HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-10-2017 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on this agenda
will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal
business hours.
Agenda
Planning Commission
Wednesday, May 10, 2017
6:00 p.m. REGULAR MEETING Council Chamber
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Stevenson
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE : Chair Stevenson
ROLL CALL : Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Scott Mann, Ronald Malak, Nicholas
Osterbur, Hemalata Dandekar, Vice-Chair John Fowler, and Chair Charles
Stevenson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Joint Planning Commission and City Council Meeting of April 12, 2017.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on
the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address.
Comments are limited to three minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred
to staff, and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. 609 Palm Street. USE-0388-2017/EID-0349-2017: Conceptual review of the proposed
Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage project that includes commercial space and the San Luis
Obispo Little Theatre and the public scoping meeting to discuss the work-scope of the
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the project; O-H & R-3 zones; City of
San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Rachel Cohen)
Planning Commission Agenda Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs , and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
2. Mission Plaza Concept Plan. OTHR-0172-2017: Conceptual review and discussion of the
Mission Plaza Concept Plan within the Downtown Historic District; discussion of this item is
not subject to CEQA; C-D-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Manny Guzman)
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next Regular Planning Commission meeting is scheduled for Wednesday, May 24, 2017
at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPEALS: Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to City Council within
10 days of the action (Recommendations to City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final
action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City
Clerk. Appeal forms are available at the Community Development Department office, City Clerk’s
office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $281, and must
accompany the appeal documentation.
San Luis Obispo Page 1
Minutes - DRAFT
PLANNING COMMISSION
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Special Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Special Joint Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council and Planning Commission was
called to order on Wednesday, April 12, 2017 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, by Mayor Harmon.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members Carlyn Christianson, Aaron Gomez, Andy Pease, Vice Mayor
Dan Rivoire, and Mayor Heidi Harmon.
Council Members
Absent: None
Planning Commissioners
Present: Planning Commissioners Kim Bisheff, Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, Scott
Mann, Nicholas Osterbur, Vice Chairperson John Fowler, and Chairperson
Charles Stevenson
Planning Commissioners
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Codron, Community Development Director;
Doug Davidson, Deputy Director; and Monique Lomeli, Recording Secretary;
were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or responded to
questions as indicated in the minutes.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Council Member Carlyn Christianson led the Pledge of Allegiance.
STUDY SESSION
1. STUDY SESSION WITH PLANNING COMMISSION FOR ZONING
REGULATIONS UPDATE
Consultant Project Manager Laura Stetson, MIG, provided the staff report presentation.
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 12, 2017 Page 2
Community Development Director Codron, Consultant Project Manager Stetson, and
Community Development Deputy Director Davidson responded to Council and Commission
questions.
Public Comments:
Myron Amerine, San Luis Obispo, urged the Commission and Council to provide better
consideration to the amount and type of bicycle parking.
Matt Quaglino, San Luis Obispo, expressed frustration regarding the current zoning regulations
and encouraged the City to implement policies outlined in LUCE.
David Brodie, Save Our Downtown, San Luis Obispo, expressing concerns regarding
commercial zoning regulations in the downtown area, housing density, inadequate parking, and
height requirements; requested staff reduce the number of variances accepted.
Tom Swem commented on the lack of continuity between the outdated long-range planning
documents and zoning regulations; requested expanded, west-end parking-in-lieu locations and
simplified informational materials.
David Juhnke, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the Council, Commission, and staff to focus on
implementing LUCE policies with clear and certain simplicity.
Peter Williamson, SLO Regional Ride Share, San Luis Obispo, encouraged the City to
implement a transportation demand management (TDM) program into the zoning update.
Martha Miller, San Luis Obispo, voiced appreciation to the City for the zoning regulation
updates, suggested the City consider personal mobility as an overall topic versus automobile and
bicycle sections, and requested a revised and simplified review process.
Dale Stoker, SLO U40, encouraged more affordable access and non-traditional solutions to
housing and transportation issues that are supportive of cultural lifestyle differences.
Charlie Senn, expressed concerns over the burden the use permit process places on local
businesses and suggested the commercial service zoning on the west end of Broad Street be
modified to permit hotels with a Planning Commission use permit.
Steve Delmartini, San Luis Obispo, requested clarification regarding regulations associated with
work-force housing; encouraged the City to address the unused potential of South Higuera Street.
Greg Wynn, San Luis Obispo, spoke in favor of the zoning regulation update and encouraged the
City to preserve the flexibility that current regulations provide.
---End of Public Comment---
By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commissioners:
1. Received a presentation on the status of the Zoning Regulations update; and
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of April 12, 2017 Page 3
2. Reviewed and receive a presentation on the Interview Summary Report, and provide
direction to staff regarding any additional issues to evaluate and consider during the
Zoning Regulations update process; and
3. Endorsed the proposed update process and schedule.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned to the next Regular City Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday,
April 18, 2017 at 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m., respectively, in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm
Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
__________________________
Monique Lomeli
Recording Secretary
APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
Meeting Date: May 10, 2017
Item Number: 1
2sz
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual review of the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Garage project that includes
commercial space and the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre and the public scoping meeting to discuss the
work-scope of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) being prepared for the project located within the
Downtown.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 609 Palm Street BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
(610, 614, 630, 633 Palm St. & Phone Number: 781-7574
970, 972 Nipomo St.) e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: 1) Receive a presentation regarding the proposed project, prior Council
direction, and provide feedback to City staff and consultants, and 2) Take public testimony and provide
input to City staff and consultants on environmental work-scope items that are being evaluated in the
Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Project EIR.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Zoning O-H (Office with a Historic
Overlay) & R-3 (Medium-High
Density Residential)
General Plan Office & Medium-High Density
Residential
Site Area ~60,329 s.f. (1.38 acres)
Environmental
Status
An Initial Study of environmental
impact has been prepared to
identify issues and guide EIR
preparation.
SUMMARY
The Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure has been a City project dating back to 2004. This site has been
identified in various documents as the next public parking structure for the downtown area to provide
additional parking as part of downtown redevelopment. The project has had numerous Council review
sessions dating back many years where specific direction has been given on the project, but was
delayed due to the recession and the slowing of redevelopment in the downtown area.
The City (the applicant) has submitted plans for the proposed Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure,
commercial space and the San Luis Little Theatre project located at the intersections of Palm and
PC1 - 1
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 2
Nipomo Street and Nipomo and Monterey Streets (609, 610, 614, 630, 633 Palm Street and 970, 972
Nipomo Street). The project will involve the construction of an above-ground five-level parking
structure, non-profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure will provide 400 to 445
parking spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure will be provided from Palm Street, with
secondary access on Nipomo Street. The project proposes to also include 5,000 square feet of
commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street and a new structure for the San Luis Obispo
Little Theatre that will front Monterey Street. The Little Theatre is proposing a three-story structure
with a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission (PC) is being asked to provide a two-part review; 1) provide feedback on
the proposed parking structure and 2) take public testimony and provide input to City staff and
consultants on environmental work-scope items that are being evaluated in the Project EIR.
2.0 BACKGROUND
The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project was established by the Council as an “other” major City
goal dating back to the 2003-05 Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a
conceptual design for a parking structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in
the process of evaluating the site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The project
team was directed by the Council in 2004 to incorporate uses intended by the Downtown Concept Plan
and to consider two types of parking structures: a self-park structure, like the City’s current parking
structures, and a mechanical structure, that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in
the entrance bay. Below is a brief outline of the review process. A detailed history of the parking
structure development and design process is included as a part of the Council Agenda Report - January
19, 2016 (Attachment 3) as Attachment 1e.
May 25, 2004: Council provided their first input on eight schematic design options. Council
directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs.
July 5, 2005: Council reviewed refinements to the two designs that included a series of other
uses on the roof of the structure. Council directed staff to proceed with self-park design, and
two mechanical designs all of which excluded the optional uses on the roof of the structure.
Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of providing access,
added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to accommodate the new
use.
April 24, 2007: In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site
designs. All options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street, maintained the
large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be developed by “others” when
the timing is appropriate (e.g. the structure could be built first and other components, such as
the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place). Given the significant cost
differential between mechanical and self-park structures Council concluded the project would
be a self-parked facility similar to the other City Structures.
March 17, 2009: Staff presented a financial analysis and parking demand study to Council
regarding the parking in the Downtown. Results from the studies indicated that a downtown
PC1 - 2
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 3
Figure 1: Current site zoning; project site is outlined in
red.
parking structure would be needed within the next 5-10 years.
December 1, 2009: Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural
design and environmental review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration
would be prepared. For the project to be built, along with the relocation of the Little Theater,
removal of five City owned residences, two of which are located within a historic district, need
to occur. Even if the Little Theater was not to move forward and the two houses remain, there
could be an impact due to the size and location of the structure. As such, it was determined that
an Environmental Impact Report would be required because removal of the two residences
could impact cultural resources.
January 3, 2012: Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for
environmental services to prepare a focused environmental impact report (EIR). This decision
was made during the Great Recession and assumptions of private development construction that
would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many significant
projects (Garden Street Terraces and Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions. Due to
this situation and the uncertain timing of new development, work on the environmental impact
report and the final project design were delayed until the economy recovered.
January 19, 2016: Council directed staff to move forward with the design and the EIR for the
structure, as well as move forward on developing a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties
(Attachment 4 – Council Minutes, January 19, 2016).
2016-Present: A new Parking Manager has been hired and the design/environmental team has
been re-formed to work on the project. Technical studies have commenced including a traffic
study to review the project. Formal preparation of the EIR is now underway and proceeding
through the City process.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
The project site is composed of six parcels; five
are zoned Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H)
and one is zoned Medium Density Residential
(R-3) (see Figure 1). The parcels currently
contain a public parking lot and five residential
structures and a detached garage. The project
site is bounded by Palm Street to the north,
Monterey Street to the south, and Nipomo Street
to the west. The proposed site is adjacent to
residential units to the east, the Children’s
Museum to the south, Mission Prep School to
the north and Reis Family Mortuary and to the
west.
PC1 - 3
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 4
Table 1: Site Information
Site Size ~60,329 s.f. (1.38 acres)
Present Use & Development Parking lot and 5 residential units
Topography Flat
Access Palm Street, Nipomo Street and Monterey Street
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: R-3 (Medium Density Residential – Mission Prep School)
East: O-H (Office with Historic Overlay – Reis Family Mortuary)
South: P-F-H and C-D-H (Public Facility with a Historic Overlay and Downtown
Commercial with a Historic and Sensitive Site Overlay – Children’s Museum
and Leitcher Building)
East: C-R (Retail Commercial: SGS Automotive services, Apothecary Tattoo)
3.2 Project Description
A summary of significant project features includes the following (Attachment 2, Project
Description and Conceptual Plans):
1. Construct a five-level above-ground
parking structure that includes:
a. 400 to 445 parking spaces;
b. 5,000 square feet of commercial
space on two levels fronting
Nipomo Street; and
c. Maximum height of approximately
50 feet.
2. Construct a new three-story, 23,841
square foot building for the San Luis
Obispo Little Theatre (along the Monterey
Street frontage) that includes:
a. Basement level - a rehearsal area,
workshop, and storage;
b. Main level would be comprised of
a main theater with 155 seats and a
smaller theater with 100
reconfigurable seats (a total of 255
seats);
c. Second floor would include offices
and a conference room.
d. An entry plaza fronting Monterey Street and improved landscaping near the
sidewalks along Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street; and
e. A maximum height of approximately 43 feet.
3. Removal of the existing 77 space surface parking lot and demolition or relocation of the
existing five residential structures and detached garage.
4. Perimeter public improvements including sidewalk enhancements, intersection
improvements and landscaping.
It is important to note that the Little Theatre project is being included in the Project Description to
Figure 2: Proposed site layout of the parking
structure with the Little Theatre and
office/commercial space.
PC1 - 4
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 5
better identify potential impacts of both projects. The Theatre is not a City project.
3.3 Planning Entitlements Required
The project will require several planning entitlements and are described below:
1. General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and
Medium-High Density Residential to Public;
2. Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H).
3. Planning Commission Use Permit to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit
theater and to request variances for the floor to area ratio (F.A.R.) to exceed 1.0 and to
exceed the 60 percent maximum lot coverage.1
4. Architectural Review (including both Cultural Heritage Committee and Architectural
Review Commission review)
4.0 CONCEPTUAL REVIEW & FEEDBACK
4.1 Project Analysis
The applicant is proposing to construct a 4-5 level parking structure, office/commercial space and a
new facility for the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (Attachment 2, Project Description and
Conceptual Plans). The San Luis Obispo Little Theatre is also being reviewed, but will not be a
City built improvement. The proposed parking structure design has been reviewed and refined by
Council and community feedback over the last 12 years (see Section 2.0 above). The proposal for a
multi-story parking structure in the Downtown is consistent with the current and proposed
Downtown Concept Plans, the General Plan2, and the Access and Parking Management Plan3.
4.2 PC Discussion Items
Staff recommends the PC discuss and provide feedback about:
1. Features or details that should be considered by staff and the ARC in the parking structure
design that have not already been determined by City Council review and direction.
1 Zoning Regulations Table 9: Subsection 6. Parking as a principal use. Use Permit approval may include deviations to
otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. A multi -level parking facility shall require the
approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission.
2 LUE Policy 4.14. Parking: The City shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown. Any
major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges of the commerc ial core, so
people can walk rather than drive between points within the core. Retail uses outside the core, and professional office
developments, may have on-site parking for customers and clients.
3 Access and Parking Management Plan - Expansion of Parking: 5.2: Building parking structures is the best way of
providing more parking facilities while minimizing the use of valuable commercial land. City -owned land earmarked for
parking structures may be used as temporary surface parking lots.
PC1 - 5
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 6
5.0 WORK-SCOPE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR)
5.1 Discussion
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) encourages and, in some cases, mandates early
public consultation on projects where an EIR is being prepared. Section 15082 of the CEQA
Guidelines requires that at least one scoping meeting be held for projects of area-wide significance.
With environmental documents, the word “scoping” is used to describe the process of obtaining
information from the public and interested agencies on potential environmental issues associated
with project development. As indicated in the attached Notice of Preparation (NOP) (Attachment
5), this meeting is intended to allow the Planning Commission and public the opportu nity to
provide feedback on work-scope issues and to identify any other issues that may have been
overlooked and may need to be analyzed in the EIR. It is also an opportunity for the City and
consultant staff to present information about the project review and CEQA process, the applicant to
provide a preliminary presentation on the project, and the public to ask specific questions about the
project and what is proposed.
The meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staff to gather information from the public
regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It
is not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the project. Therefore, members of the Planning
Commission and the public should focus their comments on potential significant changes to the
environment that may occur as a direct result of project development.
The NOP and Initial Study was sent to the State Clearinghouse for environmental documents in
Sacramento as well to local, State and Federal agencies that might have jurisdiction over or interest
in the project. The NOP was also e-mailed to others that have been interested in the project.
5.2 EIR Determination/Consultant Selection
Early on, the City determined that the project would require the preparation of a focused Project
EIR. Consultants with the assistance of City staff prepared an Initial Study, which documents and
analyzes potential environmental issue areas and highlights work-scope issues that need to be
further analyzed in a focused EIR. The initial study is currently posted on the Community
Development Department’ s website through the following file path:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1903
5.3 EIR Scope/Type
The Draft EIR will incorporate the initial environmental study (Attachment 6) and expand on the
discussion of issues included in that document. Page 3 of the NOP includes a list of issue areas to
be covered in the document. Areas identified in the initial study that need further evaluations to
determine significance of impact are noted below. A more detailed analysis is provided in Table 1
of the Initial Study.
Aesthetics: The project would increase the size and scale of development on the site within the
historic district, as well as include new light sources. The EIR will evaluate the potential visual
PC1 - 6
USE-0388-2017 & EID-0349-2017 (609 Palm Street)
May 10, 2017
Page 7
impacts of the project on the existing visual character and quality of the site and its surroundings
and evaluate the new sources of light and glare from car headlights and area lighting.
Cultural Resources: The project is proposing to remove two historically contributing residences
located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street. The EIR will evaluate potential impacts to historic
structures and cultural resources, as well as impacts to the historic district.
Noise: The project site is surrounded by noise sensitive uses, and the impact of project operations
on ambient noise levels at sensitive receptors will be evaluated in the EIR.
Transportation/Traffic: A traffic analysis will be prepared for the EIR. The traffic analysis will
contain an evaluation of project impacts on study area roadway segments and intersections under
both existing + project and cumulative + project conditions, as well as impacts related to overall
vehicle miles traveled generated by the project.
These will be the primary areas investigated as part of the focused EIR. Additional information on
other CEQA areas studied and determined not to have potentials significant impacts are discussed
in the attached Initial Study.
6.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Vicinity Map
2. Project Description and Conceptual Plans
3. Council Agenda Report - January 19, 2016
4. Council Meeting Minutes - January 19, 2016
5. Notice of Preparation (NOP)
6. Initial Study
PC1 - 7
R-3
C-D
O-H
R-3-S
R-3-S
R-3-H
C-R
R-3R-3
O-H
R-3-PD
R-4
R-3-H
R-3-H
C-D-H
O-H-PD
R-4-H
C-D
R-3
C-D-H
C-D-S-H
PF-H
C-D
PF-H
C-D-S-H
C-D-S-H
PF-H
R-2-S
C-D-H-PD
R-3-H-MU
C-D-H
R-3-H
R-3-H
R-2
NI
P
O
M
O
PALM
DANA
B
R
O
A
D
HIGUE
R
A
PE
A
C
H
MONTE
R
E
Y
BR
I
Z
Z
O
L
A
R
A
VICINITY MAP USE-0388-2017 (U)
609 & 633 PALM ST, 970 & 972 NIPOMO ST, 610, 614 & 630 MONTEREY ST ¯
ATTACHMENT 1
PC1 - 8
P:\Projects\2009\09079 Palm Nipomo\Planning Commission 2017\Project Decription Memorandum.docx
/ƌǀŝŶĞ͕ͻ^ĂŶ:ŽƐĞ͕ͻĂůůĂƐ͕dy
ǁĂƚƌLJĚĞƐŝŐŶ͘ĐŽŵ
Memorandum
The project would involve the construction of an above-ground five-level parking structure, non-profit
theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main
vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on Nipomo
Street. There would be with one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each driveway. Vehicle access
would not be provided from Monterey Street; however, a direct pedestrian connection would be provided
from the structure to Monterey Street. Pedestrian access would also be provided to public sidewalks from
each corner of the structure. The project would also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two
levels fronting Nipomo Street. The parking structure’s height, excluding elevator towers, would be 34 feet
from Monterey Street, 36 feet from Nipomo Street with a lower office building in front of it at 27 feet, and
44 feet from Palm Street with the Little Theatre in front of it.
In addition, the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre would be relocated to the site, fronting Monterey Street
adjacent to the parking structure. The Little Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor
area of 23,841 square feet. The basement level would house a rehearsal area, workshop, and storage. The
main level would be comprised of a main theater with 155 seats and a smaller theater with 100
reconfigurable seats, for a total of 255 seats. The third floor would include offices and a conference room.
The project would include an entry plaza fronting Monterey Street, and improved landscaping near the
sidewalks along Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey Street. The maximum height of the theater
structure would be 43 feet. Figure 3 shows the proposed site plan.
The project would involve the removal of the existing 77 space surface parking lot and demolition or
relocation of the existing five residential structures and detached garage. The project would involve a
General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and Medium-High Density
Residential to Public and a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H)
and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also
require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure
and non-profit theater, as well as deviation to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building
height limits. Office, retail, and residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and
theater facilities. In addition, the project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0
and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent.
Date: April 12, 2017 WDI No.: 09079.313
Project: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
From: Michelle Wendler
To: Rachel Cohen
Regarding: WZK: d ^Z/Wd/KE
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 9
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 10
Little
Theater
Li
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 11
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 12
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 13
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 14
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 15
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 16
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 17
Vi
e
w
f
r
o
m
c
o
r
n
e
r
o
f
P
a
l
m
a
n
d
N
i
p
o
m
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
s
(O
f
f
i
c
e
M
i
x
e
d
U
s
e
a
l
o
n
g
N
i
p
o
m
o
S
t
r
e
e
t
)
ATTACHMENT 2
PC1 - 18
Meeting Date: 1/19/2016
FROM: Daryl Grigsby, Director of Public Works
Prepared By: Timothy Scott Bochum, Deputy Director of Public Works
Alexander Fuchs, Parking Services Supervisor
SUBJECT: PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the following regarding the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure:
1) That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project;
and
2) That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained; and
3) Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with recommendations
for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards available supply;
and
4) Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the
Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses
(including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more
effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area; and
5) Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of
Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and
return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final
negotiations of the MOA.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The purpose of this item is to provide Council with an update of analysis that staff has conducted
concerning the demand for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure. Staff is seeking direction on
several aspects of this project prior to moving into the environmental review and final design
stage.
In addition, staff is seeking direction from the Council regarding entering into formal discussions
with the SLO Little Theater for a long term lease and new Memorandum of Agreement for use of
remnant area of the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure site.
1
Packet Pg. 8
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 19
DISCUSSION
Historical Summary of Structured Parking in Downtown San Luis Obispo
The availability of parking and access in Downtown is critical to the economic and cultural
viability of the City of San Luis Obispo. Parking availability is critically important to the many
stakeholders and visitors that come to the area. As a result, it has long been a City focus to pace
production of our parking supply with existing and near term future demand. City parking
structure construction has shown a pattern whereby construction occurs in association with
existing and projected demand for parking. Historically, parking structures have a fairly long
time period between project start up (land acquisition, design and environmental) and completed
construction. The following summarizes when the City’s existing parking structures were
completed:
1. 842 Palm (also known as Palm 1) 1988
2. Marsh Street Garage 1990
3. Marsh Street Garage Expansion 2002
4. 919 Palm 2006
Consistent with the City’s historic approach to provide parking in the Downtown core, the City
Council discussed the need and timing for its next structure beginning with the 2003-05
Financial Plan. As part of the more recent 2015-17 Financial Plan, Council directed staff to
return with a review of the City’s structured parking needs.
The Potential Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
The City has been moving forward with the pre-development of a fourth parking structure at
Parking Lot 14 which is bounded by Palm, Nipomo and Monterey Street. Attachment E to this
report includes a summary of previous Council actions on the project and additional background
history. The project is referred to as the “Palm Nipomo” parking structure. Following the
economic downturn in 2007, this project was put on hold until the economy improved. Over the
past few years, the economy has improved immensely and is projected to continue to expand.
Several major projects like Chinatown and Garden Street Terrace have broken ground after many
years of delay and will be generating new parking demand.
The Palm Nipomo project represents a significant investment in parking supply for the City. The
proposed project would include between 400 and 445 spaces at a construction cost estimate of
$23,600,000. The spaces represent a net “new” parking supply of 323 to 368 spaces. The ‘net’ is
a result of the displacement of 77 existing spaces at the lot at the location where the structure will
be built. A final parking space count will depend upon the final design and building height.
Previously approved funding commitments for the project include $1.65 million for project
design and environmental review.
The most recent Council action taken on the project was on January 3, 2012 when Council
authorized moving forward with its environmental review and proceeding with final stages of
1
Packet Pg. 9
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 20
design. At that time it was believed the Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces projects would
occur the following year. As those projects were delayed, so too was beginning of the
environmental and final design for Palm Nipomo.
In 2014 the City completed an Organization Study of the Parking Services Division which was
conducted by Walker Parking Consultants (Walker). As part of that work the consultant
reviewed future parking supply/demand issues for the City to help determine potential operation
and fiscal issues. Walker conducted a very high level review of the parking demand for Palm
Nipomo. It was their determination that while the project could be built, occupancy of the project
might be low (less than 60%). Consequently, Walker noted the City should carefully evaluate the
timing, costs, project size, and alternatives to meeting parking demands prior to commencing
with the project. During hearings on the 2015-2017 Financial Plan, staff informed Council that
these issues would be explored in more depth and staff would return to Council for a direction on
the next steps for the project.
A related aspect of the project was that the Council had previously entered into an agreement
with the SLO Little Theater (SLOLT) and had set aside a portion of the project site for the
relocation of the Little Theatre on the corner of Palm Street and Morro Street. That agreement is
no longer valid because performance deadlines have passed and the site area for the Little
Theater has changed at the Palm Nipomo location. Therefore if a new Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) is to be negotiated, staff needs to return to Council at a later date.
Additional Parking Demand Data
Walker Parking Consultants was hired to analyze parking demand and update its work from the
2014 Organizational study with greater accuracy for potential development that could use the
Palm Nipomo project. Beginning in summer 2015, staff, in coordination with Walker, conducted
parking occupancy counts of lots, streets, and the parking structures to determine capacity of the
existing parking inventory. The geographical study (see Attachment A) area is larger than that
analyzed in the Organization Assessment, covered more days (Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday:
three times each day), longer duration during the day (10:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m.) and included peak
factors such as a holiday weekend (Labor Day), dates when Cal Poly was in, and not in session,
and special events in Mission Plaza.
These counts were combined to get an average occupancy count by time of day for each
weekday observed. This information was then forwarded to the consultant for use in tabulating a
baseline for demand calculations for the project. As shown in the table below Walker found that
the normal peak occupancy time observed was Thursday, 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. when 67% of
available public parking was utilized.
1
Packet Pg. 10
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 21
Thursday (Average) 12:00-2:00 p.m.
Inventory Occupancy Utilization Surplus
(+)/Deficit(1)
2582 parking Spaces 1,730 Vehicles 67% 645 spaces
This means that for most times studied, over one-third of the public parking supply was
available. We anticipate that this capacity can be used to absorb displaced parking associated
with the closures of Lots 2 (Garden St. Terraces), 3 & 11 (Chinatown) as they occur.
(Attachment B shows parking lot numbering and location of lots).
Peak times for special events (such as Farmer’s Market) were also recorded however these peak
times are not used for project “sizing” or design demand analysis since the result would be we
over build infrastructure (at a tremendous additional cost) for most other times when more
normal demand occurs.
