically and historically sensitive area. A cultural resources inventory prepared
for the project included a Phase I archaeological survey of the subject property to determine the presence or likelihood of
archaeological historical resources. The surface survey resulted in no evidence of prehistoric or historic archaeological
materials. The Phase 1 archaeological survey found that in order to reduce potential impacts to cultural resources which could
be impacted during ground disturbance activities that monitoring should be conducted. Less than significant impact with
mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall be prepared and
approved by the City prior to project construction. The plan will need to include a summary of the project and expected
ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring, description of expected materials, description of significant
materials or features, protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery
plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Mitigation Measure CR 2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the removal of the non-
original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable or missing materials revealed upon
removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any
historical wood-sash windows found during demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where
appropriate.
Mitigation Measure CR 3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford House on the site
shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house. The reconstructed foundation and
platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount of height and exposure that the existing house
exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently exists shall also be maintained.
Mitigation Measure CR 4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-floor solarium
windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to fit into the original openings. Multi-
light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows located throughout other areas of the residence should be used
to the maximum extent feasible in the event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Mitigation Measure CR 5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of paint removal, and
stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High-pressure water blasting; sand or other
hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless
specifically approved by the City.
Mitigation Measure CR 6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New Construction. The
applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction and historic residence and the design for
the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the Sandford House on the property using scale and massing.
New construction shall not be over-detailed or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the project will have a less than significant impact on cultural
resources.
Attachment 2
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4,10,
14,
29, 31
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.
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4,10,
14,27,
29, 31
--X--
IV. Landslides? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
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?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4,10,
14,29,
31
--X--
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?
4,10,
14,
29, 31
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic
Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to
northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub‐parallel
northwest‐southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and
greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive
and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation
are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary
aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay.
Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest‐southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are
related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or
potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault,
the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna
Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the
California Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a
known active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist‐Priolo legislation, no structure for
Attachment 2
human occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the fault zone closest to the city is located near
the southern flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits.
Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by
an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis
earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper‐bound earthquake ground motion, applied to
public use facilities like schools or hospitals.
Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a
slope failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the
development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains
extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope
instability. The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling,
by qualified professionals. The building code requires site‐specific investigations and design proposals by qualified
professionals in areas that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides.
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried
structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefaction include
lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the
depth of groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area.
The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water,
are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is
identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations
have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site
preparation and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low.
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the
compression of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over
porous alluvial soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed
artificial fill, and structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter
local drainage patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain
by soft organic soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element).
Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt,
sand, and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers).
Where compaction increases (either naturally, or due to construction), the geologic materials become more dense. As a result,
the ground surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle.
Ground subsidence can occur under several different conditions, including:
• Ground‐water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to
settle)
• Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding);
and
• Earthquake‐induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground‐surface subsidence.
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can
occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or
sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known
to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for
expansion.
a, c, d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High
Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be
subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
Attachment 2
design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true for
most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require
proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to
resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required California Building Code, City Codes,
and development in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less
than significant levels.
b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. The most significant source of potential
erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. The project
applicant has prepared a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015) and a Conceptual
Landscape Plan. Development in accordance with the Stormwater Control Plan will address stormwater flow across the site,
and landscaping planting will help ensure the natural retention of stormwater and help address potential erosion. Erosion
impacts are considered less than significant.
e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems
are not proposed and will not be used on the site.
Conclusion: With proposed development in accordance with applicable CBC and local Building Code requirements, and
implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan and Conceptual Landscape Plan, impacts are considered less than
significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
1,13,
20,21,
31
X
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon
dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur
hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are
responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known
as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both
stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation,
high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities.
The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy
consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide activities in
the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of
global warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite
local, statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in
a number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased
frequency of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the
Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act
of 2008 (Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard,
California Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97
Attachment 2
with respect to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Review
Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies
within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012a, 2012b). The City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a
GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing
actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions. The CAP also includes measures and actions to help the city build
resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change.
a, b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment
centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allow for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and
Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result
in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions.
The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions; see Air
Quality discussion is Section 3 (above) for discussion. The remaining project CO2 emissions are primarily from building
heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands.
Short Term Construction-Related GHG Emissions: Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use
of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3 and AQ 4 address vehicle and
equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate indirect source
emissions, such as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are routinely enforced with new
construction. Table 1-1 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of an apartment building (low
rise) with less than 109 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line
threshold (MT CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NOx) would not be exceeded
by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 94 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality
impacts are considered less than significant.
Conclusion: With the incorporation of required mitigation measures (see Air Quality impact analysis), Title 24 regulations
and CAP consistency requirements, impacts are considered less than significant.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 31
--X--
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?