In preparing the projections for Palm Nipomo, Walker considered three factors:
1. The likelihood that Palm Nipomo, when considering its proximity to new
development, would attract parking demand from approved and anticipated
developments in the future;
2. The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand and future development;
3. The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the
parking structure and the closure of public lots.
1
Packet Pg. 11
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 22
1
Packet Pg. 12
Table 1 – Palm Nipomo Structure Demand Forecast (Walker, 2015)
These three factors were then used to screen forecast demand scenarios at the Palm Nipomo
location for the following three time frames:
1. Initial Phase: Displaced Vehicles due to relocation of existing demand for lot closures
(Primarily loss of Lot 2 as a result of Garden Street Terraces)
2. Phase 1 - consists of approved projects that will be built out in the near term (3-5
years).
3. Phase 2 - consists of projected parking demand projections based upon assumptions
provided by the City for future developments (longer term build-out) and closure of
other public lots.
The consultant forecasted that existing and potential demand for the Phase 1 scenario would be
as high as 204 vehicles. This consists of 130 vehicles generated by new development and 74
generated by existing demand and displaced vehicles. This amount represents a need for less
than half the capacity of the proposed structure of 400-445 spaces. Of the 130 spaces forecast by
new development, two projects, Monterey Place (65 spaces required) and SLO Museum of Art
(39 spaces required), contribute 80%. These projects have discretionary approvals, but neither of
48 48 48
26 52
130
264397
241
81
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Lot 14 Phase 1 Phase 1 & 2
Demand for Palm-Nipomo by Phase
Existing Demand Displaced Vehicles
Projected Demand Vacant Spaces
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 23
them has yet to proceed to the construction phase and obtain building permits therefore they are a
minimum of three years out for completion and likely more.
Longer term, which accounts for both Phase 1 and Phase 2 development, the forecast shows the
demand increases to approximately 364 vehicles. Using the lower end objective of 400 parking
spaces for Palm Nipomo project, this results in an 87% occupancy factor for the project. This
forecast is significantly higher than the previous calculations shown in the 2014 Parking
Organizational Assessment which showed occupancy as low as 60%.
This indicates that long term, daily need for the structure in this area of the Downtown may
utilize much of the available capacity. However, the timing of private development will play an
important role in how soon that need occurs. Many of these projects will be far in the future and
it may be many years before they get underway. Some of these potential sites include
redevelopment of the Reis Mortuary location, closure and redevelopment of Lot 10, the SLO
Little Theater project and major remodel of the Creamery.
The primary conclusions of Walker assessment were as follows:
1. Palm-Nipomo’s planned capacity of 400-445 spaces would have more spaces than
necessary to accommodate projected demand of near term development (next 5 years).
2. Suggest caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance
and operating expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on
development that has not yet been approved.
3. However, when that development occurs the structure represents an opportunity to
provide parking in a way that is more environmentally friendly (since it centralizes space
needs devoted to vehicles) and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that
each provide their own parking.
4. Due to the delay in demand for the structure, when it is built a combination of on-street
pricing policies and parking permits may be necessary to attract the parking demand
generated by longer term developments to the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure.
5. If the City is willing to make a significant investment (or partner with developers) to
provide funding for a long-term capital investment, the structure represents an
opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using shared public parking. However
it is critical to note that any exclusive private use of the parking structure will likely mean
that any financing will not be funded through tax exempt bonds and would likely increase
financing costs.
Stakeholder Input
In order to assist staff with the review of the Walker analysis, a group of stakeholders was
created to discuss issues of the project location, timing and design. The stakeholder group
consisted of representatives from the Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, The Little
1
Packet Pg. 13
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 24
Theatre, San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA), Copeland Properties. Two meetings
(September 22, and December 8, 2015) seeking their input to help the city identify relevant
issues/concerns regarding this project.
At the first meeting the group reviewed Walker study’ assumptions and provided feedback into
topics such as the phasing assumptions and projects that should be included in each group. They
also clarified timing of projects for the Little Theater and SLOMA. As a result of this feedback
additional data collection was completed. The theory is that it would be helpful to have diversity
in the days of the week and the time of year that the data was collected.
The second meeting reviewed the draft conclusions of the Walker report. The consensus of the
group was that the information going into the report was good and that the conclusions appeared
appropriate based upon that information. Overall, most expressed desire for the Palm Nipomo
project to move forward but recognized the project demand was not showing an immediate need
for the structure. The issue of emerging technologies and changes to driving and parking
dynamics were discussed with the suggestions that the City continue to consider these issues as
decisions are made on parking supply and programs. As a result, under any scenario city staff
will continually monitor and analyze any social trend that impacts parking supply, including
Autonomous Vehicles (aka “self-driving cars”) and implementation of City mode split objectives
and alternative transportation choices discussed in the General Plan.
Other Issues - Little Theatre MOA
At the March 7, 2000 City Council meeting, the Council conceptually approved the relocation of
the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre (SLOLT) to a portion of parking lot 14 at 630 Monterey
Street, located at the Palm Nipomo parking structure site. With direction from Council, the City
entered into an agreement with the SLOLT, which has since expired. The Little Theater
continues to be committed to relocating from its existing location (at the old Library site next to
City Hall) and has been in discussion with staff regarding development of a new MOA.
Attachment D to this report is the June 6th, 2000 agenda report and MOA as approved by
Council.
Staff is seeking Council direction on whether or not to pursue a new MOA with the Little
Theater regarding a long term use of the remainder area of the properties and relocation from
their existing use at the City owned, old library site. Major elements of a potential new MOA
with SLOLT are:
1. Term of Lease
2. Annual Cost of Lease
3. Size of footprint dedicated to the Theatre
4. City responsibilities regarding rezoning and a General Plan Amendment
5. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction and maintenance of front improvements
6. Little Theatre’s responsibilities for construction, operation and maintenance of the
Theater
7. Little Theatre’s responsibilities as it relates to a Fund raising plan and fundraising key
milestones
1
Packet Pg. 14
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 25
Figure 1– Conceptual Site Plan SLO Little Theater
If Council directs staff to move forward with formal negotiations with SLOLT staff will return to
Council with recommendations for consideration. Other than general direction whether to
proceed with negotiations, no specific Council direction is being requested at this time on the
seven items noted above.
Public-Private-Partnership (P3)
As part of prior project reviews the Council requested that the project include some area to
incorporate other uses besides SLOLT and the parking structure. Because the design of the
parking structure is fairly constrained in order to deliver the objective of a minimum of 400
spaces, the 2011 preferred site plan was only able to accomplish this via narrowing the street
section along Nipomo Street and incorporating a narrow building area between the structure and
the street.
1
Packet Pg. 15
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 26
Figure 2 – 2011 Preferred Site Plan
Attachment C shows the 2011 preferred design for Palm Nipomo as well as the conceptual
rendering of the SLO Little Theater location. The concept of this alternative was to provide a
small footprint that a third party could utilize as part of a private development project for office
space or other use. Incorporating these types of uses into the structure has historically added
significant costs to the project and so having the area “independent” of the structure is critical to
keeping project costs low. Additional area for potential private use could be created by
increasing the depth of this area. That will, however, come at a cost of reduced parking supply
and a less efficient structure.
There have been some recent discussions of whether exploring a larger public-private-
partnership (P3) for the project might yield a better financial scenario for the City and help offset
the parking structure construction costs and provide opportunities for housing that is a Major
City Goal.
The City has reached out to Kosmont Companies, a firm specializing in financial issues
associated with P3 projects, to do a review on this issue and determine if there is any significant
benefit to revising the project with a larger P3 component. While it is doubtful that a larger
footprint for private use would offset the parking space reduction and related design and
operational challenges, an additional review on this issue is prudent to make sure staff has not
overlooked any opportunities to maximize use of the property and/or whether there are any
opportunity to provide new housing. This study is underway and will be completed by February.
If substantial new information is discovered by this study staff will return to Council with that
information prior to issuance of the final RFP for environmental services.
1
Packet Pg. 16
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 27
Next Steps
Assuming no significant change by Council as part of this discussion item the next stage of the
project is issuing the RFP for final design and environment review. The following is a tentative
schedule of next steps and an estimate of work time to complete each task.
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure
Task Work Time
1) Prepare Final RFP for environmental review services and project
design. Complete Kosmont study of P3 issues
5 months.
2) Receive proposals Mid-Summer 2016
3) Evaluate Proposals and conduct interviews Late Summer 2016
4) Check references and Award Contract Fall 2016
5) Complete work and present for Advisory body and Council
review
Fall 2016 – Summer
2017
It is intended that sufficient work be done on the project to coincide with developing the 2017-19
Financial Plan and that any major changes necessary to the project budget be included as part of
the FY 2017-18 Parking Fund review.
FISCAL IMPACT
The 2015-17 Financial Plan includes cost estimates for the project based upon delivery of a 400-
445 space facility. The Financial Plan includes a construction cost estimated at $23,600,000 in
FY 2017-18 with $6,000,000 from working capital in the Parking Fund, and $17,600,000 in
proceeds from debt financing proceeds. Prior Financial Plan funding has been committed for
environmental review and final project design with a current unspent balance of approximately
$1,266,000.
Financing of the Project
In order to construct the project the City will need to use a mixture of available capital as well as
borrowing to cover the costs of construction. Final construction cost will be dependent upon
changes in design for the project including footprint modifications, mitigation measures
necessary for construction, final parking space yield and aesthetic design.
Since adoption of the Financial Plan staff has worked with the City’s financial consultant, Public
Financial Management, Inc. (PFM) to review issues associated with the borrowing of debt for the
project. It appears that a General Fund Lease Revenue bond will be the most appropriate
borrowing method for the project. Attachment F includes a memorandum from PFM outlining
the significance of various debt strategies including General Fund Lease revenue bonds
compared to Parking Revenue bonds.
1
Packet Pg. 17
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 28
PFM provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of construction for both a
lease revenue bond based upon a project borrowing cost of $17,600,000 and a 30-year term for
the bonds. PFM estimates annual costs at current rates would be approximately $1.3, an amount
lower than the $1.45 Million estimated in the FY 2015-17 FP. This amount could change if rates
increase prior to full financing of the debt so keeping the $1.45 Million estimate is prudent at this
time. With the General Fund being used as a pledge on the lease revenue bond, there would be
no annual debt service coverage covenant as there would with parking revenue bonds (debt
service coverage requires a minimum ratio of parking revenue to debt service payments – PFM
identifies that this could be as high as 2.0 times net revenue for the City if Parking Revenue
bonds are used).
Final decision on the financing plan (including but not limited to the use of General Fund assets
to secure the Parking Structure) does not have to be made now. However, if the Council has any
concerns regarding the concept of using General Funds Lease revenue bonds for the project it
would be helpful to have those expressed so additional research can be conducted and brought
back to the council at a future date.
Upcoming Mid-Year Fund Review
The Parking Fund continues to be healthy. Staff is completing Mid Year Budget discussion
scheduled for February including consideration of FY 2014-15 year end results. As part of that
item updates to the fund will be detailed.
On a positive note, delays in the closures of Lot 2, 3 and 11 along with deferral of the Palm
Nipomo project helped the fund end higher than anticipated with approximately $8,400,000 in
working capital at year end.
Payment of mitigation fees and parking in-lieu fees by the Garden Street and Chinatown Phase 2
projects will be received this fiscal year and those funds will assist in creating the working
capital needed to help fund the project.
On the downside, it was discovered that the mitigation fees associated with Phase I development
of the Chinatown project were double programmed in the budget for this fiscal year. These funds
were actually received as part of escrow closing in FY 2013-14. These funds were deposited in
the Parking Fund in that year.
While the amount is large ($972,000) the Parking Fund has significant year-end working capital
forecast for future years, even with the construction of the Palm Nipomo project. The full effect
of these adjustments will be shown in the Mid-Year update for Council review.
The Parking Fund appears capable of funding the project if terms of the debt financing stay
consistent with current estimates and the rate changes and other revenue enhancements that have
been used as background assumptions for the forecast are implemented when needed.
Finally, prior Council direction relative to adding Sunday parking fees and implementing
periodic overall parking rate increases were done in part assuming low initial parking utilization
1
Packet Pg. 18
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 29
in the Palm-Nipomo structure. Therefore, staff recommends the city continue those programs and
others previously identified to assure ongoing Parking Fund stability.
While doable, other revenue enhancement strategies such as charging for parking past 6 p.m. or
expanding residential districts around Downtown to drive demand into existing structures
continues to be controversial without full support of potentially effected stakeholders. These
options, as well as others can be brought forward if fund forecasts show that future revenues do
not cover the costs for Palm Nipomo or Parking fund needs.
ALTERNATIVES
Alternative 1 – Delay moving forward with the project. The Council could delay moving
forward with the next stage of project development if significant concerns associated with cost,
timing, financing or other issues of the project. Staff does not recommend this option since
moving forward with the environmental review and design at this time does not commit the City
to construct the project. Instead, additional information resulting from the next phase of project
development should assist the City in making future and final decisions regarding the project and
its timing and costs.
Alternative 2 - Revise the Palm Nipomo Project design. The Council can direct staff to revise
the project or add alternatives for consideration in the EIR for the project. This alternative is not
recommended since this site plan has previously authorized for further design by the City
Council.
Alternative 3 – Put the project on hold and pursue other parking and access strategies. The
Council can direct explore other ways of meeting the parking and access needs. This could
include limiting new parking supply to purchasing new property for surface only parking lots,
developing more aggressive pricing policies for employee parking and expanding transit
subsidies or looking at other structure locations. Similar to response to Alternative 1 above, staff
recommends moving forward with the environmental and design completion at this time even if
Council directs staff to pursue a major shift how to increase our parking supply. Final project
costs for Palm Nipomo and area impacts will only be know when the full environmental and
designs are known for the project. If the Council chooses to increase the emphasis on other
strategies, they can be pursued in a parallel path to Palm Nipomo development with a final
decision to construct the project by Council when the EIR is brought forward. It is likely that
some of these strategies may be identified as part of the EIR process to help mitigate the project.
Attachments:
a - Walker Parking Consultants - Memorandum of findings (2015)
b - Downtown Parking Lot Map
c - 2011 Palm Nipomo Preliminary Design
d - SLO Little Theater Agreement 06-06-00
e - Palm Nipomo Project History and Council Action Summary
f - Palm-Nipomo Parking PFM Memo 10-14-15
1
Packet Pg. 19
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 30
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 1
INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo (the City) is considering construction of a parking structure on the south
eastern corner of Nipomo Street and Palm Street (the “structure”). The multi-level 445-space planned
structure would replace the existing Parking Lot 14, which has an inventory of 77 parking spaces.
In December 2014, Walker Parking Consultants (“Walker”) completed an organizational assessment
for the City’s Parking Services Division. The assessment, the focus of which was a staffing analysis for
Parking Services, included a preliminary projection of the demand for the parking spaces in the
proposed garage. In preparing the projections, Walker considered three factors:
x The projected capture of parking demand from approved and anticipated developments in
the future; 1
x The structure’s location relative to existing parking demand;
x The observed parking demand that would be displaced upon the build out of the parking
structure and the approved developments.
Based upon these three factors, in the 2014 Walker projected that on a typically busy weekday, the
Palm/Nipomo structure would have a surplus of 263± parking spaces, more than half the planned
supply of the parking structure.
Now, the City has engaged Walker to project the parking demand that might be generated in the
Palm/Nipomo structure based on a two-phase build out scenario. Phase I consists of approved
projects that will be built out in the near term. Phase II centers around potential parking demand
projections based upon assumptions provided by the City for future developments. In formulating its
projections, Walker considered the same three factors that were used for the 2014 projections.
After presenting a summary of Walker’s findings and recommendations based upon the findings, this
memorandum discusses the assumptions and methodology used to project the parking demand of
the two-phase build out scenario.
1 For the 2014 study those developments were Monterey Place, San Luis Square, and Marsh Commons.
DATE: January 5, 2015
TO: Peggy Mandeville, Tim Bochum, Alex Fuchs
COMPANY: Parking Services, City of San Luis Obispo
ADDRESS:
CITY/STATE: San Luis Obispo, CA
CC:
HARD COPY TO FOLLOW: No
FROM: Steffen Turoff, Derek Adams
PROJECT NAME: Palm/Nipomo Parking Structure Demand Study
PROJECT NUMBER: 33-1871.00
SUBJECT: Projected Parking Demand for Palm/Nipomo Structure
606 South Olive Street, Suite 1100
Los Angeles, CA 90014
Office: 213.488.4911
Fax: 213.488.4983
www.walkerparking.com
1.a
Packet Pg. 20
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 31
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 2
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS FOR CURRENT ANALYSIS
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a 445-
space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 205± parking spaces after full build out and
occupancy of Phase I. Table 1, below, summarizes the Phase I demand projections.
Table 1: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase I
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects a demand
for 364± parking spaces for the design day peak. Assuming an effective supply of 0.92 (409 spaces for
a 445-space parking facility) we project a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build out
and occupancy of Phase I and Phase II. Table 2, below, summarizes the demand and surplus
projections at the completion of Phase II.
Table 2: Projected Parking Demand and Surplus for Phase II
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
409 parking spaces 1
Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2
Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3
205 parking spaces
Notes:
Less (-)
Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply
Projected Surplus/Deficit
1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces
2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2.
3. Includes all approved developments under design day conditions.
409 parking spaces 1
Phase I Displaced Vehicles 74 vehicles 2
Phase I Projected Demand 130 vehicles 3
Phase II Displaced Vehicles 26 vehicles 4
Phase II Projected Demand 134 vehicles 5
45 parking spaces
Notes:
Less (-)
Palm/Nipomo Effective Supply
3. Includes all approved developments.
4. Total includes 2015 observed demand for Lot 10.
5. Total reflects design day conditions with no special events.
Projected Surplus/Deficit
1. Assumes a 0.92 ESF for planned inventory of 445 parking spaces
2. Total includes observed demand for Lot 14 and half demand in Lot 2.
1.a
Packet Pg. 21
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 32
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 3
RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONSIDERATIONS
The location of the planned Palm/Nipomo parking structure is not ideal to ameliorate the current
high demand for parking experienced on streets and in some surface lots Downtown. The structure
could accommodate the projected parking demand for some of the Phase I approved
development if parking policies necessary to encourage use of the structure are implemented and
enforced. Even then, the structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces would be significantly more
than necessary to accommodate the projected demand for those spaces.
The assumptions contained in the Phase II of development suggest significant development A)
occurring within a reasonable walking distance of the structure site and B) built with little or no
parking on site. This kind of development suggests a need for a significant supply of new parking
spaces to accommodate the parking demand Phase II would generate. However, we suggest that
caution be exercised when contemplating the significant capital, maintenance and operating
expenditures that a public parking structure represents, based on development that has not yet
been approved. Further, we note that a combination of on-street pricing policies and parking
permits may be necessary for a new parking structure to capture the parking demand generated by
the Phase II developments.
For the Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking in a shared
manner, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally friendly and walkable for
downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own parking. In such a scenario, the
City would likely want to consider using its parking in lieu fee program to have developers of
proximate sites assist in the funding of the structure, although we point out that such funds tend to
flow slowly, often presenting a challenge for funding the parking structure. Nonetheless, given the
Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to invest or partner with developers to
provide funding, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using
shared, public parking.
ASSUMPTIONS
In developing the parking demand projections for the approved developments in Phase I and the
potential parking demand projections for Phase II, Walker Parking Consultants made the following
assumptions when analyzing the program and parking occupancy data provided by the City. The
assumptions reflect (i) Walker’s familiarity with the parking system in the Downtown area of San Luis
Obispo, and (ii) Walker’s familiarity with parking systems in similar downtowns in California. The
assumptions, some of which were developed for the 2014 study, reflect Walker’s understanding of
conversations with City staff. For the parking demand projections developed for this memorandum,
Walker assumed the following.
1. The parking demand projections are for a typically busy weekday afternoon without special
events.
2. The Phase I program data reflect information from development projects approved by the
City.
3. The Phase II program data reflect potential developments.
1.a
Packet Pg. 22
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 33
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 4
a. These potential developments reflect provisional assumptions about how land uses
might function upon full build out and occupancy.
b. The parking demand ratios for the Phase II potential developments are not necessarily
suitable for projecting parking demand at present day conditions at existing land uses.
4. The interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs on Thursday
between 12 PM and 2 PM.
5. The 2015 parking occupancy data reflect the anticipated parking demand of existing land
uses in the Downtown area of San Luis Obispo at the full build out and occupancy of both
phases of the design scenario.
6. In its analysis of the Phase I and Phase II program data, Walker assumed that the Shared
Parking Model developed for the 2014 study remained sufficiently calibrated for the parking
demand projections presented in this memorandum.
7. Vehicles displaced by the demolition and redevelopment of existing public off-street parking
facilities within approximately 800 feet of the Palm Nipomo garage may seek to park in the
garage upon its completion.
8. Projected parking surpluses for private developments will not be shared with private
developments that have projected parking deficits.
PARKING DEMAND PROJECTIONS
The parking demand figures presented in this memorandum reflect a combination of two types of
projections. The parking demand for the two-phased development scenario were projected using
the Walker Parking Consultants/ULI Shared Parking Model. The parking demand for the rest of the
Downtown area of San Luis Obispo were projected using parking demand data collected by City
staff.
The parking demand data for the Downtown area were collected on nine days between August 19,
2015 and October 17, 2015. On each day, City staff performed occupancy counts every other hour
from 10 AM to 8 PM, inclusive. Table 3, below, lists the days on which occupancy counts were
performed. The timing of the occupancy counts were meant to capture the high demand for
parking that may be generated both in the late summer, the beginning of the Cal Poly semester, and
the overlap of the summer and school seasons.
Table 3: Parking Demand Data Collection Schedule
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
In performing the count of parked vehicles, City staff excluded the following categories of parking
spaces.
Wednesdays Thursdays Saturdays
Aug 19, 2015 Aug 20, 2015 Aug 22, 2015
Sep 02, 2015 Sep 03, 2015 Sep 05, 2015
Oct 14, 2015 Oct 15, 2015 Oct 17, 2015
1.a
Packet Pg. 23
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 34
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 5
o Handicapped Spaces
o Commercial Loading Zones
o Passenger Loading Zones
o Post Office meters
Similarly, City staff excluded the following categories of parking behavior.
o Multiple Vehicles Parked in One Space (e.g. 2 or More Motorcycles Parked in One
Space)
o Illegal Parking (e.g. Parking in Red Zone)
Given the City staff’s familiarity with its parking system, Walker assumed that the excluded categories
of parking spaces and parking behavior did not materially impact the parking demand collected by
the City.
PEAK PARKING DEMAND
In its analysis of the 2015 parking data provided by the City, Walker determined that for the purposes
of this study the interval of peak parking demand in the Downtown area generally occurs between
12 PM and 2 PM on Thursday afternoons. The designation of this time period as the interval of peak
demand on a typically busy day assumes that typical peak demand rather than weekly or less
frequent events such as a Farmer’s Market should not be a determining factor in determining the
inventory of the proposed parking structure.
To account for seasonal changes in the peak parking demand, Walker averaged the reported
demand for the three Thursday counts. Moreover, to assess the adequacy of the parking supply,
Walker used a blended effective supply factor of 0.92. An effective supply factor (ESF) is a projection
of a parking system’s operational effectiveness. An ESF accounts for those spaces that are
momentarily unavailable for use while cars circulate within a parking system. An ESF also accounts for
the number of spaces in a parking system that are temporarily unavailable due to maintenance, mis-
parked vehicles, and other factors. Finally the cushion of spaces identified by the effective supply
can be used to accommodate more vehicles during spikes in demand above and beyond the
design day peak demand.
Table 4, below, summarizes the average peak parking demand on a typically busy weekday for the
Downtown study area.
Table 4: Study Area Average Peak Parking Demand, Weekdays
Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
By way of comparison, in 2014, the study area analyzed consisted of a total of 2,041± on- and off-
street parking spaces. The effective supply of spaces was 1,867± spaces. The interval of peak
AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION SURPLUS (+)/DEFICIT (-)
Study Area 2,582 parking spaces 2,375 parking spaces 1,730 vehicles 67%645 parking spaces
12PM
1.a
Packet Pg. 24
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 35
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 6
demand was identified as occurring between 6:00 PM and 8:00 PM on Saturday. During that interval,
1,289 vehicles were parked resulting in a utilization percentage of 63% and a surplus of 578 parking
spaces. For this year’s study, the area of study was expanded however the observed trend for peak
parking demand remained consistent.
The differences in inventory, effective supply, occupancy, and parking surplus are due to the City’s
designation of a study area for the 2015 fieldwork that was centered on the proposed Palm/Nipomo
Parking Structure site. While a full discussion and analysis of the differences between the data
collection area are beyond the scope of this memorandum, the slightly increased level of
occupancy (from 63% to 67%) is an indication that the 2015 data allow for a more conservative
projection of the impact of the two phases of development on the parking demand in the proposed
structure; demand for parking in the Downtown is assumed to be slightly higher for this analysis. The
2015 peak week day data allow for a more conservative than the 2014 data because the former
reflect a higher level of occupancy in areas that will likely generate parking demand in the planned
garage.
Based upon additional analysis of the parking demand and program data provided by the City,
Walker concluded that the two-phase development will likely displace vehicles that currently park in
Lots 2, 10, and 14 and that these displaced vehicles would likely be parked in the proposed garage.
Walker projects that the Phase I and Phase II developments will displace vehicles that currently park
in Lots 2, 10, and 14 as follows.
1. City staff, based on their knowledge of parking patterns Downtown, asked Walker to assume
that half of the parking demand in Lot 2 observed during the interval of peak demand would
also park in the Palm Nipomo garage. At the peak a total of 52 vehicles were observed
parked in Lot 2.
2. The construction of the parking structure requires the elimination of Lot 14 which would
displace spaces where 48 vehicles are parking.
3. The build out of the Phase II development will require the elimination of Lot 10, which will
displace 26 vehicles.
Table 5, below, summarizes by phase the projected vehicle displacement for Lots 2, 10, and 14. The
projected displacement is based upon data collected by City staff.
Table 5: Vehicle Displacement Projections by Phase
Source: City of San Luis Obispo and Walker Parking Consultants, 2015.
Based on the on-street data collected, it is our assumption that motorists used to parking in Lot 10
and Lot 14 will seek to park in the proposed structure rather than on street or at another off-street
PHASE AREA INVENTORY EFFECTIVE SUPPLY OCCUPANCY UTILIZATION VEHICLES DISPLACED*
Lot 2 59 parking spaces 54 parking spaces 52 vehicles 88%26 vehicles
Lot 14 77 parking spaces 71 parking spaces 48 vehicles 63%48 vehicles
Phase II Lot 10 27 parking spaces 25 parking spaces 26 vehicles 96%26 vehicles
* Values indicate number of vehicles that are assumed to park in the Palm/Nipomo structure.
Phase I
12PM
1.a
Packet Pg. 25
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 36
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 7
parking facility. We also assume that the City will actively engage in policies to encourage additional
parking demand generated in the area to utilize the new structure.
PHASE I AND PHASE II PROGRAM DATA
The City asked Walker to project the parking demand for a two-phase development scenario. Phase
I consists of seven (7) approved projects. The seven approved projects of Phase I fall into one of two
categories. The first category consists of four approved developments that are not projected to
generate a significant level of parking demand in the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. This category
includes:
x The Garden Street Terraces,
x Chinatown,
x Pacific Courtyards, and
x Discovery San Luis Obispo.
The second category is comprised of three approved developments that likely will generate a
significant level of parking demand in the garage. These three developments are:
x Monterey Place,
x the Creamery, and
x the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art (SLOMA).
Table 6, below, provides a summary of the Phase I program data by land use.
Table 6: Summary of Phase I Program Data by Land Use
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
Phase II consists of five provisional development sites. These five sites are provisional in that they
reflect assumptions that are conceptual in regards to land uses and user groups. Because of the
Land Use Program Data
Retail (<400 ksf)66,318 s.f.
Family Active Entertainment 17,500 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 6,700 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food 7,500 s.f.
Museum 23,000 s.f.
Spa 5,000 s.f.
Hotel-Leisure 153 keys
Residential 72 total d.u.
1 bedroom†4 d.u.
2 bedroom†51 d.u.
>3 bedroom†17 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 22,080 s.f.
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
1.a
Packet Pg. 26
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 37
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 8
conceptual nature of these assumptions, the five land uses have parking generation ratios that do
not necessarily reflect contemporaneous conditions for similar land uses in the Downtown area.
Table 7, below, summarizes the Phase II program data by land use.
Table 7: Summary of Phase II Program Data by Land Use
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, 2015.
To project the parking demand for both phases of the development scenario, Walker used the
Walker Parking Consultants/Urban Land Institute (ULI) Shared Parking Model (SPM). Walker led the
research effort to update the most recent ULI Shared Parking Model. Walker’s internal SPM is based
on the ULI model but includes more detail, data points and specific land uses.
Furthermore, the Walker SPM allows for calibration based upon on observed conditions within a study
area and anticipated conditions within proposed developments. Based upon conversations with City
staff, Walker concluded that the base parking demand ratios used for the 2014 parking demand
projections should also be used for the projections presented in this memorandum.
Table 8, below, summarizes the ratios used in the Walker SPM for the parking demand projections for
the two-phase development scenario.
Land Use Program Data
Retail (<400 ksf)14,440 s.f.
Specialty Grocery 6,500 s.f.
Fine/Casual Dining 3,607 s.f.
Family Restaurant 3,607 s.f.
Fast Casual/Fast Food 3,607 s.f.
Performing Arts Theater 200 seats
Residential 82 total d.u.
1 bedroom†82 d.u.
Office <25,000sq ft 25,000 d.u.
† Dwelling units (d.u.)
1.a
Packet Pg. 27
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 38
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 9
Table 8: Ratios Used in Walker Shared Parking Model for San Luis Obispo, 2014 and 2015
Source: Walker Parking Consultants, 2014-2015.
It should be noted that the net new parking demand projection for the San Luis Obispo Museum of
Art (SLOMA) was reduced by 50%. This reduction represents the conclusion of Walker that SLOMA will
double the parking demand it currently generates, based on past and projected attendance data.
The reduction reflects the assumption that the current parking demand for SLOMA is assumed to be
accounted for in the 2015 occupancy demand data collected by the City. It should also be noted
that the demand ratio for SLOMA reflects a blended demand ratio that includes the planned office
space and other new land uses that will be available after the site has been redeveloped.
Table 9, on page 10, details the program data and parking demand projections for the four
developments in Phase I that are not projected to generate a significant level of parking demand in
the proposed Palm Nipomo garage. The table reflects the City’s present understanding that the
Garden Street Terraces will address its projected parking deficit by having twenty six (26) vehicles
park in the Palm Nipomo garage.
Table 10, on page 11, details the program data and parking demand projections for the three
developments in Phase I that are anticipated to generate significant parking demand in the
proposed Palm Nipomo structure. Table 11, on page 12, provides a detailed summary by land use of
the program data for Phase II.
Base Parking Demand Drive Non-Captive
Retail/Commercial Space 3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 90%
Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100%
Restaurant 9 to 15.25 spaces per ksf GLA* 60% - 70% 76% - 88%
Employee 1.5 to 1.75 spaces per ksf GLA* 70% - 80% 100%
Family Active Entertainment 4.5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85%
Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100%
Speciality Grocery 4 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85%
Employee 1 space per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100%
Spa 6.6 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 85%
Employee .4 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100%
Art Museum 5 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100%
Employee .5 spaces per ksf GLA 65% - 75% 100%
Peforming Arts Theater .3 spaces per seat 60% - 70% 100%
Employee .07 spaces per seat 65% - 75% 100%
Hotel 1 space per key 90%100%
Employee .18 space per key 65% - 75% 100%
Office .3 spaces per ksf GLA 60% - 70% 100%
Employee 3 spaces per ksf GLA 70% - 80% 100%
Residential First space per unit is reserved.
Studio 1 space per d.u.
1-bedroom 1.5 spaces per d.u.
2-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u.
3-bedroom 2 spaces per d.u.
Visitor .15 space per d.u.
* Values indicate ranges for three restaurant sub-categories: fine casual, family, and fast casual.
70%
(All units)
100%
(All units)
Ratios
Land use Shared Parking
Adjustments
Shared parking
adjustments
account for
fluctations in
parking demand
by land use type.
These fluctuaions
generally center
around hour of
day, day of week,
month, and
season.
These
adjustments are
performed by the
Walker Parking
Consultants
Shared Parking
Model.
1.a
Packet Pg. 28
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 39
ME
M
O
R
A
N
D
U
M
O
F
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
PA
L
M
/
N
I
P
O
M
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PA
G
E
1
0
Ta
b
l
e
9
:
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
D
a
t
a
—
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
U
n
l
i
k
e
l
y
to
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
2
0
1
5
.
LA
N
D
U
S
E
S
Ga
r
d
e
n
S
t
.
T
e
r
r
a
c
e
s
11
1
9
G
a
r
d
e
n
S
t
.
Ch
i
n
a
t
o
w
n
Pa
c
i
f
i
c
C
o
u
r
t
y
a
r
d
s
13
2
1
/
1
3
2
7
O
s
o
s
S
t
.
Di
s
c
o
v
e
r
y
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
Ob
i
s
p
o
(D
S
L
O
)
Ma
r
s
h
&
C
h
o
r
r
o
To
t
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(
<
4
0
0
k
s
f
)
1
5
,
5
4
2
s
.
f
.
4
3
,
7
5
0
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
59
,
2
9
2
s
.
f
.
Fi
n
e
/
C
a
s
u
a
l
D
i
n
i
n
g
s
.
f
.
3,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
3,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
Fa
s
t
C
a
s
u
a
l
/
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
7,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
7,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
Fa
m
i
l
y
A
c
t
i
v
e
E
n
t
e
r
t
a
i
n
m
e
n
t
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
17
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
17
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
Sp
a
5,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
00
0
5,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
Ho
t
e
l
-
L
e
i
s
u
r
e
64
k
e
y
s
78
k
e
y
s
k
e
y
s
0
14
2
k
e
y
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
G
u
e
s
t
†
8
d
.
u
.
32
d
.
u
.
9
d
.
u
.
0
49
d
.
u
.
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
d
.
u
.
d
.
u
.
1
d
.
u
.
0
1
d
.
u
.
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
8
d
.
u
.
17
d
.
u
.
6
d
.
u
.
0
31
d
.
u
.
>
3
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
d
.
u
.
15
d
.
u
.
2
d
.
u
.
0
17
d
.
u
.
Of
f
i
c
e
<
2
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
8,
0
5
0
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
8,
0
5
0
s
.
f
.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
41
s
p
a
c
e
s
53
s
p
a
c
e
s
*
34
s
p
a
c
e
s
0
12
8
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
¥
93
s
p
a
c
e
s
1
8
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
2
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
5
4
s
p
a
c
e
s
3
7
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
/
De
f
i
c
i
t
-5
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
1
3
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
‡
-5
4
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
2
3
6
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
l
m
/
N
a
p
o
m
o
De
m
a
n
d
*
*
26
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
26
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
No
t
e
s
‡
S
u
r
p
l
u
s
p
r
o
v
i
d
e
d
f
o
r
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
o
n
l
y
.
T
h
e
p
r
o
j
ec
t
e
d
2
3
6
s
p
a
c
e
d
e
f
i
c
i
t
e
x
c
l
u
d
e
s
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
u
r
p
l
u
s
.
*
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
t
a
c
k
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
† D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
(
d
.
u
.
)
^
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
s
u
p
p
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
l
o
s
s
o
f
1
5
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
.
**
D
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
G
a
r
a
g
e
¥
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
r
e
f
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
d
a
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
-
-
-
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
u
s
y
T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
e
a
r
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
.
1.
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
2
9
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 40
ME
M
O
R
A
N
D
U
M
O
F
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
PA
L
M
/
N
I
P
O
M
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PA
G
E
1
1
Ta
b
l
e
1
0
:
P
h
a
s
e
I
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
D
a
t
a
—
A
p
p
r
o
v
e
d
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
L
i
k
e
l
y
to
G
e
n
e
r
a
t
e
S
i
g
n
i
f
i
c
a
n
t
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
i
n
t
h
e
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
2
0
1
5
.
LA
N
D
U
S
E
S
Mo
n
t
e
r
e
y
P
l
a
c
e
66
7
/
6
7
9
M
o
n
t
e
r
e
y
S
t
.
Cr
e
a
m
e
r
y
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
/
Re
m
o
d
e
l
SL
O
M
A
To
t
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(
<
4
0
0
k
s
f
)
6
,
2
7
0
s
.
f
.
7
5
6
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
7,
0
2
6
s
.
f
.
Fi
n
e
/
C
a
s
u
a
l
D
i
n
i
n
g
3,
7
0
0
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
3,
7
0
0
s
.
f
.
Mu
s
e
u
m
00
23
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
23
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
Ho
t
e
l
-
L
e
i
s
u
r
e
11
k
e
y
s
k
e
y
s
0
11
k
e
y
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
G
u
e
s
t
†
23
d
.
u
.
d
.
u
.
0
23
d
.
u
.
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
3
d
.
u
.
d
.
u
.
0
3
d
.
u
.
2
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
20
d
.
u
.
d
.
u
.
0
20
d
.
u
.
Of
f
i
c
e
<
2
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
14
,
0
3
0
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
s
.
f
.
14
,
0
3
0
s
.
f
.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
29
s
p
a
c
e
s
*
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
29
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
¥
94
s
p
a
c
e
s
1
s
p
a
c
e
3
9
s
p
a
c
e
s
§
1
3
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
/
De
f
i
c
i
t
-6
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
1
s
p
a
c
e
-
3
9
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
1
0
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
P
a
l
m
/
N
a
p
o
m
o
De
m
a
n
d
*
*
65
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
39
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
10
5
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
No
t
e
s
§
T
o
t
a
l
a
s
s
u
m
e
s
t
h
a
t
S
L
O
M
A
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
d
e
m
a
n
d
w
i
l
l
b
e
a
p
p
r
o
x
i
m
a
t
e
l
y
d
o
u
b
l
e
t
h
e
e
x
i
s
t
i
n
g
a
r
t
g
a
l
l
e
r
y
.
† D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
u
n
i
t
s
(
d
.
u
.
)
¥
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
r
e
f
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
d
a
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
-
-
-
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
u
s
y
T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
e
a
r
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
.
*
I
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
s
s
t
a
c
k
e
d
p
a
r
k
i
n
g
s
p
a
c
e
s
**
D
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
G
a
r
a
g
e
1.
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 41
ME
M
O
R
A
N
D
U
M
O
F
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
PA
L
M
/
N
I
P
O
M
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PA
G
E
1
2
Ta
b
l
e
1
1
:
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
P
r
o
g
r
a
m
D
a
t
a
A
s
s
u
m
p
t
i
o
n
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
2
0
1
5
.
PH
A
S
E
I
I
L
A
N
D
U
S
E
S
Si
t
e
1
Si
t
e
2
Si
t
e
3
Si
t
e
4
Si
t
e
5
To
t
a
l
Re
t
a
i
l
(
<
4
0
0
k
s
f
)
8
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
1
,
4
4
0
s
.
f
.
4
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
14
,
4
4
0
s
.
f
.
Sp
e
c
i
a
l
t
y
G
r
o
c
e
r
y
6
,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
6,
5
0
0
s
.
f
.
Fi
n
e
/
C
a
s
u
a
l
D
i
n
i
n
g
2
,
1
6
7
s
.
f
.
1
,
4
4
0
s
.
f
.
3,
6
0
7
s
.
f
.
Fa
m
i
l
y
R
e
s
t
a
u
r
a
n
t
2
,
1
6
7
s
.
f
.
1
,
4
4
0
s
.
f
.
3,
6
0
7
s
.
f
.
Fa
s
t
C
a
s
u
a
l
/
F
a
s
t
F
o
o
d
2
,
1
6
7
s
.
f
.
1
,
4
4
0
s
.
f
.
3,
6
0
7
s
.
f
.
Pe
r
f
o
r
m
i
n
g
A
r
t
s
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
20
0
s
e
a
t
s
2
0
0
s
e
a
t
s
Re
s
i
d
e
n
t
i
a
l
G
u
e
s
t
†
50
d
.
u
.
20
d
.
u
.
12
d
.
u
.
82
d
.
u
.
1
b
e
d
r
o
o
m
†
50
d
.
u
.
20
d
.
u
.
12
d
.
u
.
82
d
.
u
.
Of
f
i
c
e
<
2
5
,
0
0
0
s
q
f
t
22
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
3
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
25
,
0
0
0
s
.
f
.
Pl
a
n
n
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
u
p
p
l
y
5
0
s
p
a
c
e
s
1
6
s
p
a
c
e
s
1
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
2
1
s
p
a
c
e
s
99
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
D
e
m
a
n
d
¥
10
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
4
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
1
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
5
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
9
s
p
a
c
e
s
2
3
3
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
e
q
u
a
c
y
/
De
f
i
c
i
t
-5
7
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
3
1
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
5
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
3
2
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
9
s
p
a
c
e
s
-
1
3
4
s
p
a
c
e
s
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
Pa
l
m
/
N
a
p
o
m
o
D
e
m
a
n
d
*
*
57
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
3
1
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
5
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
3
2
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
9
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
1
3
4
v
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
No
t
e
s
†
D
w
e
l
l
i
n
g
U
n
i
t
s
(
d
.
u
.
)
¥
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
s
h
o
w
n
a
r
e
f
o
r
d
e
s
i
g
n
d
a
y
c
o
n
d
i
t
i
o
n
s
-
-
-
a
t
y
p
i
c
a
l
l
y
b
u
s
y
T
h
u
r
s
d
a
y
e
a
r
l
y
a
f
t
e
r
n
o
o
n
.
**
D
e
m
a
n
d
f
o
r
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
G
a
r
a
g
e
1.
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 42
ME
M
O
R
A
N
D
U
M
O
F
F
I
N
D
I
N
G
S
PA
L
M
/
N
I
P
O
M
O
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
S
T
R
U
C
T
U
R
E
PA
G
E
1
3
Fi
g
u
r
e
1
:
P
r
o
p
o
s
e
d
L
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
P
a
l
m
/
N
i
p
o
m
o
St
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
a
n
d
P
h
a
s
e
I
I
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
s
So
u
r
c
e
:
I
m
a
g
e
,
Go
o
g
l
e
E
a
r
t
h
P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
,
2
0
1
5
;
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
m
e
n
t
l
o
c
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
Ci
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
,
20
1
5
;
gr
a
p
h
i
c
s
,
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
,
2
0
1
5
.
1.
a
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
2
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 43
MEMORANDUM OF FINDINGS
PALM/NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
PAGE 14
CONCLUSION
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase I program data, Walker projects that a
445-space parking facility as currently envisioned, would have a parking space surplus of 205±
parking spaces after full build out and occupancy of Phase I, based on a projected demand
for 204± spaces and effective supply factor of 0.92.
Based upon the 2015 parking demand data and Phase II program data, Walker projects that
a 445-space parking facility would have a parking surplus of 45± parking spaces after full build
out and occupancy of Phase II, based on a projected demand for 364± spaces (combined
phases I + 2) and effective supply factor of 0.92.
The Palm/Nipomo structure’s planned inventory of 445 spaces is significantly more than
currently necessary to accommodate current parking demand. The likely demand for parking
generated by Phase I development represents less than half the planned supply of parking.
However for Phase II development, the structure represents an opportunity to provide parking
for future development, efficiently, and in a way that is likely to be more environmentally
friendly and walkable for downtown than would individual sites that each provide their own
parking. Given the Phase II development being contemplated, if the City is willing to make a
significant investment(or partner with developers) to provide funding for a long-term capital
investment, the structure represents an opportunity for careful planning in the downtown using
shared, public parking. However, if the projected Phase II development were not to occur as
envisioned, the usefulness of the structure could be limited.
1.a
Packet Pg. 33
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
a
-
W
a
l
k
e
r
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
C
o
n
s
u
l
t
a
n
t
s
-
M
e
m
o
r
a
n
d
u
m
o
f
f
i
n
d
i
n
g
s
(
2
0
1
5
)
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 44
1.b
Packet Pg. 34
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
b
-
D
o
w
n
t
o
w
n
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
L
o
t
M
a
p
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 45
20
1
1
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
1.c
Packet Pg. 35
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 46
20
1
1
U
r
b
a
n
D
e
s
i
g
n
P
l
a
n
1.c
Packet Pg. 36
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
c
-
2
0
1
1
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
e
l
i
m
i
n
a
r
y
D
e
s
i
g
n
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 47
1.d
Packet Pg. 37
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 48
1.d
Packet Pg. 38
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 49
1.d
Packet Pg. 39
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 50
1.d
Packet Pg. 40
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 51
1.d
Packet Pg. 41
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 52
1.d
Packet Pg. 42
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 53
1.d
Packet Pg. 43
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 54
1.d
Packet Pg. 44
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 55
1.d
Packet Pg. 45
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 56
1.d
Packet Pg. 46
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
d
-
S
L
O
L
i
t
t
l
e
T
h
e
a
t
e
r
A
g
r
e
e
m
e
n
t
0
6
-
0
6
-
0
0
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 57
1
SUMMARY OF COUNCIL ACTIONS
PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
The Palm-Nipomo parking structure project (now re-named the Monterey Street Parking Structure)
was established by the Council as an “other” major City goal with the adoption of the 2003-05
Financial Plan. The Financial Plan called for the development of a conceptual design for a parking
structure near the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets as the first step in the process of evaluating the
site for its potential use as a multi-level parking structure. The proposed parking structure site is
currently occupied by City-owned surface parking lots and five residential units (one single family
residence and one duplex on Palm Street and two single family residences on Monterey Street).
The consultants were originally given a goal of creating 400 new parking spaces on the site; 79
surface parking spaces currently exist on the site. They were directed to incorporate uses intended by
the Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center. They were also asked to be mindful of the City’s
height regulations which limit building height in the Office zone to 35 feet, although use permit
approval may include deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height
limits when parking is the principal use. Finally, they were asked to consider two types of parking
structures: a self park structure, like the City’s current parking structures; and a mechanical structure,
that parks the vehicle in the structure after the driver leaves it in the entrance bay.
May 25, 2004 City Council Direction
Council provided their first input on the conceptual designs on May 25, 2004 with their review of
eight schematic design options. Designs included self-parking and mechanical structures In the
report, the consultants also provided an evaluation of a hybrid parking structure design (mechanical
and self park), however, it was determined that given the size of the site, providing both self park and
mechanical parking proved to be more costly and an inefficient use of space. At that meeting,
Council directed staff to proceed with refinements to two designs: Option D, a self-park design and
Option H, a mechanical design as the “baseline” design options for further study. Council also
directed staff to consider the following in the refinements of the two options:
1. Pushing the parking structure back on the property toward Palm Street to provide more land
area on Monterey Street to build the Little Theater or some other cultural facility and leaving
some area along Palm Street for offices and/or housing.
2. Leaving the houses on Monterey Street in place until the Little Theater can be built.
3. Having more direct pedestrian access from the parking structure to Monterey Street.
4. Designing for more parking spaces in future phases of the project.
5. Providing more parking spaces by the addition of another level of parking underground.
6. Proposing other possible uses (ie. senior center, housing, tennis courts, or special events) for
the roof of the structure.
7. Preserving the signature oak tree on Monterey Street by not encroaching into its drip-line.
July 5, 2005 City Council Direction
On July 5, 2005, Council reviewed refinements to Options D and H with a series of other uses on the
roof of the structure. At the meeting, Council directed staff to proceed with self park site plan Option
D3, mechanical Option H2, and mechanical Option H3 specifically excluding optional uses on the
roof of the structure. Optional uses were excluded for several reasons including cost, complexity of
1.e
Packet Pg. 47
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 58
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
providing access, added engineering requirements, and the need for additional parking to
accommodate the new use. Council requested that refinements to all three plans include the
following additional components:
1. Provide a direct pedestrian connection from the structure to Monterey Street.
2. Consider the contextual sensitivity of the project with the surrounding properties (historic
Lattimer-Hayes Adobe at 638 Monterey Street).
3. Include the building footprints on adjacent properties (638 Monterey St. and 645 Palm St.) on
project plans.
4. Include the building footprints of any on-site structures that can remain with each design.
5. Identify the parking structure height at the highest existing point of site (near Lattimer Adobe
detached “Dwelling over Garage”).
6. Identify building heights and setbacks as calculated by the City’s Zoning Regulations and
note where exceptions are needed.
7. Re-design options to include going underground or above ground with an additional level,
off-set the structure to reduce its mass, and consider maintaining versus relocating the on-site
dwellings.
8. Provide setbacks for maintaining/painting parking structure on site.
9. Identify location of access/servicing area for “Future Use by Others”- if office use is
developed on Palm Street or cultural use on Monterey Street.
10. Provide financial analysis- general construction and operation/maintenance cost comparisons
for the three options and slight modifications to those options such as including going
underground an additional level or off-setting the structure to reduce its mass.
In addition to refinements requested for all three site plans, Council requested the following
additional refinements to Self Park Option D3:
a. Add a secondary entrance/exit if possible.
b. Reconfigure end bay design to improve vehicular access.
c. Relocate stairwell locations to provide direct pedestrian access to Monterey.
To assist staff and the consultants with the development of these refinements, a boundary, and
topographic survey of the site was completed to more accurately locate structures on the site and
determine building heights.
In July 2005, the Council also considered the question raised in 2004 regarding the potential for other
uses on the roof, such as a senior center, tennis courts or housing. The Council dismissed this idea
after receiving information that showed uses on top of the structure would significantly increase the
costs of construction due to different loading and occupancy requirements. These added costs would
be General Fund costs, since they are not parking related. Additionally, building height exceptions
would come into play because these new uses will require additional parking for the added uses, thus
reducing the net amount of parking gained for the general public in the new structure. The Council
agreed that it would be more cost effective to identify separate properties for other uses, rather than
overbuilding an already expensive parking structure.
1.e
Packet Pg. 48
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 59
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
April 24, 2007 City Council Direction
In response to Council direction, staff and the consultants refined the three site plan options. All
options located the parking structure main entry on Palm Street (consistent with the Conceptual
Physical Plan), maintained the large oak tree on Monterey and allowed portions of the site to be
developed by “others” when the timing is appropriate. In essence, the structure could be built first
and other components, such as the SLO Little Theatre, could be built later when funding is in place.
The three options were compared from the standpoint of features, construction cost, maintenance cost
and operational cost.
Table 1 - Summary of Key Site Plan Option Features
Design Comparisons D3 H2 H3
Summary of Key Features Self park
structure with
portions of
upper levels
removed to
reduce
building height
impact.
Mechanical
structure with
portions of
upper levels
removed to
reduce building
height impact.
Mechanical
structure
oriented to
reduce building
height impact.
Building Footprint 34,350 s.f. 20,500 s.f. 20,500 s.f.
Gross Building Area 150,850 s.f. 118,750 s.f. 121,500 s.f.
No. of Levels 4 ½ 5 ½ 6
Building Height (35 ft.) *
Height exception needed?
39 ft.
Yes
41 ft.
Yes
37 ft.
Yes
Building Setback**
Street yard (15 ft.)
Street yard exception needed?
Other yard (10 ft.)
Other yard exception needed?
8-10 ft.
Yes
10 ft.
No
0 ft.
Yes
10 ft.
No
0-10 ft.
Yes
25 ft.
No
Total Parking Spaces 445 491 565
Net New Spaces 366 412 486
Remaining Available Land Area for Future
Use by Others
11,400 s.f. 8,700 s.f.
12,700 s.f.
19,800 s.f.
Remaining Public Use Area 6,700 s.f. 4,500 s.f. 3,000 s.f.
7,000 s.f.