4, 31
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
30, 31
--X--
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 for people residing or working in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
Attachment 2
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4, 17
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 17,
31
--X--
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the analysis of hazards and hazardous material impacts relates to hazards
regarding safety risks posed by airport flight patterns, impeding of adopted emergency response/evacuation plans, and
wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas; and hazardous materials or substances regarding routine
transport or disposal of substances, explosion or release of substances, and emissions or handling of substances within one‐
quarter mile of an existing or planned school. The following is a brief outline of the primary identified hazards:
Fire Hazards: Fires have the potential to cause significant losses to life, property, and the environment. Urban fire hazards
result from the materials that make up the built environment, the size and organization of structures, and spacing of buildings.
Additional factors that can accelerate fire hazards are availability of emergency access, available water volume and pressure
for fire suppression, and response time for fire fighters. Fire hazard severity in rural areas, including areas on the edge
between urban and rural land (commonly called the wildland interface), are highly influenced by the slope of the landscape
and site vegetation and climate. This risk is somewhat amplified by the native, Mediterranean vegetation common to the rural
setting in which the City is located that has evolved to rely on wildfires for its ecological sustainability. Where wildland fires
may be a threat, plant fuels are often managed by replacement planting, grazing, plowing, or mechanical clearing.
Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. This includes, for example,
chemical materials such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated
chemical materials. Additionally, hazards include known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release
of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk
associated with disturbing the historical release area. The potential for risks associated with hazardous materials are varied
regionally. The primary risk concerns identified by the city, as stipulated in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, include
radiation hazards and the transportation of hazardous materials in and around the city. Most of these incidents are related to
the increasing frequency of transport of chemicals over roadways, railways or through industrial accidents. Highway 101 and
a rail corridor are major transportation corridors through the San Luis Obispo area.
Airport Hazards: The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the area.
The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft incidents on approach and take‐off.
Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the Federal Aviation
Administration. The County manages activities on the airport property through the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC).
As the means of fulfilling these basic obligations, the ALUC, must prepare and adopt Airport Land Use Plans for each airport
within their jurisdiction. The policies in the ALUP are intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and
safety hazards while providing for the orderly expansion of airports (Public Utility Code Section 21670(a)(2). The ALUC has
developed an Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that was first adopted in
1973, was updated in May 2005 and is currently being updated. The ALUP has identified safety zones with associated land
use density and intensity restrictions. The ALUP defines these as:
• Runway Protection Zones – Areas immediately adjacent to the ends of each active runway, within which the level of
aviation safety risk is very high and in which, consequently, structures are prohibited and human activities are
restricted to those which require only very low levels of occupancy.
• Safety Areas S‐1 a through c– The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of
reduced visibility at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
Attachment 2
• Safety Area S‐2 – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of reduced
visibility at altitudes between 501 and 1000 feet above ground level (AGL). Because aircraft in Area S‐2 are at
greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall
level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S‐1 or the Runway Protection Zones.
a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with
applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction
and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline
and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in
addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so
the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or
disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations,
including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health
and Safety Code.
With respect to operation of the project, apartment buildings do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and
only a minimal amount of routine “household” chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a
significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or
emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment.
Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety
Element would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of
the proposed project or by transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the project site. These regulations
establish standards by which hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed project. Where
transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of
regulations.
The project also includes demolition of existing structures on the property including portions of the Historic Sandford House,
which, given the age of the structures, could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was
used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) in the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be
found in a variety of building materials and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation,
wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-
friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing
Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the
primary mode of asbestos entry into the body, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will
release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and
encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos-containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample
contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor.
Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead -based paint.
In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per million
[ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06
percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are
particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and
organs.
Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk
assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the presence of asbestos. If such hazards are
determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal
methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the project
Attachment 2
sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct
the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be
disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk
assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement
have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead-based paint. These include
Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US
Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and
monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with
existing regulation would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant.
c) The proposed project is a multi-family residential apartment development with parking and associated amenities, and is
approximately 1/3 of a mile south of Pacheco Elementary School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project is a
multi-family apartment use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any
hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing
school.
d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012). The closest listed site is located at 795 Foothill Boulevard, a leaking underground storage
tank cleanup site at the Unocal Station, approximately ¼ mile from the subject property. That site is listed on the Cortese
State Water Resources Control Board GEOTRACKER database due to the presence of permitted underground storage tanks.
Therefore, the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment related to an existing
hazardous materials site.
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or airstrip.