Given the significant cost differential between mechanical and self park structures, staff
recommended, and the Council concurred that Site Plan Design Option D3 (self park) be chosen as
the preferred design.
Site Plan Option D3 locates the parking structure at the corner of Palm and Nipomo Streets leaving
room for other uses (cultural and/or residential) to be constructed on Monterey Street in front of the
structure and a public use area at the corner of Nipomo and Monterey Streets. Pedestrian access is
provided to the street from each corner of the structure, including two points of direct access to
Monterey Street through a public use area and a pedestrian paseo. The residence at 614 Monterey
Street can be retained with this design until the property along Monterey Street is redeveloped,
1.e
Packet Pg. 49
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 60
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
however much of the residence’s rear yard would be devoted to the parking structure. One row of
parking (totaling 13 parking spaces) has been removed from the parking structure’s roof top level to
step the height back toward the center of the structure thus reducing the visual impact of the building
height as seen from adjoining residential properties to the northeast, including the Latimer Adobe.
Additionally, a portion of the bottom level of the structure is located approximately 16 feet below
grade, but due to the adjacency of openings, a mechanical ventilation system is not required.
Additional parking levels have not been located below grade due to added costs for ventilating and
waterproofing the structure.
Site Diagram for Option D3
The parking structure’s height is measured as follows. Heights do not include elevator towers.
Monterey Street = 33 feet
Nipomo Street = 36 feet
Palm Street = 44 feet
Adjoining “Dwelling over Garage” = 21 feet
March 17, 2009 City Council Direction
On May 20, 2008, during the Parking Fund Review, the Council directed staff to hire a financial
consultant and form an Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee to answer two questions regarding
building the Monterey Street Parking Structure. The questions were:
1. Can we afford it?
2. And if we build it, will they come?
1.e
Packet Pg. 50
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 61
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
Upon the completion of the financial analysis and after numerous meetings, the Ad Hoc Committee
provided the following finding and recommendations for Council consideration:
1. The Parking Fund is in good financial condition today and is projected to be in good financial
condition through fiscal year 2016-17.
2. Rename the project “Monterey Parking Structure.”
3. Move forward with the architectural design and EIR process.
4. The Monterey Street parking structure is consistent with the Downtown Concept Plan and the
General Plan.
5. The City will need this structure due to pending losses of parking lot spaces and street spaces
combined with increases in parking demand.
Downtown parking demand is currently met with the recent addition of the 919 Palm parking
structure. However several projects on the horizon could greatly impact future parking. Projects
such as Chinatown and Garden Street Terraces will affect parking demand as they propose to
eliminate or reduce public parking surface lots. In addition, parking spaces on the street are being
eliminated for safety reasons and/or converted to loading zones as densities grow downtown. Based
on past consultant reports, parking demand is expected to increase by 250 spaces every 5 years.
Further, because the City is in the early phases of a possible downtown parking district, structured
parking demand could increase significantly upon creation of the district. To meet these new
demands, staff anticipates that a downtown structure will be needed in the next 5 to 10 years.
December 1, 2009 City Council Direction
Council unanimously approved the Requests for Proposals for architectural design and environmental
review with the assumption that a mitigated negative declaration would be prepared. The consultant
team was hired, two public workshops held, and a preliminary urban design plan developed that has
been well received by the community. The design assumes the removal of five City owned
residences; two of which are located within a historic district. Environmental studies undertaken
determined that removal of the two residences would cause a substantial diminishment of the
Downtown Historic District and that the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report and
adoption of a Statement of Overriding Considerations would be needed to allow for their removal.
January 3, 2012 City Council Direction
Council directed staff to prepare and advertise a Request for Proposals for environmental services to
prepare a focused environmental impact report to evaluate the cultural resource issue as well as
potential issues such as noise, aesthetics, air quality, hydrology, greenhouse gas emissions and traffic.
Due to staff resources and other City priorities, this work effort was delayed. As part of the 2015
annual Parking Fund review, Council directed staff to return with a study session to present an update
on the delivery of the project and bring forward financial issues.
This decision was made in the midst of the Great Recession and assumptions of background private
development that would drive the need for the structure continued to be questionable with many
significant projects (Garden Street Terraces, Chinatown) being delayed by economic conditions.
1.e
Packet Pg. 51
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 62
Palm Nipomo Parking Structure December
2011
The uncertain timing of new development and potential for major revisions to their parking demand
led staff to conclude it would be prudent to defer work on the environmental impact report and the
final project design until the economy recovered. In essence, issues that need to be determined in the
structure’s final design (such as total number of spaces, height limitations and building footprint)
could be affected if major shifts occurred in parking demand due to revised private development
needs.
January 19, 2016 – Project Reboot City Council Direction
Staff is seeking additional council concurrence with project recommendations and moving forward
with design and the EIR. In addition, staff is seeking Council direction on negotiating a new MOA
with the SLO Little Theater for use of remnant area as part of the Palm Nipomo properties.
1.e
Packet Pg. 52
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
e
-
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
H
i
s
t
o
r
y
a
n
d
C
o
u
n
c
i
l
A
c
t
i
o
n
S
u
m
m
a
r
y
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 63
50 California Street
Suite 2300
San Francisco, CA 94111
415 982-5544
415 982-4513 fax
www.pfm.com
October 14, 2015
Memorandum
To: Tim Bochum, City of San Luis Obispo
Jeff Brown, City of San Luis Obispo
From: Sarah Hollenbeck, Public Financial Management, Inc.
Re: Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations
Public Financial Management, Inc. (“PFM”) has prepared the following memorandum as a high-
level summary of some of the financing alternatives the City of San Luis Obispo (the “City”) may
want to consider in determining its approach to the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage project.
Assuming the Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage will be a public, City-owned parking structure, the City
has several options for financing the project. Two primary alternatives are lease revenue bonds and
parking revenue bonds.
As it has done in the past (e.g., Series 2006 Lease Revenue Bonds), the City could issue lease revenue
bonds to fund the project, using either the project itself or another existing City asset as the security
for the bonds.
Lease Revenue Bond Considerations:
x The General Fund is pledged to repayment (though the City can budget the debt payments
from the Parking Fund, similar to what it has done with prior lease revenue bond issuances,
where debt service is allocated to other enterprise funds depending upon the projects
financed with the bond proceeds)
x Lease revenue bonds carry a lower interest rate than parking revenue bonds
x The City must have available of unencumbered asset(s) to pledge
x If assets of sufficient value are not available, the City will need to use capitalized interest
during construction
Alternatively, the City could finance the Palm-Nipomo project using parking revenue bonds,
pledging the net revenues of the Parking Fund to repay the debt.
Parking Revenue Bond Considerations:
x With a parking revenue bond, the obligation to repay is limited to the net revenues of the
parking system, so there is no General Fund exposure
1.f
Packet Pg. 53
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
P
a
l
m
-
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
F
M
M
e
m
o
1
0
-
1
4
-
1
5
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 64
Palm-Nipomo Parking Garage Financing Considerations
October 14, 2015
Page 2
x Due to the limited pledge of revenue, this type of financing carries a higher borrowing cost
than lease revenue bonds
x Parking revenue bonds are uncommon, perhaps due to associated risks and the resulting cost
of borrowing
x Net revenues of the parking system (after O&M) will need to generate annual debt service
coverage of approximately 2.0x
x The City will have to covenant to set parking rates at levels sufficient to meet this coverage
requirement
x Unless existing system revenues are sufficient to pay debt service on the new garage (and
generate required coverage), the City will need to capitalize interest during the
construction/ramp up period
For comparison, we have provided an estimate of the annual debt service after completion of
construction for both a lease revenue bond and a parking revenue bond, based upon a project cost
of $17,600,000. Given that construction is not anticipated to begin until FY2017-18, we have
assumed some increase in municipal bond interest rates, which are currently near historic lows. For
both scenarios we have assumed that interest on the bonds during the construction period is
capitalized, that the bonds have a debt service reserve fund, and that the term of the bonds is 30
years. Annual debt service on a lease revenue bond issuance is estimated at approximately $1.3
million and with the General Fund pledge on a lease revenue bond, there is no annual debt service
coverage covenant. Annual debt service on a parking revenue bond is estimated at approximately
$1.7 million. To generate 2.0x debt service coverage, the parking system would need to generate
$3.4 million of net revenue in the Parking Fund.
For either of the two security structures discussed above, the City could also consider financing the
Palm-Nipomo parking structure through a loan from the California Infrastructure and Economic
Development Bank (the “I-Bank”), as it did in 2001 for the expansion of the Marsh Street parking
structure. The I-Bank may offer interest rates that are lower than the City could achieve though a
public offering of bonds. There is an application process for I-Bank financing that can be lengthy,
so this alternative should be explored well in advance of the funding need for the project.
Should the City elect to pursue a project at the Palm-Nipomo site that involves a partnership with a
private entity, plans for private use of a portion of the garage, or other modifications to the basic
concept of a City-owned facility available for use by the public, the financing options may change
and the costs differ from those described above.
1.f
Packet Pg. 54
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
f
-
P
a
l
m
-
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
P
F
M
M
e
m
o
1
0
-
1
4
-
1
5
(
1
2
3
1
:
P
a
l
m
N
i
p
o
m
o
P
a
r
k
i
n
g
S
t
r
u
c
t
u
r
e
S
t
u
d
y
S
e
s
s
i
o
n
)
ATTACHMENT 3
PC1 - 65
3
Council Minutes
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January
19, 2016 at 4:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh*, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice
Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Member Ashbaugh joined the meeting at 4:04 p.m.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; Traci McGinley, City Clerk; John Paul Maier, Assistant
City Clerk, were present at Roll Call. Other staff members presented reports or
responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
BUSINESS ITEM
1. PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE
Public Works Director Grigsby and Public Works Deputy Director Bochum presented a
PowerPoint presentation entitled "Palm Nipomo Parking Structure" and presented the
contents of the report.
Bryce Engstrom, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre, Kevin Harris, San Luis Obispo Little Theatre,
Damien Mavis, The Creamery, Charlene Rosales, Chamber of Commerce, Dave Hannings, San
Luis Obispo, and Amy Kardel, San Luis Obispo, provided comments in support of the project.
Donald Hedrick, San Luis Obispo, and Gregg Menges, San Luis Obispo, provided comments and
concerns regarding the project.
San Luis Obispo Page I
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 66
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of January 19, 2016 Pape 2
Public Works Deputy Director Bochum addressed comments and concerns by the public.
MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY VICE MAYOR
CARPENTER, CARRIED 5-0, to amend page 11 of the Agenda Packet: Thursday
Average) 12:00 p.m. -2:00 p.m. Chart from 645 spaces to 852 spaces and to approve staff
recommendations for the Palm Nipomo Parking Structure to:
1. That the City move forward with environmental review and final design for the project.
2. That design objective of 400-445 spaces be maintained.
3. Direct staff to return to Council at the 2016 Parking Fund Review with
recommendations for improved parking information systems to direct the public towards
available supply.
4. Direct staff to return with a plan to Council that articulates a partnership with the
Downtown Association, Chamber of Commerce, Rideshare and local businesses
including the County) to create a parking demand and trip reduction program to more
effectively use parking supply in the Downtown area.
5. Provide direction to staff to move forward with developing a proposed Memorandum of
Agreement with SLO Little Theater for use of a portion of the Palm Nipomo project and
return to Council with a review of fundamental terms of the agreement for final
negotiations of the MOA.
An informal welcome celebration for new Police Chief Deanna Cantrell was held immediately
following the 4:00 p.m. meeting in the Council Hearing Room.
ADJOURN TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF JANUARY 19, 2016
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday, January
19, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ATTACHMENT 4
PC1 - 67
Notice of Preparation
To: EIR & Notice of Preparation Mailing List
SUBJECT: Notice of Preparation of a Draft Environmental Impact Report
Lead Agency: Consulting Firm: (if applicable)
Agency Name: City of San Luis Obispo EIR to be prepared by:
Department Name: Public Works Firm Name: Rincon Consultants, Inc.
Street Address: 919 Palm Street Street Address: 1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 City/State/Zip: San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Tim Bochum, 805-781-7203 Contact: Richard Daulton
The City of San Luis Obispo will be the Lead Agency and will prepare an environmental impact report
for the project identified below. We need to know the views of your agency as to the scope and
content of the environmental information, which is germane to your agency’s statutory responsibilities
in connection with the proposed project. Your agency will need to use the EIR prepared by our agency
when considering your permit or other approval for this project.
The project description, location, and the potential environmental effects ar e summarized in the
attachment. A copy of the Initial Study is not attached, but is available upon request from the Lead
Agency (see above contact). Due to the time limits mandated by State law, your response must be
sent at the earliest possible date, but not later than 30 days after receipt of this notice.
Please send your response to the attention of Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Transportation, in the
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department at the address shown above. We will need the
name of a contact person in your agency.
Project Title: Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Project
Project Location: The site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street,
and north of Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel
Numbers (APN) 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-
012.
Project Description:
The project involves the construction of an above-ground, five-story parking structure, 5,000 square
feet of commercial space, and a non-profit theater. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445
parking spaces. The theater would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841
square feet and up to 255 theater seats. The project would include a General Plan amendment from
Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change from Office with a Historic
Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay
(PF-H). The PF-H zone allows for development of a multi-level parking structure and non-profit
theater, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits with
Planning Commission approval. Commercial uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking
and theater facilities. The project would also require a variance for the floor to area ratio to exceed
1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent.
Date: __May 1, 2017________________________________________
Signature: ____________________________________________________
Title: __Principal Planner_____________________________________
Reference: California Administrative Code, Title 14 (CEQA Guidelines)
Sections 15082(a), 15103, 15375 (Revised October 1989)
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 68
NOTICE OF PREPARATION ATTACHMENT
PALM NIPOMO PARKING STRUCTURE PROJECT
The City of San Luis Obispo, as Lead Agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA),
is requesting comments on the environmental impact report (EIR) scope of work for the proposed
project, described below and in the Notice of Preparation, and commonly referr ed to as the Palm
Nipomo Parking Structure Project. The Initial Study is currently posted on the City’s website through
the following file path:
Initial Study: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1903
Project Location and Setting
The site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of
Monterey Street in the City of San Luis Obispo. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers
(APN) 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012.
The site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five
residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has
two apartments). The project site is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District.
Project Description
The project involves the removal of an existing 77 space surface parking lot and five existing
residential structures and construction of an above-ground, five-story parking structure, non-profit
theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking spaces. Main
vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary access on
Nipomo Street. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street. The project would also
include 5,000 square feet of commercial space fronting Nipomo Street. The San Luis Obispo Little
Theatre would also be relocated to the site, fronting Monterey Street adjacent to the parking
structure. The Little Theatre would entail a three-story structure with a gross floor area of 23,841
square feet and up to 255 theater seats. The project would include a General Plan amendment from
Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change from Office with a Historic
Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility with a Historic Overlay
(PF-H). The PF-H zone allows for development of a multi-level parking structure and non-profit
theater, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits with
Planning Commission approval. Commercial uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking
and theater facilities. The project would also require a variance for the floor to area ratio to exceed
1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent.
Discretionary Permits
The following approvals would be required for the project:
1. General Plan Amendment
2. Zone Change
3. Planning Commission Use Permit
4. Maximum Coverage Variance
5. Floor to Area Ratio Variance
6. Architectural Review
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 69
Probable Environmental Effects/Issues Scoped for EIR
Issue areas that may be determined to be potentially significant include:
Aesthetics
Cultural Resources
Noise
Transportation and Traffic
Issues Determined Not to be Significant under CEQA Thresholds of Significance include:
Air Quality (with prescribed mitigation)
Agriculture and Forest Resources
Biological Resources (with prescribed mitigation)
Geology and Soils (with prescribed mitigation)
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Hydrology/Water Quality
Hazards and Hazardous Materials (with prescribed mitigation)
Land Use/Planning
Mineral Resources
Population and Housing
Public Services
Recreation
Utilities/Service Systems
Development of a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Factors determining alternative project configurations include considerations of project objectives, site
suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, General Plan consistency, and a
proponent’s control over alternative sites. The EIR will discuss the rationale for selection of
alternatives that are feasible and therefore, merit in-depth consideration, and which are infeasible
(e.g., failed to meet Project objectives or did not avoid significant environmental effects) and therefore
rejected. Project alternatives include the following:
Alternative 1: Same as the preferred project described above, except the 5,000 square feet of
commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four
residential units would be included
Alternative 2: Same as the preferred project described above, except the Little Theatre would
be replaced with 22 two-bedroom residential units
No Project Alternative
These alternatives are general in nature since further environmental issue area analyses would be
necessary before more specific project alternatives can be identified. The need for project redesign
or unit reduction would be determined during the course of environmental review.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 70
Public Scoping Meeting
A public scoping meeting has been scheduled to allow for any interested persons to supply input on
issues to be discussed in the EIR:
Date: Wednesday, May 10, 2017
Time: 6:00 p.m.
Place: 990 Palm Street (City Council Chambers)
The meeting is an opportunity for City and consultant staffs to gather information from the public
regarding the potential environmental impacts of the project that need to be evaluated in the EIR. It is
not intended to be a hearing on the merits of the project. Therefore, members of the public should
keep their comments focused on potential significant changes to the environment that may occur as a
direct result of project development.
ATTACHMENT 5
PC1 - 71
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure Project
Initial Study
prepared by
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
April 2017
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 72
This page left intentionally blank.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 73
Table of Contents
Initial Study ..................................................................................................................................................... 3
1 Project Title ....................................................................................................................................... 3
2 Lead Agency Name and Address ...................................................................................................... 3
3 Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................................. 3
4 Project Location ................................................................................................................................ 3
5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ............................................................................................... 3
6 Existing Setting ................................................................................................................................. 3
7 General Plan Designation ................................................................................................................. 3
8 Zoning ............................................................................................................................................... 6
9 Description of Project ....................................................................................................................... 6
10 Required Approvals .......................................................................................................................... 7
11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................................. 7
12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required ........................................................................ 7
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .................................................................................................. 9
Determination ................................................................................................................................................ 9
Environmental Checklist ................................................................................................................................. 9
1 Aesthetics ....................................................................................................................................... 12
2 Agriculture and Forest Resources ................................................................................................... 14
3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................................... 16
4 Biological Resources ....................................................................................................................... 23
5 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................................................... 27
6 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................ 29
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ............................................................................................................. 33
8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials .................................................................................................. 38
9 Hydrology and Water Quality ......................................................................................................... 44
10 Land Use and Planning.................................................................................................................... 48
11 Mineral Resources .......................................................................................................................... 50
12 Noise ............................................................................................................................................... 51
13 Population and Housing.................................................................................................................. 51
14 Public Service .................................................................................................................................. 58
15 Recreation....................................................................................................................................... 61
16 Transportation ................................................................................................................................ 62
17 Utilities and Service Systems .......................................................................................................... 68
18 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................................ 72
References ............................................................................................................................................. 74
List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................................... 76
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 74
Tables
Table 1 Issues for Further Analysis in Environmental Impact Report ........................................... 10
Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds ................................................ 17
Table 3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Quarterly Construction Emissions................................. 19
Table 4 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Operational Emissions Comparison .............................. 20
Table 5 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions ........................................................ 35
Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases ......................................................... 36
Table 7 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise
Sources .................................................................................................................................... 52
Table 8 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary
Noise Sources .......................................................................................................................... 53
Table 9 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels Not To Be Exceeded More Than Thirty Minutes in Any
Hour) ....................................................................................................................................... 54
Table 10 Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels ....................................................... 54
Table 11 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation (Less
than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment ..................................................................................... 54
Table 12 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term
Operation (Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment ...................................... 55
Table 13 Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM Peak Hour) .......................... 64
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ...............................................................................................................4
Figure 2 Project Location ..................................................................................................................5
Figure 3 Site Plan ..............................................................................................................................8
Appendices
Appendix A CalEEmod Air and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Estimates
Appendix B Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 75
Initial Study
1 Project Title
Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure
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
Tim Bochum, Deputy Director, Transportation
(805) 781-7203
4 Project Location
The project site is a 1.4-acre property, located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and
north of Monterey Street. The property includes Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN) 002-412-001,
002-412-002, 002-412-003, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012. Figure 1 shows the
regional location of the project, and Figure 2 shows the project site within the local context.
5 Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works Department
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6 Existing Setting
The project site is located south of Palm Street, east of Nipomo Street, and north of Monterey
Street. The site is currently occupied by a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and
five residential units (three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street
that has two apartments). The project site is located within the City’s Downtown Historic District.
7 General Plan Designation
Office: APNs 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and 002-412-012
Medium-High Density Residential: APN 002-412-003
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 76
Figure 1 Regional Location
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 77
Figure 2 Project Location
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 78
8 Zoning
Office with Historic Overlay (O-H): APNs 002-412-001, 002-412-002, 002-412-004, 002-412-011, and
002-412-012
Medium-High Density Residential (R-3): APN 002-412-003
9 Description of Project
The project would involve the construction of an above-ground five-level parking structure, non-
profit theater, and commercial space. The parking structure would provide 400 to 445 parking
spaces. Main vehicular access to the structure would be provided from Palm Street, with secondary
access on Nipomo Street. There would be one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each
driveway. Vehicle access would not be provided from Monterey Street; however, a direct
pedestrian connection would be provided from the structure to Monterey Street. Pedestrian access
would also be provided to public sidewalks from each corner of the structure. The project would
also include 5,000 square feet of commercial space on two levels fronting Nipomo Street. The
parking structure’s maximum height, excluding elevator towers, would be approximately 50 feet.
In addition, the San Luis Obispo Little Theatre would be relocated to the site, fronting Monterey
Street adjacent to the parking structure. The Little Theatre would entail a three-story structure with
a gross floor area of 23,841 square feet. The basement level would house a rehearsal area,
workshop, and storage. The main level would be comprised of a main theater with 155 seats and a
smaller theater with 100 reconfigurable seats, for a total of 255 seats. The third floor would include
offices and a conference room. The project would include an entry plaza fronting Monterey Street,
and improved landscaping near the sidewalks along Palm Street, Nipomo Street, and Monterey
Street. The maximum height of the theater structure would be 43 feet. Figure 3 shows the
proposed site plan.
The project would involve the removal of the existing 77 space surface parking lot and demolition
or relocation of the existing five residential structures and detached garage. The project would
involve a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land Use Map from Office and
Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change to amend the Zoning Map from
Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to Public Facility
with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning
Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as deviation
to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and
residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. In
addition, the project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum
coverage to exceed 60 percent.
Project alternatives include the following:
Alternative 1: Same as the preferred project described above, except the 5,000 square feet
of commercial space would be reduced to 2,500 square feet of commercial space and four
residential units would be included
Alternative 2: Same as the preferred project described above, except the Little Theatre
would be replaced with 22 two-bedroom residential units
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 79
10 Required Approvals
The following approvals would be required for the project:
Planning Commission Use Permit approval required for multi-level parking structure, non-
profit theater, commercial space, and deviations to otherwise applicable setback requirement
General Plan Amendment to Public Facility
Zone Change to PF-H
Maximum Coverage Variance to exceed 60 percent
Floor to Area Ratio Variance to exceed 1.0
Architectural Review by the Cultural Heritage Committee and the Architectural Review
Commission of the proposed structures and site plan
11 Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The area surrounding the site is urbanized, consisting of various land uses. Adjacent parcels to the
northeast are zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) and have existing residences developed
on-site. Across Palm Street to the northwest is the Mission College Preparatory school athletic field,
which is zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3). Across Nipomo Street to the west is the Reis
Family Mortuary & Crematory, which is zoned Office with a Historic district overlay (O-H);
residences zoned Medium-High Density Residential (R-3); and mixed commercial and residential
suites zoned Downtown Commercial with a Historic District and Planned Development overlay (C-D-
H-PD). Across Monterey Street to the south is the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum, which is
zoned Public Facility with a Historic District overlay (PF-H), and residential units zoned Downtown
Commercial with a Historic district and Special Considerations overlay (C-D-S-H).
12 Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
Regional Water Quality Control Board – National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 80
Figure 3 Site Plan
Source: Watry Design, Inc. 2017
Ni
p
o
m
o
St
Dana St
Monterey St
Palm St
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 81
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least one
impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated” as
indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
■ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and Forest
Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils
□ Greenhouse Gas Emissions ■ Hazards and Hazardous
Materials
□ Hydrology / Water Quality
□ Land Use/ Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise
□ Population / Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
■ Transportation / Traffic □ Utilities / Service
Systems
■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on this initial evaluation:
□ I find that the preferred project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
□ I find that although the preferred project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been
made by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
■ I find that the preferred project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
□ I find that the preferred project MAY have a “potentially significant impact” or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact 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 preferred project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the preferred project, nothing further is
required.
May 1, 2017
Signature Date
Tyler Corey Principal Planner
Printed Name Title
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 82
The following table summarizes the environmental issue areas and work scope items that will be
addressed in the Environmental Impact Report for the project.
Table 1 Issues for Further Analysis in Environmental Impact Report
Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact EIR Work Scope Item
Aesthetics Degradation of the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings
The project would increase the size and scale of
development on the site, which is located in the historic
district. The EIR shall evaluate the potential visual impacts
of the project on the existing visual character and quality of
the site and its surroundings. Recommendations shall be
developed to reduce identified visual impacts. General
design guidelines shall be identified to assist the City in
terms of design features and elements of the project to
assure visual compatibility with the surrounding area.
Create a new source of substantial
light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the
area
The EIR shall evaluate the new sources of light and glare
from car headlights and area lighting. General design
guidelines shall be identified to assist the City in terms of
design and lighting features and elements of the project to
assure that lighting and glare associated with the preferred
project would be compatible with adjacent and
surrounding uses.
Cultural
Resources
Cause a substantial adverse change in
the significance of a historical,
archaeological, or tribal cultural
resource
The EIR shall evaluate potential impacts to historic
structures and cultural resources, as well as impacts to the
historic district. The EIR will analyze impacts to these
resources in further detail and recommend mitigation
measures.
Noise Exposure of persons to or generation
of noise levels in excess of standards;
substantial permanent increases in
ambient noise levels above levels
existing without the project
The project would be surrounded by noise sensitive uses,
and the impact of project operations on ambient noise
levels at sensitive receptors shall be evaluated in the EIR.
Sound level measurements shall be taken on the project
site and the level of significance shall be determined using
the City’s noise level thresholds. In addition, the project
would generate traffic that would contribute to noise levels
in the project area that could exceed City thresholds. The
EIR shall quantify the increase in vehicle noise levels
resulting from project-generated traffic at sensitive
receptors along Palm Street, Nipomo Street and Monterey
Street and determine the level of significance based on the
City’s noise level thresholds. The EIR shall identify any
mitigation necessary to reduce significant noise impacts to
less than significant levels.
Exposure of persons to or generation
of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels; result in a
substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project
The EIR shall quantify the level of construction noise based
on anticipated construction equipment. The level of
construction noise generated by the project shall be
compared to the City’s applicable noise level thresholds to
determine the level of significance. The EIR shall identify
any mitigation necessary to reduce significant temporary
construction noise impacts to the extent feasible.
Transportation/
Traffic
Conflict with an applicable plan,
ordinance or policy establishing a
measure of effectiveness for the
performance of the circulation
system, taking into account all modes
A traffic analysis shall be prepared for the EIR. The traffic
analysis shall contain an evaluation of project impacts on
study area roadway segments and intersections under both
existing + project and cumulative + project conditions, as
well as impacts related to overall vehicle miles traveled
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 83
Issue Area Potentially Significant Impact EIR Work Scope Item
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;
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; conflict with
adopted policies, plans, or programs
regarding public transit, bikeways, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
substantially decrease the
performance or safety of such
facilities
generated by the project. Impacts, including any potential
secondary impacts from required circulation system
improvements, will be described and mitigation measures
shall be identified as necessary.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 84
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista □ □ ■ □
b. Substantial damage to scenic resources,
including but not limited to trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings along a
state scenic highway □ □ ■ □
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings ■ □ □ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime or
nighttime views in the area ■ □ □ □
Setting
San Luis Obispo is located on predominantly undulating topography, with low hillsides rising from
drainages and creeks. The overall landform of the City and its surroundings is generally defined by the
convergence of the Chorro and the Los Osos Valleys. A series of low, visually distinct mountain peaks,
such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis, separate the two valleys and provide a scenic focal point for
much of the City. The Cuesta Ridge and Santa Lucia Mountains border the Chorro Valley to the north and
east, while the Irish Hills border the Los Osos Valley to the southwest. The Santa Lucia Mountains and
Irish Hills are the visual limits of this region and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City.
The visual boundaries to the south and southeast are distant and are defined by low hills rising up from
valleys. Development in the region occurs predominantly at the lesser elevations and on the low hills.
The project site is located in the northwestern portion of the downtown planning area. The visual
environment surrounding the site is urbanized, consisting of various land uses. These uses include,
residential units, commercial and mixed-use development, the Mission College Preparatory school
athletic field, and the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum. The project site and adjacent parcels to the
east, west, and south are located within the City’s Historic Overlay. The site currently contains urban
development including a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units (three
single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments). The
site is not located within a City General Plan designated scenic vista or along a designated scenic
highway; however the site is located near U.S. Highway 101, which is eligible for scenic highway
designation.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 85
Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
The site is not located in a City General Plan designated scenic vista. Neither the preferred project nor
Alternatives 1 or 2 would have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than
significant.
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings in a state scenic highway?
The nearest highway is U.S. Highway 101, designated as an Eligible State Scenic Highway by the California
Department of Transportation. Due to the height of the parking structure and theater, the project may
be visible from Highway 101; however, this segment has not been designated as a state scenic highway;
thus, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would damage scenic views. Therefore,
impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its
surroundings?
The project site is located in the City’s Downtown Planning area, adjacent to the Downtown Core (City of
San Luis Obispo 2014). It is also located in a Historical Overlay district. The site currently contains urban
development including a City-owned surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five residential units
(three single-family residences and one secondary unit adjacent to Palm Street that has two apartments).
The preferred project and alternatives would involve the removal of the existing parking lot, detached
garage, and residential structures, and the construction of a five-story parking structure, commercial
space, and theater or residential units. Therefore, while the project and project alternatives would be
visually compatible with the existing urban environment of the site and the surrounding area, they would
increase the size and scale of development and change the uses on the project site. The project would
require a General Plan amendment/Zone Change to Public/Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H).
It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the Planning Commission to allow the multi-level
parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as deviation to otherwise applicable setback
requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and residential uses would be allowed as accessory
uses of the parking and theater facilities. In addition, the project would require variances for the floor to
area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to exceed 60 percent. The increase in size and scale of
development on the project site and the sensitivity of the project site within the Downtown Historic
District could result in potential impacts to the visual character of the site. The change to the site’s visual
character is a potentially significant impact and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day
or nighttime views in the area?
The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would introduce new lighting from car headlights and for
parking and pedestrian ways and lighting for the commercial space, theater, and/or residential units.
Such lighting could create new sources of light or glare. While the project site is located in an urban area
where substantial nighttime lighting currently exists, the increased height of the proposed structure and
the proximity to residential uses could result in light spillover and additional glare that could result in
significant environmental effects. Therefore, the change to the site’s lighting is a potentially significant
impact and will be analyzed further in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 86
2 Agriculture and Forest Resources
In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead
agencies may refer to the California Agricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model (1997)
prepared by the California Dept. of Conservation as an optional model to use in assessing impacts on
agriculture and farmland. In determining whether impacts to forest resources, including timberland, are
significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to information compiled by the California
Department of Forestry and Fire Protection regarding the state’s inventory of forest land. This includes
the Forest and Range Assessment Project and the Forest Legacy Assessment Project, along with the
forest carbon measurement methodology provided in Forest Protocols adopted by the California Air
Resources Board.
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for or cause
rezoning of forest land (as defined in Public
Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g)) □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or conversion
of forest land to non-forest use □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use □ □ □ ■
Setting
The San Luis Obispo Area Plan (County of San Luis Obispo 2014) designates the Agriculture land use
category as areas that have existing or potential agricultural production capability. A large portion of the
greater San Luis Obispo area is designated for agriculture, which almost entirely surrounds the urbanized
area within City limits. Because the project site is located within City limits, the San Luis Obispo Area Plan
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 87
does not provide designations for the project site. The project site is not located on an existing or
potential agricultural production area as provided for in the City’s zoning code (San Luis Obispo Land Use
Element 2014).
Discussion
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program
of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code Section 4526),
or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or
nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot and residential structures. The project
site does not contain any agricultural resources, land identified for potential agricultural production,
lands designated as or zoned for agricultural use, or lands under a Williamson Act contract. Furthermore,
no timberland land exists on the project site. Therefore, no impact to agricultural resources or forest
land would occur as a result of the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or 2.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 88
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of
the applicable air quality plan □ □ □ ■
b. Violate any air quality standard or contribute
substantially to an existing or projected air
quality violation □ ■ □ □
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
thresholds for ozone precursors) □ ■ □ □
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations □ ■ □ □
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City of San Luis Obispo falls within the jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
District (SLOAPCD) and is located within the South Central Coast Air Basin. SLOAPCD monitors air
pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met, to develop
strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or exceeded, the air
basin is classified as being in “attainment” or as “non-attainment.” SLOAPCD is in non-attainment for the
24-hour state standard for particulate matter (PM10) and the eight hour state standard for ozone (O3)
(SLOAPCD 2015).
The major sources of PM10 in the SCCAB are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust
produced by high winds. Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust; mineral
extraction and production; combustion products from industry and motor vehicles; smoke from open
burning; paved and unpaved roads; condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid or solid particles; and
wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction, agricultural operations, off-road
vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is not produced directly by a
source, but rather is formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOx) and reactive organic gases
(ROGs) in the presence of sunlight. Reductions in ozone concentrations are dependent on reducing the
amount of these precursors. In the SCCAB, the major sources of ROGs are motor vehicles, organic
solvents, the petroleum industry, and pesticides. The major sources of NOx are motor vehicles, public
utility power generation, and fuel combustion by various industrial sources (SLOAPCD 2015).
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 89
Construction Emissions Thresholds
The SLOAPCD has developed specific daily and quarterly numeric thresholds that apply to projects within
the SCCAB. Daily thresholds are for projects that would be completed in less than one quarter (90 days).
The SLOAPCD’s quarterly construction thresholds are applicable to the project because construction
would last for more than one quarter. Thresholds are based on guidance in the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air
Quality Handbook (2012). These include:
ROG and NOX Emissions
Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available Control
Technology (BACT) for construction equipment. If implementation of the Standard Mitigation
and BACT measures cannot bring the project below the threshold, off-site mitigation may be
necessary; and
Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
6.3 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of
a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), and off-site mitigation.
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM) Emissions
Quarterly – Tier 1: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
0.13 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT for construction
equipment; and
Quarterly – Tier 2: For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
0.32 ton per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of
a CAMP, and off-site mitigation.
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust Emissions
Quarterly: Exceedance of the 2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Fugitive PM10 Mitigation
Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP.
Operational Emissions Thresholds
SLOAPCD‘s long-term operational emission thresholds are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds
Pollutant Daily Threshold Annual Threshold
ROG + NOX (combined)1 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 1.25 lbs/day ---
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust 25 lbs/day 25 tons/year
CO 550 lbs/day ---
Source: SLOAPCD 2012
1 SLOAPCD specifies that CalEEMod winter emission outputs be compared to operational thresholds for these pollutants.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 90
Discussion
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
According to the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012), project-level environmental reviews that
may require consistency analysis with the Clean Air Plan and Smart/Strategic Growth Principles adopted
by lead agencies include: subdivisions, large residential developments and large commercial/industrial
developments. Neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 is a subdivision or large residential
project, and would not be considered a large commercial or industrial development according to the
screening criteria set forth in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook. Therefore, neither the preferred
project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 has the potential to be inconsistent with the Clean Air Plan or
Smart/Strategic Growth Principles.
In addition, the project is considered infill development located within an existing urban area, which are
land use strategies supported by the SLOAPCD Clean Air Plan (2001) policies, including:
Cities and unincorporated communities should be developed at higher densities that reduce
trips and travel distances and encourage the use of alternative forms of transportation
Urban growth should occur within the urban reserve lines of cities and unincorporated
communities (Clean Air Plan L-1 Planning Compact Communities)
The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no impact with respect to a conflict with or
obstruction to implementation of the applicable air quality plan.
b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c. Would the project 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 thresholds for ozone precursors)?
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
As of September 2011, SLOAPCD recommends the use of the most recent version of California Emissions
Estimator Model (CalEEMod) (version 2016.3.1) to calculate construction and operational emissions of a
project. The CalEEMod results for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 can be found in
Appendix A. The emissions model for the preferred project was based on build out of the proposed 445
parking space structure, 255 seat theater, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Alternative 1 was
based on build out of the proposed 445 parking space structure, 255 seat theater, 2,500 square feet of
commercial space, and four residential units. Alternative 2 was based on build out of the 445 parking
space structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 22 two bedroom residential units. Trip rates
for the commercial space, parking structure, and Little Theatre were obtained from the Traffic Study
prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (2017). Default trip rates for the residential units
were obtained from CalEEMod. The emissions model for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2
assumes a maximum area of disturbance of 1.4 acres (the total size of the project site). In addition, it
assumes a net 5,700 cubic yards of soil would be exported from the site.
Construction Impacts
Construction activities would generate fugitive dust particles, ozone precursors, and diesel exhaust that
could result in an increase in criteria pollutants and could also contribute to the existing San Luis Obispo
County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Sensitive receptors near the project site include
adjacent residences to the south and east, the Mission College Preparatory School athletic field to the
north, residences across Nipomo Street to the west, and residences and the San Luis Obispo Children’s
Museum to the south. Table 3 summarizes the estimated project emissions generated from construction
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 91
activities. Maximum quarterly emissions are shown in Table 3 (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod
results), and compared to the applicable SLOAPCD construction emissions thresholds Table 3 also shows
estimated construction emissions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2 to the project.
Table 3 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Quarterly Construction Emissions
ROG and NOX
(combined)1
Fugitive PM10
(dust) DPM2
Preferred Project Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter
Alternative 1 Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter
Alternative 2 Construction Emissions 0.94 tons/quarter 0.03 tons/quarter 0.07 tons/quarter
SLOAPCD Significance Threshold 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 0.13 tons/quarter (Tier
1)
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
1. The combined ROG and NOX emissions were derived from the rolling maximum quarterly emissions for “ROG + NOX” from
CalEEMod.
2. The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by
SLOAPCD. This estimation represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM. See
Appendix A for CalEEMod software program output.
Quarterly emissions for Fugitive PM10 and DPM were calculated by dividing maximum annual construction emissions from
CalEEMod by 4, since construction activities would extend for a duration exceeding 90 days, as recommended by SLOAPCD.
As shown in Table 3, the preferred project would not exceed SLOAPCD quarterly construction emissions
for ROG and NOX, PM10, or DPM. Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in similar construction emissions to
the preferred project, and would not exceed applicable SLOAPCD quarterly construction emissions
thresholds.
In accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures are
required because sensitive receptors (Mission College Preparatory Academy, existing residential units
and San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum) are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and because
the SCCAB is in non-attainment for PM10. Accordingly, Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be
required to reduce fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions from the
preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. Construction impacts would be potentially significant unless
mitigation is incorporated.
Operational Impacts
The project and alternatives would result in an increase in vehicle trips that would generate new criteria
pollutant emissions. In addition, operation of the project and alternatives would result in ongoing
emissions associated with natural gas use and area sources, such as landscaping, consumption of
consumer products, and off gassing from architectural coatings.
Table 4 shows the daily and annual operational emissions associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod results and assumptions), compared to the
applicable SLOAPCD operational emissions thresholds. Operational emissions from the preferred project
and Alternatives 1 and 2 would not exceed the applicable SLOAPCD operational emissions thresholds.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 92
Table 4 Palm Nipomo Parking Structure Operational Emissions Comparison
ROG and NOX
(combined)
Fugitive PM10
(dust) DPM1 CO
Preferred Project Daily Emissions 6.2 lbs/day 2.0 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 11.1 lbs/day
Alternative 1 Daily Emissions 6.2 lbs/day 1.9 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 11.1 lbs/day
Alternative 2 Daily Emissions 3.4 lbs/day 1.2 lbs/day 0.1 lbs/day 7.2 lbs/day
SLOAPCD Daily Threshold 25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
Preferred Project Annual Emissions 0.8 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.3 tons/year
Alternative 1 Annual Emissions 0.8 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.4 tons/year
Alternative 2 Annual Emissions 0.6 tons/year 0.2 tons/year 0.1 tons/year 1.6 tons/year
SLOAPCD Annual Threshold 25 tons/year 25 tons/year n/a n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No No n/a n/a
1 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by
SLOAPCD. This estimation represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM. CalEEMod –
use winter operational emission data to compare to operational thresholds.
As shown in Table 4, area source and operational emissions associated with the preferred project and
Alternative 1 and 2 would not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, CO, PM10, or DPM. Therefore,
neither the preferred project nor the alternatives exceed applicable SLOAPCD operational air quality
standards or contribute to an existing air quality violation. Operational emissions associated with the
preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
Sensitive Receptors
While the estimated construction emissions associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and
2 would be below the SLOAPCD thresholds and would not introduce new hazardous air pollutants to the
area, in accordance with the standards of the SLOPACD CEQA Handbook, standard mitigation measures
are required because sensitive receptors (Mission College Preparatory Academy, existing residential
units and San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum) are located within 1,000 feet of the project site and
because the South Central Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM10. Accordingly, Mitigation
Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 would be required for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to reduce
fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate matter emissions. Therefore, impacts to sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity would be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce construction emissions associated with the
preferred project or Alternative 1 or 2 and to reduce impacts to sensitive receptors.
AQ -1 Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the
following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance
with SLOAPCD requirements.
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in
sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site.
Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 93
exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water shall be used whenever
possible;
All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
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;
Exposed ground areas 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;
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 SLOAPCD;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at the construction site;
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;
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be
used where feasible;
All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading
and building plans; and
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 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust
offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to
the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition.
AQ-2(a) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following
standard air quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during
construction activities at the project site:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to
manufacturer’s specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB
certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for sue off-
road);
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines
or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State
Off-Road Regulation;
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 94
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner
certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply
with the State On-Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines
in their fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two
measures (e.g. captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by
proving alternative compliance;
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5
minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job
sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment,
where feasible; and
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible,
such as compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or
biodiesel.
AQ-2(b) Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. The
following BACT for diesel-fueled construction equipment shall be implemented
during construction activities at the project site, where feasible:
Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road
and 2010 on-road compliant engines where feasible;
Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies, such as
level 2 diesel particulate filters. These strategies are listed at:
www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-2(c) Architectural Coating. To reduce ROG and NOX levels during the architectural
coating phase, low or no VOC-emission paint shall be used with levels of 50 g/L
or less.
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook (2012) identifies typical land uses that have the potential to result in
increases in odorous emissions and provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses in close
proximity to these uses. None of the uses proposed under the preferred project or alternatives, including
a parking garage, commercial, theater, or residential uses, are listed as uses project that typically create
objectionable odors. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor the alternatives would create
objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people. No impact related to objectionable odors
from the project or Alternatives 1 or 2 would result.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 95
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
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 □ □ □ ■
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 □ □ □ ■
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on federally
protected wetlands as defined by 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 □ □ □ ■
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 □ ■ □ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances
protecting biological resources, such as a tree
preservation policy or ordinance □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ □ ■
Setting
This region of San Luis Obispo County falls within the Outer South Coast Ranges geographic subdivision
of California. The Outer South Coast Ranges subdivision contains an array of vegetation community types
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 96
that range from southern oak forest, blue-oak/foothill-pine woodland and chaparral to grasslands and
agricultural/urbanized areas. The Outer South Coast Ranges subdivision is part of the larger South Coast
Ranges geographic sub-region, which is a component of the even larger Central Western California
physiographic area. The section of the state that is designated as CW occurs within the cismontane side
of California, which is more generally referred to as the California Floristic Province (CA-FP – Hickman
1993).
The federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 United States Code Section 703-711) protects all migratory
birds, their nests and eggs against take, possession, or destruction. The MBTA was enacted in 1918 and is
enforced by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Abiding by the MBTA requires that active nests be
avoided.
Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service?
The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five
residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife
or sensitive plant or animal species (City of San Luis Obispo 2006; California Natural Diversity Database
2016). Thus, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate,
sensitive, or special status in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 would have no impact.
b. Would the project 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?
The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five
residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not contain 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. There would be no impact to
any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community from the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or
2.
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by
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?
The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five
residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not contain federally protected wetlands
as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and therefore would not have a substantial adverse
effect on such resources. There would be no impact to federally protected wetlands.
d. Would the project 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?
The project site is currently developed with a surface parking lot, one detached garage, and five
residences, and is surrounded by urban land uses. The site does not provide suitable habitat for wildlife
and the surrounding urban uses would act as barriers to wildlife movement. It is not located in any
wildlife corridors or potential wildlife corridors identified within the City’s General Plan Conservation and
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 97
Open Space Element (City of San Luis Obispo 2006). However, trees on the site may support nesting birds
protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. The removal of trees and general construction activity
may affect protected nesting birds. Therefore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 is required for the preferred
project and Alternatives 1 and 2 to protect nesting birds. Impacts to migratory bird species would be
potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure, and compliance with Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California
Department of Fish and Wildlife requirements, would be required for the preferred project or Alternative
1 or 2 to reduce impacts to nesting birds to a less than significant level.
BIO-1 Nesting Bird Protection. To avoid disturbance of nesting and special-status birds,
activities related to the project, including, but not limited to, vegetation removal,
ground disturbance, and construction and demolition shall occur outside of the bird
breeding season (typically February through August in the project region). If
construction must begin within the breeding season, then a pre-construction nesting
bird survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to initiation of ground
disturbance and vegetation removal activities. The nesting bird pre-construction survey
shall be conducted within the Project Boundary, including a 300-foot buffer (500-foot
for raptors), on foot, and within inaccessible areas (i.e., private lands) afar using
binoculars to the extent practical. The survey shall be conducted by a biologist familiar
with the identification of avian species known to occur in the area. If nests are found,
an avoidance buffer (which is dependent upon the species, the proposed work activity,
and existing disturbances associated with land uses outside of the site) shall be
determined and demarcated by the biologist with bright orange construction fencing,
flagging, construction lathe, or other means to mark the boundary. All construction
personnel shall be notified as to the existence of the buffer zone and to avoid entering
the buffer zone during the nesting season. No ground disturbing activities shall occur
within this buffer until the avian biologist has confirmed that breeding/nesting is
completed and the young have fledged the nest. Encroachment into the buffer shall
occur only at the discretion of the qualified biologist.
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such
as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The Conservation and Open Space Element has a policy that pertains to significant trees. Section 7.5.1
states that significant trees that are making substantial contributions to the natural habitat or urban
landscape based on their species, size or rarity, shall be protected. The project site currently includes a
large oak tree. This tree has the potential to be recognized as a “significant tree” by the City Council Tree
Committee because it may potentially be recognized as a native tree and/or because of its size, historical
significance, etc. as determined by the City Council’s Tree Committee. Current project design includes
the preservation of the identified oak tree on the southeastern edge of the site as well as existing trees
on the southern corner where Nipomo Street and Monterey Street converge. If any existing trees on the
site were to be identified as a ‘significant tree,’ and the project were to determine the tree would need
to be destroyed, removal of the tree would be subject to criteria and mitigation requirements set forth in
the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, Section 8.6.3. With existing city ordinances and
preservation of the large oak tree on site, the conflicts with local policies or ordinances would be less
than significant for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 98
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
The project site does not occur within an area covered by an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional or state Habitat Conservation Plan
(California Department of Fish and Game 2016). The project site does not occur within the designated
Greenbelt Zone for the City. No impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 99
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as defined
in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource as
defined in §15064.5 ■ □ □ □
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
d. Disturb any human remains, including those
interred outside of dedicated cemeteries ■ □ □ □
e. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a tribal cultural resource as
defined in Public Resources Code §21074 ■ □ □ □
Applied Earthworks prepared a Cultural Resources Study in 2011. The 2011 investigation included a
records search, archival and historical research, field survey of the property, predictive modeling of
archaeological resources, evaluation of any potentially significant historic structures on the property, and
assessment of potential impacts to the surrounding Downtown Historic District. This section is based on
the information and findings of this report.
Setting
According to the City’s Historic Preservation Program Guidelines (2010), archaeological evidence
demonstrates that Native American groups (including Chumash) have inhabited the Central Coast since
as early as 10,000 B.C. 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 earliest evidence of
human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast.
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. Late in the 19th Century, San Luis Obispo became a stop on the Southern Pacific
Railroad, closing the gap between Los Angeles and San Francisco. The railroad brought industry to the
region and accelerated the growth of the community. Cultural and historic resources from each period
still shape the setting of San Luis Obispo today.
The project site is located within the Historic Overlay in the downtown region of San Luis Obispo. It is
also recognized as a Cultural Facilities Area (Land Use Element 2014).
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 100
Discussion
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5?
The project site is currently developed with a paved parking lot, five residences, and a detached garage.
The Cultural Resource Survey determined that residences at 633 and 633 ½ are not located within the
Downtown Historic Preservation District nor are the structures considered historic or eligible to be
designated as historic. However, the Cultural Resources Inventory determined that the two residences,
located at 610 and 614 Monterey Street, are contributors to the Downtown Historic District and provide
essential continuity along a historic streetscape. The current project design includes the removal or
demolition of these two historically contributing residences. In addition, the detached garage on the 610
Monterey Street property would be demolished as part of the preferred project and alternatives, which
is a contributing element to the historic district. Impacts to these historic resources are potentially
significant, and will be further analyzed in an EIR.
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in §15064.5?
c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique
geologic feature
d. Would the project disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal
cemeteries?
According to the 2011 Cultural Resources Inventory Report, subsurface archaeological deposits exist
throughout the city, including areas adjacent to the project site. Archaeological features in the general
area, and overall site integrity is anticipated to be good. Three archeological sites have been identified
previously within or immediately adjacent to the current project area. In addition, archaeological
investigations for a project approximately 1/8 mile east of the project site found significant Native
American deposits present along a long stretch of Palm Street on the side opposite the mission; it is
unclear whether that deposit extends into the current project area. The project site is currently
developed with a surface parking lot and residential structures. According to the 2011 Cultural Resources
Inventory Report, however, because only six structures and the surface lot have ever existed on the
project site, it is quite likely that any subsurface cultural remains are intact. Therefore, ground disturbing
construction activities have the potential to encounter or disturb undiscovered archaeological resources
or human remains. If encountered, such resources could be damaged or destroyed. Adherence to
Section 7050.5(b) of the California Health and Safety Code would protect any previously unidentified
buried human remains. In addition, the procedures outlined in CEQA Section 15064.5 (d) and (e) would
need to be followed if the remains are determined to be Native American. Impacts to such resources
from implementation of the project would be potentially significant, and will be analyzed in the EIR.
e. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource
as defined in Public Resources Code 21074?
The project site is located within an established urban area and is currently developed. Tribal cultural
resources can include sites, features, places, cultural landscapes, sacred places and objects with cultural
value to a California Native American tribe. Though no known tribal cultural resources have been
identified on the project site as described by Public Resources Code Section 21074.a(1), the project may
cause substantial adverse change to historic residences along Monterey Street pursuant to Section
21084.1, thus impacts to a tribal cultural resource are potentially significant, and will be further
analyzed in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 101
6 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Expose people or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects, including the risk
of loss, injury, or death involving: □ □ ■ □
1. 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 □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure, including
liquefaction □ □ ■ □
4. Landslides □ □ ■ □
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss
of topsoil □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is
made unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on or offsite landslide,
lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction,
or collapse □ ■ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined in
Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code,
creating substantial risks to life or property □ ■ □ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater □ □ □ ■
A Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment (Geotechnical Report) was prepared for
the project site by Earth Systems Pacific in 2011 (Appendix B). The purpose of this study was to assess
the major geotechnical issues that could potentially affect the project by providing information regarding
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 102
general site characteristics and identification of geotechnical characteristics that could represent a
conflict to development.