There are no private airstrips in the vicinity of the project site that would result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area.
g) The project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h) The project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The
surrounding land is developed with urban and residential uses. The proposed project will have no impact on the placement of
people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
g), h) The project site is an infill site and plans have been reviewed by the Fire Marshal who determined that as designed the
project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or evacuation plan. The site is not directly adjacent to any
wildlands.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
Attachment 2
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 27,
31
--X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
5,
15,16,
27, 31
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 27,
31
--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
4, 5,
27, 31
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 31 --X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic
Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west of the Coastal
Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the Monterey County
line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low‐lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis
Obispo Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the city, with the others being Stenner Creek,
Prefumo Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also
present flood hazards. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are
relatively small, but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events in the city.
According to the RWQCB, water quality in the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is generally considered to be good.
However, the water quality fluctuates along with seasonal changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease
and dilution is reduced, water quality decreases. According to the RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project for
San Luis Obispo Creek, the creek has been reported to exceed nutrient and pathogen levels.
Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo Valley Sub‐basin flows toward the south‐southwest, following the general gradient
of surface topography. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply,
municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use.
In order to evaluate the specific nature of the hydrology and water quality issues for the subject property, the project
proponents have initiated a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., October 12, 2015). The intent of
this report is to address the stormwater requirements set forth by the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s Post-
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region.
a, f) The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed area. Due to its size and location, the project is
subject to the Drainage Design Manual (DDM) of the Water Way Management Plan (WWMP) and newly adopted Post
Construction Requirements for storm water control. Under these standards, the projects where Impervious Area ≥ 22,000 SF
Attachment 2
and in Watershed Management Zone 1 shall meet Post Construction Requirements 1 – 4 as follows: 1) Site Design and
Runoff Reduction, 2) Water Quality Treatment, 3) Runoff Retention, and 4) Peak Management. For the SLO City/WWMP
drainage criteria to be accommodated, Special Floodplain Management Zone Regulations require the analysis to verify that
there will be: 1) No change in the 100, 50, 25, 10, 5 & 2 year peak flow runoff exiting the property, 2) Use of Best
Management Practices (BMP’s) to minimize potential release of sediments and clarify storm flows in minor storm events to
reduce pollutants moving downstream into San Luis Creek, and 3) City Standard Criteria for Source Control of Drainage and
Erosion Control, page 7 and 8 Standard 1010, “Projects with pollution generating activities and sources must be designed to
implement operation or source control measures consistent with recommendations from the California Stormwater Quality.
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. The
performance requirements discussed above will be met by using underground chambers which will retain stormwater and
infiltrate in back onsite, and as a result contain pollutants onsite as well. These chambers will retain the 95th percentile storm
and allow that volume of water to receive filtration as it percolates back into native ground. Additionally these chambers will
provide adequate volume of storage to reduce the peak runoff rates to pre development rates. The site will continue to slope
to the North and East where runoff will be discharged offsite and ultimately outlet to Stenner Creek.
Water Quality Analysis
The proposed project creates and replaces over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to
Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the Central Coast. The site was analyzed using HydroCAD and the
Santa Barbara Urban Hydrograph Method.
Performance Requirement 1-Site Design and Runoff Reduction
This site minimizes the amount of pervious surface to the maximum extent practicable. Runoff will be directed to
underground chambers prior to discharging offsite, which will allow for filtration and percolation.
Performance requirement 2-Water Quality Treatment
Based on the hydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction condition, this site is required to provide treatment for 6,300 cubic
feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the 95th
percentile storm and infiltrate it back into native ground. The pollutants within the stormwater will filtered out of the
stormwater as it percolates into native ground. The outlet for the chambers will be set above the water surface elevation that
holds the 95th percentile storm.
Performance requirement 3-Runoff Retention
Based on the hydroCAD analysis of the Post Construction conditions, this site is required to provide infiltration for 6,300
cubic feet of water. This will be accomplished by using underground infiltration chambers. These chambers will contain the
95th percentile storm and infiltrate it back into native ground.
Performance requirement 4-Peak Management
The underground chambers will be sized so as to detain stormwater from the site and release it at pre development rate for all
design storms. The following table summarizes the pre and post construction runoff rates and shows that the runoff rate has
been reduced for all design storms. Full calculations from HydroCAD for the underground system are included with the
project stormwater control plan.
95th 2 yr 5 yr 10 yr 25 yr 50 yr 100 yr
Pre-Construction (cfs) 0.60 0.60 1.42 2.01 2.32 2.94 3.26
Post Construction (cfs) 0 0 0.44 0.67 0.79 1.09 1.21
Percent Reduction 100 100 69 67 66 63 63
Site activities and identification of potential sources of pollutants
The proposed project will include the construction of residential units and associated hardscape and landscape. Potential
sources of pollutants include chemicals and fertilizers to maintain the landscaping, fuels, oils and other chemicals from
vehicles, trash, dust and debris from roofs and flatwork. The following table provides the project pollutant and source control
information.
Attachment 2
Potential Source of Runoff
Pollutants
Permanent Source Control
BMPs
Operational Source Control
BMPs
Landscape/ Outdoor Pesticide
Use/Building and Grounds
Maintenance
Design Landscaping to minimize irrigation
and runoff, to promote surface infiltration
and to minimize the use of fertilizers and
pesticides that can contribute to stormwater
pollution Maintain landscaping using
minimum or no pesticides.
Where landscaped areas are used to retain
or detain stormwater, specify plants that
are tolerant of saturated soil conditions
Maintain landscaping using minimum or
no pesticides.
See applicable operational BMPs in Fact
Sheet CS-41 "Building and Grounds
Maintenance" in the CASQA Stormwater
Quality Handbook
Provide IPM information to
new owners, lessees and operators
Plazas, Sidewalks and
Parking Lots
Sweep Plazas, sidewalks and parking lots
regularly to prevent accumulation of litter
and debris. Collect debris from pressure
washing to prevent entry into the storm
drain system. Collect washwater
containing any cleaning agent or degreaser
and discharge to the sanitary sewer not to a
storm drain.
Refuse Areas Dumpster will be covered. Sign will be
posted on or near the dumpster with the
words "Do not dump hazardous material
here"
Receptacles will be inspected and repaired
if a leak is observed. Receptacles to be
covered. Inspect and pick up litter daily
and clean up spills immediately. Keep spill
control materials on site.
Catch Basins Remove trash, debris or other materials
that may be covering the grates. Inspect
basin to ensure there is no sediment in the
box or blocking the outlet pipe. Remove
grates and clean out sediment and other
debris as needed.
Based on the analysis discussed above, and implementation of the BMPs identified in the project Stormwater Control Plan,
water quality impacts will be reduced to the extent feasible. With the required incorporation of these measures, and
adherence to the stormwater facilities operations and maintenance recommendations provided in the Stormwater Control
Plan, impacts will be reduced to less than significant levels.
b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources.
c, d, e, i) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s
Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the
City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and LID stormwater treatment requires that site development be
designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. The proposed project
creates and replaces over 34,000 square feet of impervious area and thus is required to treat the 95th percentile storm per
performance requirement 4 of the Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements of the Central Coast. Based on
the analysis in the Stormwater Control Plan, and with the required implementation of the stormwater retention and water
quality recommendations the proposed project retains the amount of stormwater to reduce discharge to pre development rates,
and provides treatment and infiltration for the volume of water required by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and
impacts would be considered reduced to less than significant levels.
g), h) The proposed project ultimately drains to Stenner Creek, however, the project is not within an identified 100-year flood
zone and is not subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm event per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or
Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters.
Attachment 2
j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not
generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow.
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan prepared for the proposed project includes design features,
recommended BMPs for water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality
via the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall become required
components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to implement these design features and
recommendation as set forth.
Conclusion: With the implementation of the project Stormwater Control Plan designs and recommendations, impacts are
considered less than significant.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 10,
31
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 9,
25, 31
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
5, 12,
31
--X--
Evaluation
a) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the
General Plan and zoning designation since the site is designated for High Density Residential land uses and is designed to fit
among existing multi-family and single family residential development surrounding it and will not physically divide an
established community. The project is also consistent with neighborhood circulation plans in the General Plan and is
discussed below in Section 16. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with the City’s High Density Residential General
Plan Designation and zoning for the project site, regulations and development standards.
c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an
adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat
conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 31
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 31
--X--
Evaluation
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the project site. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site.
Conclusion: No impact
Attachment 2
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 9,
10, 31
--X--
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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
9, 10,
31
--X--
12, 31 --X--
Evaluation
As analyzed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise‐sensitive land uses are present within the City, including
various types of residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient lodging, and
place of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the City, major sources of noise
include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights.
a) Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB
are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. Exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when
attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into account. As discussed above, the project location has not
been identified as an area subject to noise sources above the City’s thresholds. In addition, interior noise levels of less than
45dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques.
b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be residential uses, which would not involve
the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increases in
groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short-term construction-
related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of heavy equipment, such as forklifts,
concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed
by City ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code), impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be
less than significant.
c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in
the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Operation of
the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial
changes to the existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other neighboring residential
developments. These uses will be shielded from noise generated by residential uses by distance and by the structures
themselves.
d) Noise generated by the project would occur during short-term construction of the proposed multi-family residential
project. Noise levels during construction would be higher than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction.
Although there would be intermittent construction noise in the project area during the construction period, noise impacts
would be less than significant because the construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels
allowed by City ordinance.
Attachment 2
e, f) The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 2 miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with
aircraft operations.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial 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)?