Setting
San Luis Obispo is located within the Coast Range Geomorphic Province, which extends along the
coastline from central California to Oregon. This region is characterized by extensive folding, faulting, and
fracturing of variable intensity. In general, the folds and faults of this province comprise the pronounced
northwest trending ridge-valley system of the central and northern coast of California. There are no
known fault lines on the site or in the immediate vicinity.
The Los Osos, Hosgri, and San Andreas faults are considered to be the most significant regionally active
faults that could affect the project site during its anticipated lifespan. The closest active fault to the site is
the Los Osos Fault which lies approximately 2.5 miles southwest. At this distance, there is only a very low
potential for ground rupture to occur on site due to nearby active faults (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). The
City is in Seismic Zone 4, a seismically active region of California and strong ground shaking should be
expected during the life of proposed structures. Structures must be designed in compliance with seismic
design criteria established in the Uniform Building Code and City Codes.
The site is relatively flat with no significant slopes on or immediately adjacent to the site. The site is not
subject to geological hazards including landslides and slope instability (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Based
on the Geotechnical Report, the site is generally suitable for development. The soils consist of alluvial
sediments overlying bedrock, with a potential for expansion. The soils are comprised of laterally
discontinuous zones of sandy clay, clay, and clayey gravel extending to depths of 25 to 40 feet below the
surface. The consistency of the clay soils is medium to very hard. The alluvium is underlain by weak to
moderately strong shale bedrock of the Franciscan Formation. The subsurface clayey soils contain
interbedded layers of sand.
Discussion
a.1. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving 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?
a.2. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
Although no faults have been mapped across the project site, seismic events caused by active and
potentially active faults in the region could result in seismic ground shaking on-site. The City, along with
all of Southern California and the Central Coast, is within Seismic Zone 4 and subject to seismic ground
shaking from faults in the region. A seismic hazard cannot be completely avoided in these regions.
However, effects can be minimized by implementing requirements specified in the California Building
Code (incorporates the Uniform Building Code) and the California Division of Mines and Geology
Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117 (revised
2008), which includes design and construction requirements related to fire safety, life safety, and
structural safety. Compliance with existing building standards would ensure impacts associated with the
preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 remain less than significant.
a.3. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
The Geotechnical Report prepared for the project site determined that the potential for liquefaction on-
site is very low to none, due to the density of the clay and granular soils, as well as the discontinuous
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 103
nature of the potentially liquefiable layers (Earth Systems Pacific 2011). Therefore, impacts associated
with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
a.4. Would the project expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including
the risk of loss, injury, or death involving landslides?
According to the City’s General Plan Safety Element (2012), the project site is not located in an area that
would be subject to high or moderate potential for landslides. Furthermore, the Geotechnical Report
found the potential for landslides or slope instability on-site to be very low (Earth Systems Pacific 2011).
Therefore, impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than
significant.
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The soils on the project site are classified as Los Osos-Diablo complex soils, with 5-9 percent slopes. This
soil type is considered well drained and has a low to moderate susceptibility to erosion (Natural
Resources Conservation Service 2012). The project site gently slopes toward the northwest and
subsurface water was encountered at depths ranging from 23 to 34 feet (Earth Systems Pacific 2011).
Both temporary construction impacts and long-term operational impacts are discussed below.
Construction Impacts
The project would require a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Storm
Water Discharges associated with construction activities because the project would involve clearing,
grading, and disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil
disturbances of one or more acres of total land area. Under the conditions of the permit, the City would
be required to eliminate or reduce non-storm water discharges to waters of the nation, develop and
implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for project construction activities, and
perform inspections of the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure
conformance with the SWPPP. Compliance with the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
permit would ensure that construction-related erosion impacts associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
The soil type on-site (Los Osos-Diablo complex soils) is considered well drained (Natural Resources
Conservation Service 2012). Because the majority of the existing project site is currently covered in
impervious surfaces, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would mimic current drainage
patterns. The runoff generated by the proposed parking structure would be collected by a storm drain
system and would not result in new on-site erosion issues. No off-site water currently drains onto the
site, and there are no existing storm drain facilities on-site. Given the gently sloping topography, the
drainage characteristics of on-site soils, and presence of impervious surfaces, neither the preferred
project nor the alternatives would result in substantial soil erosion or loss of topsoil. Impacts associated
with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code, creating substantial risks to life or property?
According to the Geotechnical Report, expansion index testing on a composite of two soil samples
yielded a value of 87. A value of 87 indicates that soils anticipated at proposed excavation depths are
moderate to highly expansive. Expansive soils tend to swell with seasonal increases in soil moisture and
shrink during the dry season, as soil moisture decreases. The Geotechnical Report determined that the
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 104
existing fill located on-site would not be a suitable foundation for the proposed development. In
addition, the Geotechnical Report also determined that soils on-site have the potential for total and
differential settlement. Therefore, Mitigation Measure GEO-1(a) would be required to reduce impacts
associated with the preferred project or Alternative 1 or 2 to a less than significant level. These impacts
are therefore potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 to a less than significant level.
GEO-1 Minimization of Expansive Soil Hazards. Once the final maximum loads of the
project have been determined, a design-level geotechnical report shall be
prepared that identifies the most appropriate geotechnical improvements to
on-site soils, the foundation, and parking structure to minimize expansive soil
hazards. Recommendations could include, but are not limited to the following:
Use of imported non-expansive materials combined with pre-moistening
of the soils to provide protection for slabs and flatwork
A layer of non-expansive material 18 to 24 inches thick
Post-tensioned slabs-on-grade
Shoring methods, such as shotcrete-faced soil nail walls, tangent drilled
caissons, whaler-braced retaining walls, and steel I-beam and lagging
walls
Overexcavation and recompaction
Utilization of a deep foundation system, such as caissons, driven piles,
or rammed aggregate piers
A certified soils engineer shall be retained for monitoring during construction of
the project. The certified soils engineer shall also provide any necessary soil
testing during construction, to ensure compliance with the design-level
geotechnical report, and to provide site specific guidance as subsurface
materials are encountered.
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
Neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would require a septic system or any alternative
wastewater disposal system. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 105
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or
regulation adopted to reduce the emissions
of greenhouse gases □ □ ■ □
Setting
Climate change is the observed increase in the average temperature of the earth’s atmosphere and
oceans along with other substantial changes in climate (such as wind patterns, precipitation, and storms)
over an extended period. Climate change is the result of numerous, cumulative sources of greenhouse
gases (GHG) that contribute to the “greenhouse effect,” a natural occurrence that helps regulate the
temperature of the planet. The majority of radiation from the sun hits the earth’s surface and warms it.
The surface in turn radiates heat back towards the atmosphere, known as infrared radiation. Gases and
clouds in the atmosphere trap and prevent some of this heat from escaping into space and re-radiate it
in all directions. This process is essential to support life on Earth because it warms the planet by
approximately 60° Fahrenheit. Emissions from human activities since the beginning of the industrial
revolution (approximately 250 years ago) are adding to the natural greenhouse effect by increasing the
gases in the atmosphere that trap heat and contribute to an average increase in Earth’s temperature.
GHGs occur naturally and from human activities. Human activities that produce GHGs include fossil fuel
burning (coal, oil, and natural gas for heating and electricity, gasoline and diesel for transportation);
methane generated by landfill wastes and raising livestock; deforestation activities; and some
agricultural practices. GHGs produced by human activities include carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4),
nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFC), perfluorocarbons (PFC), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6).
Since 1750, estimated concentrations of CO2, CH4, and N2O in the atmosphere have increased over by 36
percent, 148 percent, and 18 percent respectively, primarily due to human activity. Emissions of GHGs
affect the atmosphere directly by changing its chemical composition. Changes to the land surface
indirectly affect the atmosphere by changing the way in the Earth absorbs gases from the atmosphere.
Potential impacts in California of global warming may include loss of snow pack, sea level rise, more
extreme heat days per year, more high ozone days, more large forest fires, and more drought years
(California Energy Commission 2009).
CEQA Guidelines provide regulatory direction for the analysis and mitigation of GHG emissions appearing
in CEQA documents, while giving lead agencies the discretion to set quantitative or qualitative thresholds
for the assessment and mitigation of GHGs and climate change impacts.
The 1,150 metric tons of CO2e per year (MT CO2e/yr) threshold is based on emission target set out by the
San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control Board. Emissions from projects that exceed the 1,150 MT
CO2e/yr. Bright-Line Threshold could still be found less than cumulatively significant if the project as a
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 106
whole would result in a GHG efficiency of 4.9 MT CO2e per service population per year. If projects as
proposed exceed both thresholds, they would be required to implement mitigation measures to bring
them below the 1,150 MT CO2e/yr. Bright-Line Threshold or within the 4.9 MT CO2e per Service
Population Efficiency Threshold. A project’s GHG emissions could also be found less than significant if
they comply with a qualified GHG reduction strategy.
Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential project
effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98.9 percent of all GHG
emissions by volume (IPCC 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would emit in the largest
quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, CFCs, and SF6, which are primarily associated with
industrial processes, were also considered for the analysis. However, because the project is a
residential/commercial development, the quantity of fluorinated gases would not be significant.
Emissions of all GHGs are converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2
(CO2e). Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change white paper (2008) and included the use of the
California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (2009). GHG emissions associated with the
project were calculated using the most recent version of CalEEMod (version 2016.3.1) (Appendix A).
Construction Emissions
Although construction activity is addressed in this analysis, CAPCOA does not discuss whether any of the
suggested threshold approaches adequately address impacts from temporary construction activity. As
stated in the CEQA and Climate Change white paper, “more study is needed to make this assessment or
to develop separate thresholds for construction activity” (CAPCOA 2008). Nevertheless, air districts such
as the SLOAPCD (2012) have recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over the life of
the project; SLOAPCD suggests the life of a project is typically 50 years for residential projects and 25
years for commercial projects. The project includes commercial uses; therefore, to provide a
conservative estimate of construction emissions, emissions were amortized over the shorter project
lifetime estimate of 25 years.
Construction of the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of operation
of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction workers to and
from the project site. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest amount of emissions
due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. This analysis assumes 5,700 cubic yards of soil
would be exported from the site. CalEEMod provides an estimate of emissions associated with the
construction period, based on parameters such as the duration of construction activity, area of
disturbance, and anticipated construction.
Operational Emissions
CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Emissions from energy use include
emissions from electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are
based on the U.S. EPA’s AP-42 (Compilation of Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and California Climate
Action Registry. Electricity emissions are calculated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity
of the utility district per kilowatt hour (CalEEMod User Guide 2016). The default electricity consumption
values in CalEEMod include the California Energy Commission-sponsored California Commercial End Use
Survey and Residential Appliance Saturation Survey studies.
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and
architectural coating were calculated in CalEEMod and utilize standard emission rates from ARB, U.S.
EPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CalEEMod User Guide 2016).
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 107
Emissions from waste generation were also calculated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods
for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste
(CalEEMod User Guide 2016). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal
solid waste in California was primarily based on data provided by the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage calculated in CalEEMod were based on the default
electricity intensity from the California Energy Commission’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-Related
Energy Use in California using the average values for northern and southern California.
For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site were
quantified using CalEEMod. Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources,
N2O emissions were quantified using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol
(January 2009) direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (Appendix A provides calculations). Rates
for N2O emissions were based on the vehicle fleet mix output generated by CalEEMod and the emission
factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.
Discussion
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant
impact on the environment?
Construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic) would result
in new GHG emissions from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. CalEEMod was used to
calculate emissions resulting from the preferred project (and alternatives) construction and long-term
operation. Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period of time in
relation to the overall life of the project. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were amortized
over a 25-year period to determine the annual construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the
project. Table 5 shows construction emissions for the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2, which
are the same. As shown in Table 5, the construction would result in an annualized average of
approximately 16 MT CO2e/yr. Table 6 shows the preferred project’s total annual GHG emissions,
including operational emissions and annualized construction emissions. In addition, Table 6 shows the
estimated GHG emissions associated with Alternatives 1 and 2.
Table 5 Estimated Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year
Preferred Project and Alternatives 1 and 2
Construction Emissions (MT CO2e/yr)
Total 399
Total Amortized over 25 Years 16
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 108
Table 6 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source Annual Emissions (MT CO2e/yr)
Construction 16
Operational
Area <1
Energy 474
Solid Waste 2
Water 10
Mobile
CO2 and CH4 258
N2O1 14
Preferred Project Total GHG Emissions 774 MT CO2e/yr
Alternative 1 Total GHG Emissions 765 MT CO2e/yr
Alternative 2 Total GHG Emissions 666 MT CO2e/yr
GHG Emissions Threshold 1,150 MT CO2e/yr
Exceeds Threshold? NO
1. N2O output is not calculated by CalEEMod. See NOx from Mobile Worksheet in Appendix A
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.
As shown in Table 6, the project is estimated to produce approximately 774 metric tons of CO2e per year.
The project’s annualized GHG emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD’s GHG emissions threshold of
1,150 MT CO2e. Therefore, the projects impacts would be less than significant. As shown in Table 6,
Alternatives 1 and 2 would result in similar GHG emissions to the project, and similarly would not exceed
the SLOAPCD’s GHG emissions threshold. Impacts would be less than significant.
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan
In 2012, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted its Climate Action Plan for reducing greenhouse gas
emissions. The plan identifies strategies to guide the development and implementation of GHG reduction
measures in the City of San Luis Obispo and quantifies the emissions reductions that result from these
strategies. In addition to addressing strategies to reduce GHG emissions, the Climate Action Plan includes
adaptation measures to improve the City’s ability to address the potential impacts that climate change
may have on the City and its residents. The Climate Action Plan enables the City to maintain local control
of implementing state direction (AB 32 – the California Global Warming Solutions Act) to reduce GHG
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020. GHG reduction strategies align with existing General Plan policies and
Climate Action Plan.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 109
Senate Bill 32
On September 8, 2016, the governor signed Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) into law, which requires the State to
reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. SB 32 is an extension of AB 32. SB 32 extends AB
32, directing ARB to ensure that GHGs are reduced to 40 percent below the 1990 level by 2030. The
other provisions of AB 32 remain unchanged. The project would be in operation before the SB 32
horizon. The California Air Resources Board is currently working to update the Scoping Plan to provide a
framework for achieving the 2030 target. The updated Scoping Plan is expected to be completed and
adopted by the California Air Resources Board in 2016 (California Air Resources Board 2015).
As part of the analysis in checklist question a, the project would not result in new significant impacts
related to greenhouse gas emissions. As the applicable GHG thresholds have been developed by
SLOAPCD, and the project would not exceed the adopted GHG thresholds, the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 would not conflict with applicable policies to reduce GHG emissions. Therefore, this
impact would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 110
8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Create a significant hazard to the public or the
environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials □ □ ■ □
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 □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous
or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or
waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or
proposed school □ □ ■ □
d. Be located on a site that is included on a list of
hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to
Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a
result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment? □ ■ □ □
e. For a project located in 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 □ □ □ ■
f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it
result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area □ □ □ ■
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan □ □ ■ □
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 □ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 111
A hazardous materials assessment for the project site was prepared in April 2011 by Earth Systems
Pacific (Appendix B). Additionally, a constraints-level Environmental Assessment report was conducted in
2005. The information contained in the 2005 study was incorporated by reference into the hazardous
materials assessment conducted in April 2011.
Setting
Under Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), the term “hazardous substance” refers to both
hazardous materials and hazardous wastes. Both of these are classified according to four properties:
toxicity, ignitability, corrosiveness, and reactivity (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article 3). A hazardous
material is defined as a substance or combination of substances that may cause or significantly
contribute to an increase in serious, irreversible, or incapacitating illness, or may pose a substantial
presence or potential hazard to human health or the environment when improperly treated, stored,
transported, disposed of, or otherwise managed. Hazardous wastes are hazardous substances that no
longer have practical use, such as materials that have been discarded, discharged, spilled, or
contaminated or are being stored until they can be disposed of properly (CCR Title 22, Chapter 11, Article
2, Section 66261.10). Soil that is excavated from a site containing hazardous materials is a hazardous
waste if it exceeds specific CCR Title 22 criteria.
Factors that can influence the health effects when human beings are exposed to hazardous materials
include the dose the person is exposed to, the frequency of exposure, the duration of exposure, the
exposure pathway (route by which a chemical enters a person’s body), and the individual’s unique
biological susceptibility.
Federal
Many agencies regulate hazardous substances. These include federal agencies such as the U.S. EPA, the
Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), the Department of Transportation, and the
National Institute of Health. The following are federal laws and guidelines governing hazardous
substances:
Federal Water Pollution Control Act
Clean Air Act
Occupational Safety and Health Act
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act
Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and Liability Act
Guidelines for Carcinogens and Biohazards
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act Title III
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Safe Drinking Water Act
Toxic Substances Control Act
At the federal level, the principal agency regulating the generation, transportation and disposal of
hazardous substances is the U.S. EPA, under the authority of the Resource Conservation and Recovery
Act (RCRA). The U.S. EPA regulates hazardous substance sites under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA). Applicable federal regulations are contained
primarily in Titles 29, 40, and 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
State
The California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) and the Governor’s Office of Emergency
Services establish rules governing the use of hazardous substances. The State Water Resources Control
Board has primary responsibility to protect water quality and supply.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 112
Applicable State laws include the following:
Porter Cologne Water Quality Act
Public Safety/Fire Regulations/Building Codes
Hazardous Substance Control Law
Hazardous Substances Information and Training Act
Hazardous Substances Release Response Plans and Inventory Act
Air Toxics Hot Spots and Emissions Inventory Law
Underground Storage of Hazardous Substances Act
Within CalEPA, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, formerly the Department of Health Services,
has primary regulatory responsibility, with delegation of enforcement to local jurisdictions that enter
into agreements with the state agency, for the generation, transportation and disposal of hazardous
substances under the authority of the Hazardous Waste Control Law. State regulations applicable to
hazardous substances are indexed in Title 26 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR).
Discussion
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project 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?
The preferred project includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1
includes a parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while
Alternative 2 includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Operational
activities associated with the preferred project and alternatives would not require the routine storage or
transport of hazardous substances. Similarly, neither the preferred project nor alternatives would include
any activities that would create a hazard to the public through upset or accident conditions involving the
release of hazardous materials. However, the preferred project and either of the alternatives would
involve the removal or demolition of five residential units and a detached garage that were constructed
between 1927 and 1957. Due to their age, these existing structures may contain asbestos and lead.
Demolition and transport of materials from these structures could result in health hazard impacts to
workers if the structures are not remediated prior to construction activities.
Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in
building construction before being banned by the U.S. 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. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA)
considers asbestos-containing building materials 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.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 113
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 asbestos-containing building material removal methods and
specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personnel. If necessary, the
project sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified asbestos-containing building material
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. 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 regulations
would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials,
substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
The project site is located within 0.25 mile of a sensitive use, the existing Mission College Preparatory
(Mission Prep) School. However, as discussed under Impacts a and b, neither the preferred project nor
Alternatives 1 or 2 includes uses that would 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. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material 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?
Based on the results of a government database records search, the project site is not included on a list of
hazardous material sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. The Cortese database
identified one site located within one-eighth mile from the project site at 748 Pismo Street. This site is
listed as a leaking underground storage tank (LUST) site where cleanup has been completed. Due to the
closed status of hazardous materials case at this site, it would not affect the project site. In addition, the
RWQCB identified one historical LUST site located within one-eighth mile of the project site at 641
Higuera Street. Due to the closed status of hazardous materials case at this site, it would not affect the
project site.
However, according to the hazardous materials assessment in the Geotechnical Report, archived
documents at the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department indicate that the previous use of the site as a
welding/automobile repair shop contained several areas of oil-stained soil, a dry well, and a hydraulic lift
(Earth Systems Pacific 2011). It is unknown whether or not soil sampling was conducted at the time of
removal of these features and there is a potential that these or other undocumented buried features
would be encountered during excavation. Furthermore, soil samples taken (in 2005) at three and four
feet indicate the presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons in quantities that exceed City of San Luis
Obispo Fire Department action levels. The presence of nickel and chromium were also detected,
although the concentrations were below actionable levels. Because the preferred project, Alternative 1,
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 114
and Alternative 2 would require excavation and removal of existing fill based on the geotechnical
analysis, construction activities could result in potential health impacts to workers exposed to on-site
soils. Therefore, Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would be required to reduce impacts associated with the
preferred project, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measure
The following mitigation measure would reduce impacts associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 to a less than significant level.
HAZ-1 Hazardous Materials Soil Sampling and Remediation. Prior to issuance of
grading permits, additional soil samples testing for total petroleum
hydrocarbons shall be performed. A work plan shall be completed to address
the sampling protocols to be followed, as well as the number of samples to be
taken and the chemical analysis required. Upon City of San Luis Obispo
approval, the work plan shall be implemented and the results of the soil
sampling shall be forwarded to the City of San Luis Obispo. The City should
review the data to determine if any additional investigation or remedial
activities are deemed necessary. No work shall resume in that area until the
lead local regulatory agency has provided written authorization that the area
does not warrant any additional action.
If concentrations of contaminants warrant remediation, contaminated
materials shall be remediated either prior to or concurrent with construction.
Remediation shall generally include a management plan which establishes
design and implementation of remediation. Cleanup may include excavation,
disposal, bio-remediation, or any other treatment of conditions subject to
regulatory action. All necessary reports, regulations and permits shall be
followed to achieve cleanup of the site. The contaminated materials shall be
remediated under the supervision of an environmental consultant licensed to
oversee such remediation and under the direction of the lead oversight agency.
The remediation program shall also be approved by the San Luis Obispo Fire
Department. All proper waste handling and disposal procedures shall be
followed. Upon completion of the remediation, the environmental consultant
shall prepare a report summarizing the project, the remediation approach
implemented, and the analytical results after completion of the remediation,
including all waste disposal or treatment manifests.
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?
f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
The project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or in two 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. No impact would result.
g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
The project would involve the removal of the existing parking lot, detached garage, and residential
structures and the construction of a parking structure, commercial space, and theater (and residential
units under Alternatives 1 and 2). Construction of neither the preferred project nor Alternative 1 or 2
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 115
would impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or
emergency evacuation plan. The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required to comply
with San Luis Obispo Fire Department specifications and Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code. Impacts
would be less than significant.
h. Would the project 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?
The project site is surrounded by urban development and no wildlands are in the vicinity of the project
site. According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the project site is not located in an area
considered at risk for wildland fires. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 116
9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Violate any water quality standards or waste
discharge requirements □ □ ■ □
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 or the
local groundwater table level (e.g., the
production rate of pre-existing nearby wells
would drop to a level that would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which
permits have been granted) □ □ ■ □
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 that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including the
course of a stream or river, or substantially
increase the rate or amount of surface runoff
in a manner that would result in flooding on or
offsite □ □ ■ □
e. Create or contribute runoff water that would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned
stormwater drainage systems or provide
substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff □ □ ■ □
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water quality □ □ ■ □
g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area
as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard
Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other
flood hazard delineation map □ □ ■ □
h. Place structures in a 100-year flood hazard
area that would impede or redirect flood
flows □ □ ■ □
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 117
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
i. Expose people or structures to a significant
risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding,
including that occurring as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam □ □ □ ■
j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or
mudflow □ □ □ ■
Setting
Drainage Patterns
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, which drains an area of
approximately 84 square miles, including the City of San Luis Obispo and its surrounding hills, mountains,
and valleys. According to the San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan (WMP), average seasonal
precipitation in the City of San Luis Obispo is approximately 21 inches. Because the City is part of a
coastal watershed, it is subject to wide ranges in precipitation from droughts to heavy storms.
Flooding
Flooding within the San Luis Obispo Creek system is generally caused by intense Pacific storm systems
that occur during the months of December, January, February, and March. The great topographic
variability of the watershed causes these systems to drop large amounts of precipitation, especially along
the higher ridgelines. The Irish Hills, cresting at about 1,650 feet in elevation, can experience twice the
rainfall observed in the lower portions of the watershed. San Luis Obispo Creek can respond very quickly
to short, high intensity rainfall bursts. Floods in San Luis Obispo Creek tend to be of high magnitude and
relatively short duration.
Water Quality
According to the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB, San Luis Obispo Creek is on the 2010
Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired waters for pathogens. Urban stormwater runoff and
agricultural runoff are identified as the primary sources of pathogens to the creek. To address pathogen
levels the Central Coast Water Board adopted a total maximum daily load (TMDL) for pathogens in the
San Luis Obispo Creek, which went into effect July 2005. In 2010, two San Luis Obispo Creek tributaries,
Stenner Creek and Prefumo Creek, were added to the TMDL as impaired waters for pathogens. The
TMDL implementation schedule calls for achieving pathogen levels in San Luis Obispo Creek and its
tributaries by 2015. A Water Quality report created in 2013 stated that TMDL targets for pathogens in
San Luis Obispo Creek are not being met in the urban boundary and downstream of urban boundary. The
City of San Luis Obispo is tasked to evaluate implementation of additional stormwater management
practices to reduce and/or eliminate bacteria discharge associated with the tunnelized portion of San
Luis Obispo Creek, which runs under the city’s business district (Central Coast Regional Water Quality
Control Board, Report Card 2013). The project site is roughly 200 feet from the San Luis Obispo Creek.
Groundwater quality in the San Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin has been reduced in part due to the
degradation of surface waters in San Luis Obispo Creek. Groundwater in the unconfined aquifers within
the basin contains high levels of nitrates, iron, manganese, and organic compounds.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 118
Discussion
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The protection of water quality is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB, and the preferred project would
be required to comply with all state and federal requirements pertaining to the preservation of water
quality. As previously discussed, a National Pollution Discharge Elimination System General Permit for
Storm Water Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required when a site involves clearing,
grading, disturbances to the ground, such as stockpiling, or excavation that results in soil disturbances of
one or more acres of total land area. Coverage under the General Permit must also be obtained prior to
construction and the preferred project is subject to these requirements.