1, 31 --X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 31 --X--
1, 31 --X--
Evaluation:
a) The proposed project includes construction of a multi-family residential development, which would have the potential to
add to the population of the City. However, it is important to note that Land Use Element policy 1.10.2 (Residential Growth
Rate) indicates that the City shall manage its housing supply so that it does not exceed a growth rate of one percent per year,
on average, excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very low or low incomes as defined by the State
Department of Housing and Community Development for the City and County of San Luis Obispo and reflected in the City’s
Housing Element. The project site is designated for multi-family residential development under the General Plan, and is
zoned R-4 (high density residential). The proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated use of the
site and in accordance with the housing needs identified for the City under anticipated community development under the
recently updated Land Use Element.
New employment generated by the proposed project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is
currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project would
not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. The proposed project would not involve any other
components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan envisioned under the current site
zoning designation. Impacts are considered less than significant.
b) There is an existing single family residence, and associated outbuilding converted to living quarters, on the project site that
would be demolished as part of the project. The house has been used as a Fraternity house in recent years. Removal of the
additions and accessory residential structures would not be considered a substantial loss of housing since new housing is
proposed for development. Impacts are considered less than significant.
c) There is an existing single-family residential structure and associated outbuildings that have been converted to living
quarters on the project site, which as noted above, will be replaced by higher density multi-family residential development.
Therefore, the proposed project would not displace substantial numbers of people or necessitate the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of 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:
a) Fire protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
Attachment 2
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,31
--X--
Evaluation
Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San
Luis Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety,
Training and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the
city, SLOFD maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and
emergency services to the university in return for a set annual fee.
Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city
limits. SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing
traffic and other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school‐safety patrols. The Police
Department consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police
Department operates out of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Walnut
Street.
Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los
Padres National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten
elementary schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In
addition to the K‐12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including:
cooperative preschool, preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo LUCE Planning
Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school.
a) The proposed project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Implementation of the proposed
project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would marginally increase the demand for fire protection services
over existing conditions. The project would be similar to the land uses on surrounding properties, and the site is already
served by the City for fire protection. Although the project would have the potential to alter the number of housing units or
population in the City, the development of the site is consistent with the anticipated land use for the site and proposed
development would be consistent with the high density residential zoning for the site and consistent with the neighboring
residential uses. As stated in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, adherence to the Safety Element Policy 3.0 (Adequate Fire
Services) will reduce impacts related to increased fire protection needs.
b) The project site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department for police protection services. The subject
property is currently developed with residential uses and redevelopment of the site would not result in the need for increased
patrols or additional units such that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts
related to the construction of new police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
c) Consistent with SB 50, the proposed project will be required to pay developer fees to the SLOCUSD. These fees would be
directed toward maintaining adequate service levels, which include incremental increases in school capacities.
Implementation of this state fee system would ensure that any significant impacts to schools which could result from the
proposed project would be offset by development fees, and in effect, reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
d) Because the proposed project would result in a minor increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to
the City’s existing population, and significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented
public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. In addition, the project includes outdoor common space for
residents, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House as amenity space for residents. The proposed project would
have a less than significant impact on parks.
e) As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in
Attachment 2
users relative to the City’s existing population, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of transportation
infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed project would have a
less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered less than significant.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 10,
31
--X--
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, 10,
31
--X--
Evaluation:
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, there are 26 parks in the city, consisting of eight community parks, 10
neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. There are also six joint use facilities, and several recreation centers and special
facilities (e.g., Damon Garcia Sports Fields and the SLO Swim Center). There is currently approximately 151.65 acres of
parkland in the City, of which 33.53 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to developed parks, the City owns or manages
over 6,970 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo, some of which provide trails that accommodate
hiking and mountain biking.
a) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, no significant
recreational impacts are expected to occur with redevelopment of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid
to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy.
Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. Impacts are considered
less than significant.
b) The project includes outdoor recreational common areas, including the use of the remodeled Sandford House for amenity
space for residents. Because of its central location, future residents will have convenient access to recreational activities in
the City, and to points of interest accessed from Highway 1.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2,12,
21,31
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 31
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12, 31
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 21,
28, 31
--X--
Attachment 2
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 31 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,31
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the City is accessed primarily by roadways including US 101, State Route
(SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley Road, Foothill Road, Broad
Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local roadway system is
characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts of the City.
Although federal transportation regulations mandate the use of a federal classification system, local jurisdictions, such as City
of San Luis Obispo, also develop classification systems to define their own roadways. A total of 75 roadway segments in the
local, county, and state roadway system were studied under the LUCE Update EIR using the City’s AADT LOS thresholds.
The City of San Luis Obispo considers roadways operating at LOS D or better to be acceptable, excepting segments
downtown where LOS is allowed to drop to E. The only segment noted to be deficient under existing conditions is Broad
Street south of Buckley Road, which is under State of California and County jurisdiction.
a,b) Regional access to the project site is provided by Highway 1, located east of the project site, and Highway 101, located
southeast of the project site. Local access to the project site is provided by Palomar Avenue. All roadways in the immediate
project vicinity have curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and on-street parking.
According to the City’s traffic model, the project is estimated to generate 276 daily trips and 27 pm peak hour trips. These
vehicular trips will be added to local and area streets. While existing streets have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
added vehicular traffic without reducing existing levels of service the project location makes it a prime candidate to take
advantage of public transportation services located along Ramona Drive and Broad Street. It is important to note that the
proposed project trip generation represents a relatively worst-case scenario since the existing single-family house (i.e.,
Sandford House) is a Fraternity house and supports more residents than a typical single-family dwelling and the proposed
project would likely offset these existing vehicle trips.
Table 1. Street Classification Descriptions and Standards (City of San Luis Obispo General Plan)
Descriptions of Street Types Maximum ADT/LOS Desired Maximum Speeds
Local Residential Streets directly serve residential
development that front them and channel traffic to
residential collector streets. 1,500 25 mph
Residential Collector Streets collect traffic from
residential areas and channel it to arterials. 3,000 25 mph
In addition, the project proposes to include completing the Luneta Drive connection per code requirement and as prescribed
by the General Plan. This component of the project will cause a redistribution of traffic within the neighborhood. Currently
Ramona Drive (a Residential Collector) exceeds the general plan residential street threshold shown in the table above by
1,000 daily trips and the addition of project traffic alone would further exacerbate the deficient condition on Ramona Drive.
However, as stated above, the project proposes to complete the Luneta Drive connection to Palomar Avenue. With the Luneta
Drive (a Residential Local) connection completed as part of the proposed project, traffic volumes are expected to balance to
levels consistent with general policy. Luneta would subsequently have approximately 1,300 daily trips and Ramona Drive
would have approximately 3,000 daily trips, resulting in a balance of traffic conditions to adopted policy levels. With
implementation of the proposed Luneta Drive improvements, impacts related to the addition of vehicle trips to local streets
are considered less than significant. It is important to note that the project will also contribute to overall impact mitigation
for transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program, further reducing impact
levels.
The project includes some traffic calming measures in the form of proposed landscaped medians in Luneta Drive, as the
proposed Luneta Drive connection will have the potential to create the opportunity for through-traffic resulting in potential
Attachment 2
traffic speeds in excess of the General Plan policy shown in the table above. As such, the project will result in significant but
mitigable impacts related to the likelihood of increased traffic speeds.
c) The project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan.
d) The project would not modify existing intersections or roadways, with the exception of the addition of a landscaped
median in the portion of the Luneta Drive fronting the subject parcel for traffic calming and aesthetic purposes. The project
driveways would be consistent with City code requirements for ingress/egress to safely and adequately serve the project.
Because the project is a similar use to those in the immediate vicinity, the project would not introduce any incompatible uses.
e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. As
proposed, the project would not alter the existing travel flow of vehicles, bicyclists, or pedestrians or substantially increase
traffic on local streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not have a negative effect on emergency access.
f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s urban
center, and its proximity to shopping, parks and services. Ramona Street is served by RTA, the regional transit agency. San
Luis Obispo City bus lines are located within walking distance (Ramona and Broad Streets) that allows public transportation
services to the Downtown and Cal Poly campus. City standards require provision of on-site bicycle storage. The proposed
project includes 82 long term bicycle parking spaces and 4 short term bicycle parking spaces, consistent with City policy.
Mitigation Measure T-1: The project shall install a series of traffic calming measures on Luneta Drive designed to maintain
residential speeds at or below 25 mph.
Conclusion: Transportation/circulation impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7,16,
31
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7,16,
27,
31,
32, 33
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
7,16,
27, 31
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7,16,
31
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
5,
7,16,
31,
32, 33
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
31
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
31
--X--
Evaluation
Water: As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and
recycled water to the community and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City
is the sole water provider within the city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water sources.
However, the City also uses groundwater to supplement surface water supplies and recycled water is used to supplement
Attachment 2
irrigation demand. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element 2010, the City Council reaffirmed the policy
for a multi‐source water supply. Consistent with the multi‐source water supply concept, the City obtains water from five
sources:
• Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 6,940 AF/year
• Nacimiento Reservoir: 3,380 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit
• Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 165 AF/year
Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s
collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties
within the city limits, with the exception of a few residential properties located just outside of the city limits, Cal Poly San
Luis Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 14,400 service connections.