Under the conditions of the permit, the City, as the project applicant, would be required to eliminate or
reduce non-storm water discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project construction activities, and perform inspections of the
storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with the site
SWPPP. The state permit prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water discharges, and
prohibits all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable quantities established
at 40 CFR 117.3 or 40 CFR 302.4. The state permit also specifies that construction activities must meet all
applicable provisions of Sections 30 and 402 of the Clean Water Act. Conformance with Section 402 of
the Clean Water Act would ensure that the preferred project does not violate any water quality
standards or waste discharge requirements.
In addition, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be required to comply with the City’s
and RWQCB’s Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in
the Central Coast Region. To demonstrate compliance, a Stormwater Control Plan is required to be
submitted for the project. Based on compliance with existing regulations, neither the preferred project
nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or
substantially degrade surface or groundwater quality, and potential impacts would be less than
significant.
b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or the local
groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level that
would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)?
The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residences, and a
detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a
parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure,
small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking
structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Because the current use of the site is
developed, the preferred project would not result in additional impervious surface area. The preferred
project would also mimic existing on-site drainage patterns. Therefore, the net change in impervious
surfaces would not increase and existing drainage patterns would remain the same, the preferred project
would not interfere with groundwater recharge.
In addition, the preferred project and alternatives would not interfere with groundwater on-site, due to
the depth of groundwater (Earth Systems Pacific 2011), and only two percent of the City’s water supply
comes from groundwater sources. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would
substantially deplete groundwater supply, and impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 119
c. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including by
altering the course of a stream or river, in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation
on or offsite?
d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including the
alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner that would result in flooding on or offsite?
e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, due to the existing City-owned
parking lot, five residences, and detached garage. In addition, the preferred project and Alternatives 1
and 2 would utilize existing drainage infrastructure. As previously mentioned, no net change in
impervious surfaces would occur and the existing drainage patterns would remain the same. In addition,
neither the preferred project nor alternatives would result in substantial new sources of stormwater
runoff. Stormwater runoff rates would be similar to existing conditions and existing stormwater
infrastructure would be utilized. Impacts to the existing drainage patterns and drain infrastructure
associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Would the project place in a 100-year flood hazard area structures that would impede or redirect
flood flows?
The western edge of the project site is within a 100-year flood zone, as designated on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map ID 06079C1068F. According to the
map, however, the flood elevation is 188 feet, which is two feet below finish floor for the lowest level of
the proposed structure (RRM Design 2017). Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1
and 2 would place housing in a 100-year flood hazard or impede or redirect flood flows. No impact
associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur.
i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving
flooding including that occurs as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is located 10 miles from the Pacific Ocean with elevations ranging between 190 and 203
feet above sea level. The project site is not located in a dam inundation area or Tsunami Inundation
Zone, as designated by San Luis Obispo County. The potential for a tsunami to affect the site is nil (Earth
Systems Pacific 2011). The closest open body of water to the site is Laguna Lake, located approximately
1.63 miles west and separated by Cerro San Luis and associated topography. Given the distance from
Laguna Lake and the terrain that exists between the site and the lake, no seiche impact would occur. No
impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur with respect to
flooding as a result of levee or dam failure, or inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 120
10 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts?
a. Physically divide an established community □ □ □ ■
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 □ □ ■ □
c. Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City has approximately 46,117 residents (California Department of Finance 2016), and covers roughly
13 square miles. Primary land uses include residential development at a low to moderate density,
professional services, government facilities, and general retail. The core of the City constitutes a compact
urban form, including a downtown area and distinct surrounding neighborhoods. The City is surrounded
by a green belt, which defines a separation of urban uses within the City and rural uses outside of the
City.
Regulatory Setting
The project site is located within the jurisdiction of the City of San Luis Obispo. The following regulatory
framework includes policies identified in the City’s General Plan Land Use Element, Circulation Element,
and Conceptual Physical Plan for the City’s Center that apply to the project.
San Luis Obispo City General Plan Land Use Element (2014). The following Land Use Element policies
would apply to the preferred project:
4.10 Parking. The city shall ensure there is a diversity of parking opportunities in the Downtown.
Any major increments in parking supply should take the form of structures, located at the edges
of the commercial core, so people will walk rather than drive between points within the core.
Retail uses outside the core, and professional office developments, may have on-site parking for
customers and clients.
San Luis Obispo City General Plan Circulation Element (2014). The following Circulation Element policies
would apply to the preferred project:
13.2.4 Public Parking Structures. The city shall only approve construction of additional parking
structures after considering the findings and results of a parking supply and demand study.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 121
The Conceptual Plan for the City’s Center (Downtown Plan 2016). This plan calls for the project area to
be developed with cultural facility uses fronting Monterey Street, retail uses fronting Nipomo Street, and
a parking structure use fronting Palm Street. The plan also recommends that vehicle congestion in the
downtown be minimized by locating parking facilities at the core’s periphery along key streets that enter
the City.
Discussion
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The project or alternatives would be located on a developed parcel within an urban setting and would
not divide an established community. No impact associated with the preferred project or alternatives
would occur.
b. Would the project 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?
The Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the City’s General Plan, along with the Zoning
Ordinance, are the primary land use planning guidance documents for the development pattern of the
City. The site’s existing General Plan land use designations are Office and Medium-High Density
Residential. Its zoning designation is Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density
Residential (R-3). The project would involve a General Plan amendment to amend the General Plan Land
Use Map from Office and Medium-High Density Residential to Public and a Zone Change to amend the
Zoning Map from Office with a Historic Overlay (O-H) and Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) to
Public Facility with a Historic Overlay (PF-H). It would also require the approval of a Use Permit by the
Planning Commission to allow the multi-level parking structure and non-profit theater, as well as
deviation to otherwise applicable setback requirements and building height limits. Office, retail, and
residential uses would be allowed as accessory uses of the parking and theater facilities. In addition, the
project would require variances for the floor to area ratio to exceed 1.0 and maximum coverage to
exceed 60 percent. Upon approval of the General Plan amendment/Zone Change, Use Permit, and
variances, General Plan amendment, and Zone Change, the impacts of which are discussed throughout
this document, the project would be consistent with the land use and zoning designations.
The preferred project would be consistent with both Land Use and Circulation Element Policies.
Circulation Element Policy 13.2.4 requires completion of a comprehensive parking study prior to
development of parking structure projects. Such a study was completed for the proposed structure by an
Ad Hoc Parking Review Committee in March 2009; the study determined that a downtown structure will
be required to meet the City’s downtown parking needs within the next 5 to 10 years. As such, the
preferred project and alternatives would be consistent with the City’s general plan. Impacts associated
with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
No habitat conservation or natural community conservation plans that apply to the project site. No
impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would occur.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 122
11 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project have any of the following impacts:
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? □ □ □ ■
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? □ □ □ ■
Setting
According to the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, quarries and mines in the San Luis Obispo
area previously produced basaltic stone, “red rock,” and cinnabar. However, mining is no longer
permitted within the City, pursuant to Section 17.08.070 of the Zoning Regulations.
Discussion
a. Would the project 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?
b. Would the project 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?
The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, four five residential
structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and
buildings with a parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a
parking structure, small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2
includes a parking structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. As such, neither the
preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would result in the loss of a known mineral resource. Moreover,
extraction of mineral resources is not permitted within the City limits. There would be no impact to
mineral resources or due to the preferred project or Alternatives 1 or 2.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 123
12 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
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 ■ □ □ □
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels ■ □ □ □
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient
noise levels above those existing prior to
implementation of the project □ □ ■ □
d. A substantial temporary or periodic increase
in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity
above those existing prior to implementation
of the project ■ □ □ □
e. For a project located in 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 near a private airstrip, would it
expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise □ □ □ ■
Setting
Sensitive receptors near the project site include adjacent residences to the south and east, the Mission
College Preparatory School athletic field to the north, residences across Nipomo Street to the west, and
residences and the San Luis Obispo Children’s Museum to the south.
Regulatory Setting
State of California
The State of California has adopted noise standards in areas of regulation not preempted by the federal
government. State standards regulate noise levels of motor vehicles, freeway noise affecting classrooms,
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 124
sound transmission control, occupational noise control, and airport noise. The state has also developed
land use compatibility guidelines for community noise environments.
The State Office of Noise Control in “Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of the
General Plan,” (November 1988) provided guidance for the acceptability of projects within specific CNEL
contours. It diagrammatically identifies “normally acceptable,” “conditionally acceptable,” “normally
unacceptable,” and “clearly unacceptable” noise levels for various land use types. For the residential
uses, CNEL of up to 60 dBA for low-density residential (65 dBA for multi-family) is normally acceptable. A
noise exposure of up to 70 dBA is considered normally acceptable for schools, churches, and libraries.
City of San Luis Obispo
The noise criteria for the City and the State of California for current and projected conditions state that
the noise intrusive to interior habitable space of residential units from exterior sources should not
exceed 45 decibels (dBA) CNEL. Outdoor living areas are restricted to 60 dB CNEL. Table 7 lists the
maximum noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses due to transportation noise sources.
The Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996) of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan uses modified
land use compatibility standards recommended by the California Department of Health Services. The
City’s maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land uses (specific to transportation noise
sources) are shown in Table 7.
Table 7 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due to Transportation Noise
Sources
Outdoor Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces
Land Use Ldn or CNEL, in dBA Ldn or CNEL, in dBA Leq in DB2 Lmax in dB3
Residences, hotels, motels,
hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 --- 60
Theaters, auditoriums, music
halls --- --- 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office
buildings, mortuaries 60 --- 45 ---
Schools, libraries, museums --- --- 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 --- --- ---
Playgrounds 70 --- --- ---
Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, 1996.
1If the location of the outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the
receiving land use.
2As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use.
3Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.
The City requires that noise generated by new stationary sources be mitigated so as not to exceed the
exposure standards shown in Table 8 for noise-sensitive uses, as measured at the property line of the
receiver. Table 8 for noise-sensitive uses, as measured at the property line of the receiver.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 125
Table 8 Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Land Use Areas Due to Stationary
Noise Sources
Daytime
(7:00 AM to 10:00 PM)
Nighttime
(10:00 PM to 7:00 AM)
Hourly Leq in dB1, 2 50 45
Maximum level in dB1, 2 70 65
Maximum impulsive noise in dB1, 3 65 60
1 As determined at the property line of the receiver. When determining effectiveness of noise mitigation measures, the standards
may be applied on the receptor side of noise barriers or other property-line noise mitigation measures.
2 Sound level measurements shall be made with slow meter response.
3 Sound level measurements shall be made with fast meter response.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, 1996.
The City’s Noise Element lists mitigation strategies in a descending order of preference. If preferred
strategies are not implemented, it is the responsibility of the project applicant to demonstrate through a
detailed noise study that the preferred approaches are either not effective or not practical, before
considering other design criteria described in the General Plan. The City considers the following
mitigation measures appropriate where existing sound levels significantly impact noise-sensitive land
uses, or where cumulative increases in sound levels resulting from new development significantly impact
existing noise-sensitive land uses:
1. Rerouting traffic onto streets that can maintain desired levels of service, consistent with the
Circulation Element, and which do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
2. Rerouting trucks onto streets that do not adjoin noise-sensitive land uses.
3. Constructing noise barriers.
4. Reducing traffic speeds through street or intersection design methods.
5. Retrofitting buildings with noise-reducing features.
6. Establishing financial programs, such as low-cost loans to owners of a noise-impacted
property, or developer fees to fund noise-mitigation or trip-reduction programs.
The following Noise Element policies are applicable to the project and the local noise environment:
Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources. Noise created by new transportation noise
sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not
exceed the levels specified in Table 4.10-3 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-
sensitive land uses which were established before the new transportation noise source.
Policy 1.6. New Development and Stationary Noise Sources. New development of noise-
sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development to
meet the standards of Table 4.10-4, for existing stationary noise sources.
Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control) of the City’s Municipal Code specifies noise standards for various
categories of land use. These limits, shown in Table 9, would apply to long-term operation of the site,
and are not applicable during construction. As shown in Table 10, these noise level standards are not to
be exceeded more than 30 minutes in any one hour and noise levels are prohibited from exceeding the
noise level standard plus 20 dBA for any period of time.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 126
Table 9 Exterior Noise Limits (Levels Not To Be Exceeded More Than Thirty Minutes in Any
Hour)
Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)
R-1 and R-2 C/OS Low Density Residential 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50
R-3 and R-4 High Density Residential 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 55
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 50
Office and Public Facility (O and PF) 7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 60
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 55
Neighborhood, Retail, Community,
Downtown and Tourist Commercial (C-N, C-
R, C-C, C-D, C T)
7:00 a.m. – 10:00 p.m. 65
10:00 p.m. – 7:00 a.m. 60
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Table 10 Maximum Time Periods for Increased Noise Levels
Noise Standard for Existing Land Use Maximum Time Period Allowed
+0 dBA 30 minutes/hour
+5 dBA 15 minutes/hour
+10 dBA 5 minutes/hour
+15 dBA 1 minute/hour
+20 dBA Any time
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 9.12.060
Table 11 and Table 12 show the City’s maximum allowable noise levels for short-term operation of
mobile equipment and long-term operation of stationary equipment at residential properties. Where
technically and economically feasible, the City requires that construction activities that use mobile or
stationary equipment which may result in noise at residential properties be conducted so that maximum
sound levels from mobile equipment at affected properties would not exceed 85 dBA for mixed
residential/commercial land uses (Municipal Code 9.12.050). Except for emergency repair of public
service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the City Community Development Department, the
City prohibits operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or
demolition work daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays or holidays,
such that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line.
Table 11 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation
(Less than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all
day Sunday and legal holidays
60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 127
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Table 12 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term
Operation (Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all
day Sunday and legal holidays
50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code.
Discussion
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?
c. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project?
The project would introduce new commercial and parking uses on the project site. Existing sensitive uses
near the project site and proposed new uses on-site may periodically be subject to noise associated with
operation of the project, including stationary equipment, such as heating, ventilation, and air
conditioning HVAC systems, trash hauling, parking structure noise, and other general activities associated
with commercial and parking activities. However, these on-site sources of operational noise would be
similar to those associated with existing nearby commercial uses. Delivery truck and trash hauling trips to
the site would be an occasional source of noise, and would be similar in noise level and frequency to
existing truck trips associated with other commercial uses located adjacent to the project site. Typical
noise sources associated with parking structures include tire squeal, doors slamming, car alarms and
horns, and engine start-ups. As a result, impacts would be potentially significant, and this issue will be
analyzed in the project EIR.
b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Project construction would potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in
groundborne vibration levels. Groundborne vibration can expose nearby structures to vibration damage
or excessive vibration noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle velocity in
inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) and is referenced as vibration decibels (VdB). The
City of San Luis Obispo considers construction-related vibration significant if construction-related
activities create a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold. The vibration perception
threshold is defined in the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Section 9.12.050) as “The minimum
ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a normal person to be aware of the
vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by touch or visual observation of moving
objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the
range of 1 to 100 Hz.”
In addition, the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment
(2006) guidance is used to determine whether or not groundborne vibration resulting from project-
related construction could cause damage to nearby structures. Damage criteria vary depending on the
type of building adjacent to the vibration source. For example, for a building that is constructed with
reinforced concrete with no plaster, the FTA guidelines state that a continuous vibration level of up to
102 velocity decibels (VdB) (an equivalent to 0.5 in/sec PPV) (FTA May 2006) would not result in any
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 128
construction vibration damage. For older residential structures, the construction vibration damage
criterion is 98 VdB (0.3 in/sec PPV). For non-engineered timber and masonry (“fragile”) buildings, the
construction vibration damage criterion is 88 VdB (0.1 in/sec PPV).
The FTA guidelines indicate that for fragile structures, such as those located immediately adjacent to the
project site, a vibration level in excess of 88 VdB may result in damage. Construction of the proposed
parking structure may require the use of driven piles or other construction techniques that would result
in vibration levels up to 98 VdB at 50 feet from the source. Therefore, due to the project’s proximity to
fragile, historic structures and older residential structures that are sensitive to high levels of
groundborne vibration, project construction may result in vibration levels that could cause structural
damage to fragile historic structures or older residential structures. As a result, impacts associated with
vibration would be potentially significant, and this issue will be analyzed in the project EIR.
d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in
the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
The project would generate temporary noise in the project vicinity during the construction period. The
main sources of noise during construction activities would be the heavy machinery used in grading and
clearing the site. Average noise levels associated with the use of heavy equipment at construction sites
can range from about 76 to 95 dBA at 25 feet from the source, depending upon the types of equipment
in operation at any given time and phase of construction (FTA 2006).
In addition, the project would generate construction-related traffic that would occur over the
construction period and would vary depending on the stage of construction. Vehicles containing
construction materials and equipment would access the site throughout all construction phases.
However, construction vehicles would be routed to avoid residential streets. The project would also
include the demolition or relocation of the five existing homes and detached garage, which would
generate hauling trips to and from the project site. The temporary noise generated by vehicles has the
potential to disturb receptors nearby to the project, and along the routes to and from the project site.
However, as previously noted, truck trips would be routed to avoid residential streets.
Noise-sensitive uses near the project site include residences to the east, residences immediately
adjacent to the project site and across Monterey Street to the south, residential uses across Nipomo
Street to the west, and Mission Prep School to the north of Palm Street. These land uses may experience
a temporary noise annoyance during construction. Based on current site plans for the project,
construction activities may occur within 25 feet or less of the residences to the east of the project site.
The City’s noise standard for short-term construction activities (fewer than ten days) at residential uses is
75 dBA, and the standard for relatively long-term construction activity (10 days or more) at residential
uses is 60 dBA. As a result, existing sensitive receptors could be exposed to construction noise that
exceeds the City’s applicable standards. Therefore, temporary noise during project construction is a
potentially significant impact, and will be analyzed in the project EIR.
e. For a project located in 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?
The project site is not located within the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan or in the
vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore, no impact associated with the preferred project and Alternatives
1 and 2 would result.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 129
13 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
a. Induce substantial population growth in an
area, either directly (e.g., by proposing new
homes and businesses) or indirectly (e.g.,
through extension of roads or other
infrastructure) □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial amounts of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere □ □ ■ □
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere □ □ ■ □
a. Would the project 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)?
The preferred project does not involve development of residential uses and; therefore, would not induce
population growth. However, Alternatives 1 and 2 would include residential units. Alternative 1 would
include four units, while Alternative 2 would include 22 residential units. Assuming approximately 2.2
persons per household, Alternatives 1 and 2 would generate a population of 9 and 49 persons,
respectively. This number of persons would not represent substantial population growth. In addition, this
growth would occur within City limits where it would be served by existing urban services. Moreover, the
residential component of Alternatives 1 or 2 would contribute to the housing stock of the City. Impacts
associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction
of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The preferred project would require the demolition of five residences and therefore displace
approximately 11 persons. There are an estimated 20,951 housing units and 46,117 people within the
City (Department of Finance 2016). While five units and approximately 11 individuals would be displaced,
this does not represent a substantial number of people resulting in the need for replacement housing
elsewhere. In addition, there are other planned and pending housing projects within the City that would
compensate for the loss of housing on the project site. Alternative 1 would include four units, while
Alternative 2 would include 22 residential units, which would offset the loss of the existing housing units.
Impacts related to the displacement of housing or people associated with the preferred project and
Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 130
14 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered governmental facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order
to maintain acceptable service ratios,
response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
1. Fire protection □ □ ■ □
2. Police protection □ □ ■ □
3. Schools □ □ ■ □
4. Parks □ □ ■ □
5. Other public facilities □ □ ■ □
Setting
Fire protection services are provided by the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (SLOFD). The Fire
Administration Department is staffed by four professionals, and the Emergency Response Department
which is staffed by 42 firefighters. Services provided by SLOFD include fire response, emergency medical
response, hazardous materials response, public assistance, and non-emergency services such as fire and
life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, and public education (SLOFD 2016).
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection for the city. The Department
has 86.5 employees including 60 sworn police officers. The department is divided into two Bureaus;
Operations and Administrative Services. The Operations Bureau includes the Patrol Services Division, the
Traffic Safety Unit, Situation Oriented Response Team, and Neighborhood Services. The Administrative
Services Bureau includes the Administrative Services Division, Investigative Division, Communications
Division, and Records Unit (SLOPD 2016).
The San Luis Coastal Unified School District is the agency primarily responsible for providing school
services to the City of San Luis Obispo. The District operates 10 elementary schools, two middle schools,
three high schools, and an adult school.
Discussion
a.1. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 131
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for fire
protection?
Fire protection services for the project would be provided by City Fire Station One, located at 2160 Santa
Barbara Avenue, approximately one mile southeast of the project site. The project includes the removal
of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached garage. Implementation of the preferred
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. The preferred project does not
include residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo. Alternative 1 would
include up to four residential units, and Alternative 2 would include up to 22 residential units. Neither
the preferred project nor the project alternatives would result in substantial new population growth that
would require the construction of new fire protection facilities. Therefore, neither the preferred project
nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would substantially alter the number of housing units or population in the city or
result in the need for new fire protection facilities to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts
from the preferred project, Alternative 1, or Alternative 2 related to the construction of new fire
protection facilities and impacts related to fire protection would be less than significant.
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
police protection?
The project site is within the existing service area of the City of San Luis Obispo Police Department. The
project includes the removal of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached garage.
Implementation of the preferred project would increase the intensity of use of the site and would
marginally increase the demand for police 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 police
protection. The preferred project does not include residential uses and would not increase the
population of San Luis Obispo. Alternative 1 would include up to four residential units, and Alternative 2
would include up to 22 residential units. Neither the preferred project nor the project alternatives would
result in substantial new population growth that would require the construction of new police protection
facilities. Therefore, neither the preferred project nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would substantially alter the
number of housing units or population in the city or result in the need for new police protection facilities
to serve the site. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new police
protection facilities and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant.
a.3. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
schools?
a.4. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in
order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for
parks?
a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of
new or physically altered governmental facilities, or the need for new or physically altered
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 132
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
other public facilities?
The project site is located in the existing service area of the City’s schools, parks, and other public
facilities. The project includes the removal of the existing parking lot, five residential units, and detached
garage. Under the preferred project, the site would be redeveloped with a parking structure, 5,000
square feet of commercial space, and a relocated Little Theatre. The preferred project does not include
residential uses and would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo such that it would necessitate
the construction of new schools, parks, or other public facilities. However, Alternatives 1 and 2 would
include residential units. Alternative 1 would include four units, while Alternative 2 would include 22
residential units. Assuming approximately 2.2 persons per household, Alternatives 1 and 2 would
generate a population of 9 and 49 persons, respectively. These alternatives would not substantially alter
the number of housing units or population in the city and would not directly result in the need for new
park, school, or other government facilities to serve the project; however, the developer would be
required to pay a school impact fee as required by Senate Bill 50 (Government Code Section 65970) and
a parkland in-lieu fee per the Quimby Act to offset potential impacts on school and park facilities,
respectively. Impacts associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than
significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 133
15 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on the
environment □ □ ■ □
Setting
The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department is responsible for managing and
maintaining the City’s eight mini parks, ten neighborhood parks, and eight community parks. Some of the
City’s parks are joint-use sites. A wide variety of recreational activities can be conducted at these
facilities, including baseball, softball, football, tennis, jogging, swimming, skateboarding, and other
passive recreational sports (City of San Luis Obispo 2012).
Discussion
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be
accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
As discussed under Public Services Impact a.4, the preferred project does not include residential uses and
would not increase the population of San Luis Obispo. Therefore, the preferred project would not result
in substantial new population growth that would result in physical deterioration of existing recreational
facilities or require the construction of new recreational facilities. Alternative 1 would include up to four
residential units, and Alternative 2 would include up to 22 residential units, which would generate a
population of 9 and 49 persons, respectively; however, the developer would be required to pay a park
land in-lieu fee to offset potential impacts on park facilities. Impacts to parks and recreational facilities
associated with the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 134
16 Transportation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
a. Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or
policy establishing a measure 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? ■ □ □ □
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? ■ □ □ □
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? □ □ □ ■
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use
(e.g., farm equipment)? □ ■ □ □
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ □ ■
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit, bikeways,
or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
substantially decrease the performance or
safety of such facilities? ■ □ □ □
Setting
The city is accessed primarily by roadways including Highway 101, State Route 1, and State Route 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
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 135
system is characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns
in other parts of the city. According to the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update Program EIR
(2014), the roadways bounding the project site are classified as local roadways. These facilities are two‐
lane streets that provide local access and service. The desired maximum average daily trips for local
roadways is 1,500 for local streets that primarily serve residential development and 5,000, for local
streets that primarily serve non-residential development.
SLO Transit is the City’s fixed‐route bus program, which serves the public within the city limits,
surrounding county areas and the Cal Poly campus. The program operates seven routes throughout the
city on weekdays, five routes after‐hours on weekdays during the school year, six routes on Saturdays and
four routes on Sundays. In addition to the fixed route system, SLO Transit operates the Downtown Trolley,
a shuttle service geared towards visitors that operates Thursdays through Saturdays between the
downtown commercial area and hotels located along Monterey Street. The San Luis Obispo Regional
Transit Authority (RTA) is a joint powers authority operating fixed‐route bus service in San Luis Obispo
County.
Additionally, the incorporated City of San Luis Obispo currently contains:
7.2 miles of Class I Bicycle Paths
29.7 miles of roadway with Class II Bicycle Lanes
24.0 miles of Class III Bicycle Routes
The City maintains sidewalks on almost all City roadways, as well as pedestrian crosswalks throughout
the downtown area. Sidewalks are located immediately adjacent to the project boundary along Palm,
Nipomo and Monterey Streets.