The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the
State’s RWQCB. The WRRF removes solids, reduces the amount of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the treated
wastewater, which is then discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. The WRRF is designed for an average dry weather flow
capacity of 5.1 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 22 MGD. In 2015, average flows to
the WRRF were approximately 3.5 MGD.
Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San
Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in
San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste
disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon
Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2012) permitted to receive up to 1,620 tons of solid waste per day, with an
estimated remaining capacity of 1,830,000 cubic yards (16.8 percent remaining capacity). In 2010, the Cold Canyon Landfill
operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2018.
a), b), c) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water,
wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service,
which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project
site, and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities
which could have significant environmental effects. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no
resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated under the recent
General Plan Update. As analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s
General Plan. The incremental change is not considered to be significant. This project has been reviewed by the City’s
Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified.
e) The City completed a Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study in 2012 and the Wastewater
Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy (WCSIRS) in January 2016. The WCSIRS identified capacity deficiencies
during peak wet weather downstream of the project and have been identified as at risk for potentially surcharging.
Replacement and rehabilitation of private sewer laterals in poor condition will reduce inflow and infiltration in the collection
system and peak flow rates. With the required incorporation of the mitigation measure, impacts will be reduced to less than
significant levels.
f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for access and access to
ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The location and
size of trash enclosures proposed for the project have been reviewed by the City and have been determined that they are
sufficient in size to handle the demands of the proposed project.
The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of
materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to reduce the waste stream
generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste
Attachment 2
reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at
http://www.slocity.org/utilities/download/binstandards08.pdf). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded
construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste
stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal.
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private lateral repair/
replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system (Basin B)
to offset the project’s base wastewater flow increase. The final selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will
be approved by the Utilities Director.
Conclusion: Impacts are considered to be less than significant.
18. 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 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 or
prehistory?
--X--
The project is an infill residential development in an urbanized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the
potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential
impacts to aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and hydrology and water quality will be
less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.
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 the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
--X--
The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: aesthetics, air quality, biological and cultural resources, geology and soils and
hydrology and water quality.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or
indirect adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
19. 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.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for review at the City Community
Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following web site:
http://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.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area
Attachment 2
discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not addressed in the LUCE
Update EIR, original analysis has been provided and mitigation has been recommended to reduce impact levels as needed.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012
5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006
6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
14. 2013 California Building Code
15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan
16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department
17. Site Visit
18. City of San Luis Obispo Staff Knowledge
19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
21. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community
Development Department
22. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
23. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
24. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
25. Ordinance No.1130 (1989 Series)
26. Archeological Resource Inventory, Applied Earthworks, Inc. October 2015
27. Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. October 12, 2015
28. Project Plans
29. Applicant project statement/description
30. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/default.htm
31. San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. June 13, 2014.
32. 2012 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study
33. 2016 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
Attachments:
1. Site Vicinity/Project Location Map (Figure 1)
2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay (Figure 2)
3. Project Plans
4. Historic Evaluation Report by Applied Earthworks
Attachment 2
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ 1: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if the area disturbed is exempt from the
Asbestos ATCM regulation. An exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If the site is not
exempt from the requirements of the regulation, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan
and Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 2: Any scheduled disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall
be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with
NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days
of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust
control program and modify practices, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties
shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site, and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3
minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25
m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
Attachment 2
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust
barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape
plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing
activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial
grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until
vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical
soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. 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.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at
the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at
least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in
accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off
trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.
Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water should be used where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.
m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s 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 APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork
or demolition.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction.
Mitigation Measure AQ 4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall
ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD
permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific
information regarding permitting requirements.
Attachment 2
Monitoring Plan, AQ 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD
requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD,
Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction.
The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff
prior to issuance of any grading or building permits.
Mitigation Measure AQ 5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and
equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the
following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. 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:
1. 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,
2. 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 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5 minute idling restriction identified in
Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and
operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State
required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more
restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforces at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix,
hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific
standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Plan, AQ 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In
addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and
to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall
include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works
Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of
Attachment 2
compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building
permits.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO 1: Prior to commencement of construction, to avoid conflicts with nesting
birds, construction activities shall not be allowed during the nesting bird season (March to September),
unless a City-approved and applicant funded qualified biologist has surveyed the impact zone and
determined that no nesting bird activities would be adversely impacted. If any evidence of nesting
activities is found, the biologist will determine if any construction activities can occur during the nesting
period and to what extent. The results of the surveys will be passed immediately to the City with
possible recommendations for variable buffer zones, as needed, around individual nests.
Monitoring Plan, BIO 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. Migratory bird mitigation shall be reviewed by
the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measures.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR 1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A formal monitoring plan shall
be prepared and approved by the City prior to project construction. The plan will need to include a
summary of the project and expected ground disturbances, purpose and approach to monitoring,
description of expected materials, description of significant materials or features, protocols for stoppage
of work and treatment of human remains, staff requirements, and a data recovery plan to be
implemented in case significant deposits are exposed.
Monitoring Plan, CR 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 2: Removal of Non-Original Additions. Extreme care shall be taken during the
removal of the non-original additions to avoid damaging the original building walls. Any non-repairable
or missing materials revealed upon removal of the addition directly attached to the Sandford House shall
be replaced in-kind to match existing stucco. Any historical wood-sash windows found during
demolition shall be preserved for reuse on the Sandford House where appropriate.
Monitoring Plan, CR 2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 3: Relocation of the Sandford House. The elevation of the existing Sandford
House on the site shall be maintained as closely as possible to the historic siting of the original house.
The reconstructed foundation and platform porch on the house in its new location shall retain the amount
Attachment 2
of height and exposure that the existing house exhibits. A stair height similar to that which currently
exists shall also be maintained.
Monitoring Plan, CR 3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 4: Sandford House Window Replacement. Modern replacements for the first-
floor solarium windows shall minimally consist of window sash that is of the appropriate proportion to
fit into the original openings. Multi-light versions which replicate the original multi-light windows
located throughout other areas of the residence should be used to the maximum extent feasible in the
event that the original window design for the solarium cannot be confirmed.
Monitoring Plan, CR 4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 5: Low Impact Cleaning and Paint Removal. Only the gentlest methods of
paint removal, and stucco cleaning or removal shall be used on or around the Sandford House. High-
pressure water blasting; sand or other hardened material blasting; or chemical paint strippers that
damage wood grain or erode metals shall not be used unless specifically approved by the City.
Monitoring Plan, CR 5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR 6: Massing, Location, and Architectural Features of the Proposed New
Construction. The applicant shall maintain the architectural relationship between the new construction
and historic residence and the design for the new apartment buildings shall respect the dominance of the
Sandford House on the property using scale and massing. New construction shall not be over-detailed
or designed to draw attention away from the Sandford House.
Monitoring Plan, CR 6: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans and
be clearly visible to contractors and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for
continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Mitigation Measure HWQ-1: The Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc.
October 12, 2015) prepared for the proposed project includes design features, recommended BMPs for
water quality control, and operations and maintenance standards for maintaining stormwater quality via
the proposed underground storage chambers for on-site stormwater detention. These measures shall
become required components of project development and the project proponent shall be required to
implement these design features and recommendation as set forth.
Attachment 2
Monitoring Plan, HWQ 1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.
Community Development Planning and Public Works staff shall review the Stormwater Control Plan
as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading or construction
permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Transportation
Mitigation Measure T-1: The project shall install a series of traffic calming measures on Luneta Dr.
designed to maintain residential speeds at or below 25 mph.
Monitoring Plan, T 1: A plan dictating traffic calming measures shall be developed in cooperation
with City Staff and Luneta Dr. Residents via a series of meetings and approved by the Public Works
director or their designee. Those approved traffic calming measures shall be shown on the public
improvement plans and reviewed by Public Works staff as part of the Building Permit application
package prior to issuance of grading and construction permits. City staff will periodically monitor
traffic conditions on Luneta and Ramona to ensure compliance.
Utilities and Service Systems
Mitigation Measure USS-1: The project is required to implement off-site sewer rehabilitation (private
lateral repair/ replacement) that results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s
wastewater collection system (Basin B) to offset the project’s base wastewater flow increase. The final
selection of the inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities Director.
Monitoring Plan, USS1: A sewer rehabilitation plan shall be developed in cooperation with Utilities
Staff. The rehabilitation plan shall be shown on the public improvement plans and reviewed by
Utilities staff as part of the Building Permit application package prior to issuance of grading and
construction permits. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued compliance with the
above mitigation measure.
Attachment 2
Site Location
Site Location
1 in = 1,500,000 ft
Figure 1
Site Vicintiy/Site Location1 in = 8,000 ft City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi Family Residential Development
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2
P
a
l
o
m
a
r
A
v
e
n
u
e
Luneta Drive
AdjacentMulti-Family
AdjacentMulti-Family
Adjacent Residential
Slide House Forward (25' West & 45' South)
New Landscaped Medians with Cutouts for Access to existing Driveways
Parking Easement for Adjacent Housing
New Curbs and Gutters to Connect Existing
Existing Sanford House
Adjacent ParcelNot Part of Easement
Figure 2
First Floor Site Plans/Aerial Overview1 in = 55 ft City of San Luis Obispo
71 Palomar Ave Multi-Family Residential Development
Street Boundary
New Sandford House Location
Multi-Family Appartments
Parcel Boundary
Walkway
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
2