City Level of Service Standards
The City’s Circulation Element (2014) establishes the following multimodal minimum level of service
(LOS) standards:
Bicycle – LOS D (however, bicycle LOS objectives only apply to routes identified in the City’s
adopted Bicycle Transportation Plan; as such, this standard is not applicable to this project)
Pedestrian – LOS C
Transit – Baseline LOS or LOS D, whichever is lower (only applies to routes identified in the City’s
Short Range Transit Plan; as such, this standard is not applicable to this project)
Vehicle – LOS E or for an intersection or roadway segment in the downtown area
In addition, Table 4 of the Circulation Element identifies maximum average daily trip (ADT) standards for
its various roadway classifications. The desired maximum ADT for local roadways is 1,500 for local streets
that primarily serve residential development and 5,000 for local streets that primarily serve non-
residential development.
The Circulation Element (2014) also establishes priorities of each mode, such that construction,
expansion, or alteration for one mode does not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. In
the downtown area, modes are prioritized as follows: 1) pedestrians, 2) bicycles, 3) transit, and 4)
vehicle. Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory
requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density.
In accordance to the criteria specified in the San Luis Obispo Circulation Element and LUCE Program EIR,
a project has a significant impact on the above modes of transportation when it causes an exceedance to
one of these LOS standards. For modes already operating below the established LOS standards, any
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 136
further degradation to the LOS score would also be considered a significant impact under CEQA. Impacts
are considered significant if the project degrades a higher priority mode.
Discussion
a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure 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?
b. Would the project 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?
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bikeways, or pedestrian
facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot with 77 parking spaces,
five residential structures, and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing
parking lot and buildings with an above-ground, five-level parking structure with up to 445 spaces,
theater, and 5,000 square feet of commercial space. Alternative 1 would include the parking structure,
theater, 2,500 square feet of commercial space, and four residential units. Alternative 2 would include
the parking structure, 5,000 square feet of commercial space, and 22 two bedroom residential units.
Table 13 shows the estimated weekday PM peak hour vehicle trips that would be generated by the
preferred project. This increase in trips could potentially degrade multi-modal LOS. Impacts are
potentially significant and will be further studied in an EIR.
Table 13 Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM Peak Hour)
Land Use In Out Weekday Peak PM Hour
Parking Structure1 118 147 265
Commercial Space 2 1 7 8
SLO Little Theatre3 15 15 30
Total 134 169 303
1 Rates derived from counts at 919 Palm parking structure; average of Tuesday and Wednesday. Estimate reflects 368 net new spaces
(445 new minus 77 existing)
2 ITE Trip Generation Manual, Land Use Code 710, General Office Building. Average rate used for Peak Hour trips.
3 Estimated based on information provided by Little Theatre staff.
Source: Central Coast Transportation Consulting (2017)
c. Would the project 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?
The project site is not located in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Plan Area and would not
result in an increase of air traffic levels or a change to air traffic patterns. Therefore, there would be no
impact.
d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
Vehicle Site Access and On-Site Circulation
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 137
Access to the project site would be from Palm Street, with secondary access along Nipomo Street, as
shown on Figure 3. There would be one lane for ingress and one lane for egress at each driveway. The
service rate of vehicles entering and leaving a parking facility is a function of the entrance approach,
driver familiarity, internal circulation, volume of traffic on adjacent streets, and number of pedestrian
conflicts.
The type of parking control affects the number of vehicles that can be served in a given hour at a parking
garage entry. Typical entrance and exit parking control service rates range from 100 to 400 vehicles per
hour, per lane. The project traffic analysis used with an entry service rate of 134 vehicles per hour per
lane (see Table 13). The City of San Luis Obispo uses different exit control devices in its parking structures
for which the service rates can vary. However, on-site queuing at exit gates is less critical since queuing
occurs within the parking structure. The current project site plan shows an entrance that can store up to
two vehicles, which means each service gate can serve up to 110 vehicles per hour per lane before
queuing onto the street in most conditions. Given two service gates and a peak-hour inbound volume of
134 vehicles, the entrance capacity would be adequate. All estimated approaches and departures are
estimated to have a maximum queue of less than 50 feet. With low volumes on Nipomo Street and Dana
Street, the number of potential conflicts with vehicles entering and exiting the proposed parking
structure is expected to be infrequent. Vehicle site access would be adequate and impacts would be less
than significant.
Vehicle-Pedestrian Conflicts
Long curb extensions along the project frontage would prevent architectural elements immediately
adjacent to the driveways from hindering the ability of drivers exiting the parking structure to see
pedestrians walking along the sidewalk adjacent to the parking structure, or vice-versa.
The community outreach identified concerns related to speeding and vehicle-pedestrian conflicts at the
existing offset intersection of Nipomo Street between Dana Street and Monterey Street. The project is
not proposing to modify this intersection; therefore, the project is not expected to create a new
operational condition at this intersection. The City of San Luis Obispo has an adopted Operating Policy
for Pedestrian Crosswalks (January 2000) that establishes guidelines on where pedestrian crosswalks,
pedestrian traffic control warning devices and other miscellaneous pedestrian control devices are
installed on City streets. Compliance with the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code would ensure that impacts
related to vehicle-pedestrian conflicts would be less than significant.
Pedestrian and Bicycle Access
The preferred project is expected to generate some pedestrian and bicycle demand by patrons and
employees using the parking structure, as well as employees at and visitors to the Little Theatre and
commercial space. Alternatives 1 and 2 would also generate some pedestrian and bicycle demand by
residents. Most of the pedestrian destinations would be the existing and planned land uses towards the
downtown core along the north and south sides of Palm Street and east side of Nipomo Street.
Pedestrian access would be provided at each staircase in three of the four corners of the parking
structure, which would provide direct access to the parking structure and adjacent and nearby land uses.
Per City requirements, the project will maintain the existing sidewalks on the north and west sides of the
project frontage. Thus, the existing and proposed pedestrian facilities can reasonably accommodate the
increased demand and the newly constructed pedestrian facilities will not conflict with planned facilities;
therefore, impacts to pedestrian facilities are anticipated to be less than significant.
Bicycle parking would be provided on the southern side of the parking structure near the project
driveway at Nipomo Street in accordance with the bicycle parking space requirements in the San Luis
Obispo Municipal Code (§17.16.060).The existing bicycle facilities can reasonably accommodate the
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 138
increased demand, and implementation of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 will not conflict
with any planned facility; therefore, less than significant bicycle impacts are anticipated.
The project site plan does not identify any modifications or enhancements to existing transit facilities. It
does not conflict with the existing transit system or planned transit system. Based on the project impact
criteria listed above, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 will have a less than significant
impact on transit facilities.
Project Construction
This construction period of the preferred project would result in short-term construction traffic,
construction parking, and modifications to existing pedestrian, bicycle, and transit circulation during the
construction period. The traffic associated with the construction of the project could be a potentially
significant impact. The preparation of a construction management plan, as described in Mitigation
Measure T-1 would reduce construction impacts to less-than-significant levels. Impacts associated with
the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant with mitigation.
T-1 Construction Management Plan. Prior to the issuance of each building permit, the
construction contractor shall meet with the Public Works department to determine
traffic management strategies to reduce, to the maximum extent feasible, traffic
congestion and the effects of parking demand by construction workers during
construction of this project. The construction contractor will develop a construction
management plan for review and approval by the Public Works department. The plan
should include at least the following items and requirements:
A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major
truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour
signs if required, lane closure procedures, sidewalk closure procedures, signs,
cones for drivers, and designated construction access routes.
Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety
personnel regarding when major deliveries, detours, and lane closures will
occur.
Location of construction staging areas for materials, equipment, and vehicles
(must be located on the project site).
Identification of haul routes for movement of construction vehicles that would
minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety;
and provision for monitoring surface streets used for haul routes so that any
damage and debris attributable to the haul trucks can be identified and
corrected by the project applicant.
Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the
site.
Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity.
A process for responding to and tracking complaints pertaining to construction
activity.
Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any
damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected.
It is anticipated that this Construction Traffic Management Plan would be
developed in the context of a larger Construction Management Plan, which
would address other issues such as hours of construction on site, limitations on
noise and dust emissions, and other applicable items.
e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 139
Access to the project site would be from Palm Street, with secondary access along Nipomo Street.
Proposed internal roadways and access points would be sized to accommodate emergency vehicles per
City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department standards and would therefore provide adequate emergency
access. No impact would result.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 140
17 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in any of the following impacts?
a. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements
of the applicable Regional Water Quality
Control Board □ □ ■ □
b. Require or result in the construction of new
water or wastewater treatment facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects □ □ ■ □
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 □ □ ■ □
d. Have sufficient water supplies available to
serve the project from existing entitlements
and resources, or are new or expanded
entitlements needed □ □ ■ □
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 □ □ ■ □
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs □ □ ■ □
g. Comply with federal, state, and local statutes
and regulations related to solid waste □ □ ■ □
Setting
Wastewater
The City’s wastewater collection system and Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) is managed by the
Utilities Department. The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 136 miles of gravity
sewer lines, three miles of force main, and nine sewer lift stations. Wastewater is conveyed to the WRRF,
located on Prado Road near U.S. Highway 101. The WRRF removes larger material, treats the waste
stream to reduce the amount of nutrients and bacteria, separates sludge, and discharges treated effluent
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 141
into San Luis Obispo Creek near Los Osos Valley Road and is distributed as recycled water for irrigation.
The sludge is separated from the wastewater, dried in open ponds at the WRRF, and hauled away for
disposal.
The WRRF treats about 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) during dry weather conditions. The current
treatment capacity of the WRRF during dry weather conditions is 5.1 mgd. Therefore, the WRRF
currently has excess capacity of 0.6 mgd. Average dry weather treatment flows have been stable over
the past several years due to a balance between increased population and improved water conservation.
In 2015, average flows to the WRRF were approximately 3.5 mgd.
Water
The City Utilities Department provides water service throughout the City. The City obtains water from
five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir,
recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility, and a limited amount of groundwater.
The water is treated at the City water treatment plant prior to distribution. Total annual water use in the
City was 5,541 acre feet in 2012. The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Update estimated that
water demand will increase to 7,815 acre feet per year upon build-out. The estimated water supply is
9,980 acre feet, including the City’s primary water supply (7,815 acre feet), reliability reserve (1,214 acre
feet), and secondary water supply (951 acre feet). Based on the City’s Urban Water Management Plan
and 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Final EIR, the City does not anticipate a need for
supplemental water supplies through the year 2035 and build-out of the LUCE. The City’s 2015 Urban
Water Management Plan incorporates mandated water conservation targets in response to the severe
drought conditions. The City’s 2015 interim target gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was 120, and the
actual 2015 GPCD was 92; as noted in the Draft Plan, the City met and surpassed 2015 interim water use
reduction targets.
Stormwater
The City’s stormwater drainage system is a separate system that collects surface runoff and conveys it to
community retention basins, such as parks, local lakes, and creeks. San Luis Obispo Creek is the main
tributary in the City, discharging into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Bay. The City’s stormwater drainage
system currently consists of 59 miles of storm sewer with 2,148 drainage inlets and 490 storm drain
manholes (City of San Luis Obispo 2010).
Solid Waste
The regional waste collection facility is Cold Canyon Landfill, located approximately six miles south of the
City on Highway 227. The San Luis Garbage Company is the sole provider of solid-waste collection
services in the City. The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority estimates that
the daily per capita solid waste disposal rate from all sources in the State of California is approximately 4
to 5 pounds. 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).
Discussion
a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water
Quality Control Board?
b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 142
e. Would the project 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?
The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residential structures,
and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a
parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure,
small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking
structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. The preferred project and alternatives would
result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater, and
storm water facilities. Development of the site would be served by City sewer and water service, which
both have adequate capacity to serve the use (LUCE EIR 2014). Currently, storm water facilities exist 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.
Further, water and wastewater impact fees would be required and are set at a level intended to offset
the potential impacts of new development. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are
issued. Impacts from the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 would be less than significant.
d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
The project site is currently developed with an existing City-owned parking lot, five residential structures,
and a detached garage. The preferred project would replace the existing parking lot and buildings with a
parking structure, a small commercial space, and theater. Alternative 1 includes a parking structure,
small commercial space, four residential units, and theater, while Alternative 2 includes a parking
structure, small commercial space, and 22 residential units. Therefore, Alternative 1 would result in no
net increase in residential units and Alternative 2 would result in a net increase of 17 residential units.
Assuming approximately 2.2 persons per household, Alternatives 2 would generate a net population
approximately 37 persons. Based on a per capita water use of 119 gallons per day, Alternative 2 would
have a water demand of approximately 1.4 acre feet per year. Based on this incremental increase in
water demand, and adequate capacity, impacts would be less than significant.
c. Would the project 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?
The majority of the project site is covered with impervious surfaces, including an existing City-owned
parking lot, five residences, and a detached garage. The net change in impervious surfaces between
existing uses and the proposed parking structure would be minimal, and the existing drainage patterns
would remain the same. Therefore, the preferred project would utilize the existing drainage
infrastructure and no new or expanded facilities would be required. Impacts to storm water drainage
facilities associated with the preferred project and alternatives would be less than significant.
f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Solid waste would be generated during construction and demolition of the existing parking lot and
residential structures. Construction waste would be temporary in nature, and in accordance with AB 341,
would be required to divert 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, which would minimize
potential impacts to the Cold Canyon Landfill. The amount of waste generated from operation of the
project or Alternative 1 and 2 would be minimal. San Luis Garbage Company and Cold Canyon Landfill
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 143
have adequate capacity to serve the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2. Impacts would be less
than significant.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 144
18 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Does the project have the potential to
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self- sustaining
levels, 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? ■ □ □ □
b. Does the project have impacts that are
individually limited, but cumulatively
considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in
connection with the effects of past
projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future
projects)? ■ □ □ □
c. Does the project have environmental
effects which will cause substantial adverse
effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly? ■ □ □ □
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,
cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, 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?
Based upon the analysis throughout this Initial Study, the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2
would not have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species or cause a
fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, eliminate a plant or animal community, or
reduce or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal. However, the project site does
contain resources that may be historically or culturally significant. The impacts on these resources will be
evaluated in the EIR. These effects towards cultural resources are potentially significant.
b. Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable?
(“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)?
With the exception of transportation and noise, which will be evaluated in the EIR, the impacts of the
preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 145
considerable.” Although incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the
preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2, all environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the
preferred 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:, air quality (AQ-1 and 2), biological
resources (BIO-1), geology and soils (GEO-1), and hazards and hazardous materials (HAZ-1). The
cumulative effects of the preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 on noise and traffic are potentially
significant and will be evaluated in the EIR.
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human
beings, either directly or indirectly?
The preferred project and Alternatives 1 and 2 may result in potential adverse impacts to human beings.
Mitigation measures are proposed to reduce impacts related to air quality, geology and soils, and
hazards and hazardous materials. However, impacts to aesthetics, noise, and transportation are
potentially significant. These impacts will be analyzed further in the EIR.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 146
References and Preparers
References
Applied EarthWorks, Inc. Cultural Resources Inventory for the Palm-Nipomo Parking Structure. San Luis
Obispo, California. June 2011.
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA and Climate Change whitepaper.
January 2008. Available at: www.capcoa.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-
Paper.pdf
California Climate Action Registry. January 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Available at:
www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Probabilistic Seismic Hazard
Assessment for the State of California, DMG Open-file Report 96-08. 1996.
California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Guidelines for Evaluating and
Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication 117. Revised 2008.
California Department of Finance. Population and Housing Estimates for Cities, Counties, and the State,
2011-2016. Available at:
www.dof.ca.gov/HTML/DEMOGRAP/ReportsPapers/ReportsPapers.php.
California Department of Fish and Game, 2011. Biogeographic Information and Observation System
Viewer. Accessed October 18, 2016. Available at: http://bios.dfg.ca.gov/.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. California Natural Diversity Database: Commercial Version.
Accessed October 18, 2016.
California Department of Health Services, Office of Noise Control. Guidelines for the Preparation and
Content of Noise Elements of the General Plan. November 1988.
California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance
Manual. June 2004.
California Department of Toxic Substances Control, State of. EnviroStor Database. Accessed October
2016. Available at: www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
California Energy Commission (CEC). California Energy Demand 2010-2020 - Commission Adopted
Forecast and Demand Forecast. Adopted December 2, 2009. Publication # CEC-100-2009-012-
CMF. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-012/index.html
California Water Resources Control Board, State of. GeoTracker Database. Accessed October 2016.
Available at: http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/
Central Coast Transportation Consulting. Draft Estimated Project Vehicle Trip Generation (Weekday PM
Peak Hour). January 2017.
Earth Systems Pacific. Geotechnical, Geologic, and Hazardous Materials Assessment Report Palm and
Nipomo Parking Structure. April 21, 2011.
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 147
Hanson, Carl E., Towers, David A., and Meister, Lance D. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment.
Federal Transit Administration, Office of Planning and Environment. May 2006. Available at:
www.fta.dot.gov/documents/FTA_Noise_and_Vibration_Manual.pdf
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M.Tignor
and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York,
NY, USA
Kleinfelder, Inc. June 8, 2005. Constraints Level Environmental and Geotechnical Assessment Proposed
Palm-Nipomo Garage Site, San Luis Obispo, California.
Morro Group. Cold Canyon Landfill Expansion Draft Environmental Impact Report. January 15, 2009.
Available at:
www.slocounty.ca.gov/planning/environmental/EnvironmentalNotices/Environmental_Impact
_Reports_2009.htm
RRM Design. E-mail correspondence with Jerry Michael. April 4, 2017.
Regional Water Quality Control Board, Central Coast Region 3. Watershed Management Initiative.
January 2002. Available at:
www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County. December
2001. Available at: www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 2012. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence
March 2012. Available at :
www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Thresholds%20and%20
Supporting%20Evidence%204-2-2012.pdf
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2015 Annual Air Quality Report.
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/2015aqrt-FINAL.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Airport Area Specific Plan. Revised September 2014. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
San Luis Obispo, City of. Community Design Guidelines. June 2010. Available at:
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/Community%20Design%20Guidelines/CD
G%20Update%203.8_final.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4144
San Luis Obispo, City of. Fire Department. 2016. Available at: www.slocity.org/fire/about.asp
San Luis Obispo, City of. Historic Preservation Program Guidelines. November 2010.
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Conservation and Open Space. Revised April 4, 2006. Available at:
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter6-COSE.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Circulation. December 2014. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 148
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Housing. 2015. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6639
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Land Use. June 2014. Available at:
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter1-
Land%20Use%20June2010.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Noise. 1996. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643
San Luis Obispo, City of. Waterway Management Plan. 2003. Available at:
www.slocountywater.org/site/Flood%20Control%20and%20Water%20Conservation%20District
%20Zones/ZONE%209/pdf/wmp.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Safety. March 2014. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Water and Wastewater. July 2010. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6649
San Luis Obispo, City of. Land Use and Circulation Element Update Program EIR. September 2014.
Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6719
San Luis Obispo, City of. Municipal Code. October 2016. Available at:
www.codepublishing.com/ca/sanluisobispo/
San Luis Obispo, City of. Parks and Recreation Department. October 2016 Available at:
www.slocity.org/parksandrecreation/index.asp
San Luis Obispo, City of. Police Department. 2016. Available at: www.slocity.org/police/about.asp
San Luis Obispo, City of. Water Resources Report. 2015. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6371
San Luis Obispo, County of. Land Use and Circulation Elements –The Area Plans (Inland).
http://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Assets/PL/Area+Plans/The+Area+Plans+(Inland).pdf
South Coast Air Quality Management District. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide.
Version 2016.3.1. September 2016. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/upgrades/2016.3/01_user-39-s-guide2016-3-1.pdf?sfvrsn=2
Southern California Earthquake Center. Seismic Hazards in California: Probable Earthquakes, 1994-2024.
1995.
United States Department of Agriculture. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Web Soil
Survey. Accessed August 2, 2012. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Critical Habitat Portal. Available online at:
http://criticalhabitat.fws.gov. Last accessed on July 26, 2012.
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this Initial Study under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo. Persons
involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control include the following.
RINCON CONSULTANTS
Richard Daulton, Principal
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 149
Shauna Callery, Senior Environmental Planner
Chris Bersbach, Senior Environmental Planner
Nikolas Kilpelainen, Associate Environmental Planner
Amanda Ross, Associate Environmental Planner
ATTACHMENT 6
PC1 - 150
Meeting Date: May 10, 2017
Item Number: 2 2
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Conceptual review and discussion of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan within the downtown
Historic District.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 989 Chorro St. BY: Manny Guzman, Senior Civil Engineer
Phone Number: 781-7423
E-mail: mguzman@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: OTHR-0172-2017 FROM: Xzandrea Fowler, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation regarding the Mission Plaza Concept Plan and provide
input on all design features. No formal action is requested at this time.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Representative Manny Guzman,
Public Works Department
Zoning Downtown Commercial (C-D-H) zone,
within the Downtown Historic
District
Environmental
Status
Discussion of the conceptual plan and
consideration of items to be included
for further consideration in the
Mission Plaza Master Plan; does not
constitute an action under CEQA.
1.0 SUMMARY
Mission Plaza in downtown San Luis Obispo has a unique and special character that reflects our
community’s culture and history. Since, September 1, 1772, when Father Junipero Serra conducted the
founding mass at Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa, the Mission has become the community’s
geographical, cultural and recreational center.
The area in front of the church, the site of Mission Plaza, has been used for public gatherings of various
sorts, including bull fights, from its earliest days until about 1800. However, as the community and the
street network grew, the land in front of the Mission no longer functioned as a public gathering space.
Instead, Monterey Street and private land holdings made up the area between the Mission and San Luis
Creek. On November 22, 1970, almost 200 years after the founding of the Mission, and 20 years after
local citizens began planning for the rebirth of a downtown gathering place; Mission Plaza was dedicated
to the City.
XF
PC2-1
Since the 1970’s the Mission Plaza has been used for numerous festivals and gatherings. In 2014, the
City funded a project to review the Mission Plaza’s present conditions, current uses, and to explore the
potential expansion of the Mission Plaza into the adjacent Broad and Monterey streets through permanent
or temporary street closures.
Figure 1: Mission Plaza Design Concept
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION/BACKGROUND
The current draft Mission Plaza Concept Plan was developed based on community, business, and City
feedback. During the past sixteen months, the City’s consultant, RRM Design Group (RRM), has
performed a series of tasks to evaluate the Mission Plaza’s uses, existing infrastructure conditions, and
the feasibility of expanding the Mission Plaza into Broad and Monterey Streets. A summary of the
meetings and workshops held to gather feedback includes:
1. Individual interviews of 62 stakeholders
2. Two Mission Plaza Community Workshops (February 20th & June 29th)
3. Three Creative Vision Team meetings (July 12th, & September 1st & January 17th)
4. Joint Study Session between City Council & Planning Commission (October 4th)
5. Parks & Rec Commission Meeting (January 4th)
6. Cultural Heritage Commission Meeting (February 27th)
7. Architectural Review Commission Meeting (March 20th)
PC2-2
Using the information gathered during the stakeholder and community meetings, RRM developed the
conceptual Mission Plaza Plan (Attachment 1). The concept plan includes features that were identified
through the public engagement process as important to the community. Proposed features include new
public restrooms, lighting, directional signage, public art, historic and educational information, enhanced
storm water management features, and improved ADA accessibility and multi-modal opportunities
(modes of transport, walking, cycling, automobile).
The conceptual Mission Plaza Plan also includes design elements such as the two-way “Woonerf
concept” (which is being recommended for the “dogleg” at Broad to Monterey Streets). Woonerf is a
design concept which transforms streets from car-centric space to shared space for vehicles, bicycles and
pedestrians. A visual example is included in the figure below.
Figure 2: Woonerf design concept
In addition, the proposed Plan includes a sculpture garden, a café adjacent to the public restrooms, and
a new central plaza. The proposed central plaza will be replacing the amphitheater.
On January 4th, 2017, the Parks & Rec Committee (PRC) provided feedback on possible design features
and amenities of the plan. The PRC in general supported the plaza layout, and the public arts sculpture
garden. A few committee members did however express some concern about the safety of the Woonerf
design and intermingling of vehicles and pedestrians/bicycle’s on Broad and Monterey (Attachment 6,
PRC Meeting Minutes).
On February 27th, 2017, the Cultural Heritage Committee (CHC) provided feedback on the plan. Many
of the comments were in support of the design and layout, including the replacement of the amphitheater.
A few Committee members did express concerns with the proposed location of the splash pad and
requested educational art pieces throughout the plaza (Attachment 7, CHC Meeting Minutes).
PC2-3
On March 20, 2017, the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) provided feedback, supported the
design and layout. A lot of the comments supported the Woonerf design on Broad and Monterey and
the inclusion of the proposed splash pad. However, a few committee members also expressed their desire
to move the splash pad to a different location (Attachment 8, ARC Meeting Minutes).
3.0 DISCUSSION
The conceptual Mission Plaza Plan design elements and amenities represent stakeholder feedback
reviewed to-date. Since the Joint Study Session on October 4, 2016, the project has been modified to
reflect comments made by the PC and the City Council. The PC should discuss the overall compatibility
of the draft Mission Plaza conceptual plan in its location and in consideration of the feedback provided
by the PRC, CHC and ARC. The PC should consider the following:
PC Discussion Item #1: Does the PC still recommend a Woonerf for Broad and Monterey?
PC Discussion Item #2: Is the proposed splash pad location appropriate? If not, then is there an
alternative location that should be considered and why?
PC Discussion Items #3: Is the Commission in support of replacing the existing amphitheater
with a flat surface plaza?
PC Discussion Items #4: Does the Commission have any significant concerns regarding the
general site layout, plaza design, proposed recreational facilities or use?
Planning Commission input will be conveyed to the City Council for possible inclusion in the final plan.
4.0 NEXT STEPS
Upon review by the Planning Commission, the next step will be to present the Draft Mission Plaza
Concept Plan to the City Council, including a summary of Advisory Body input, for final conceptual
review. Staff anticipates providing the final Mission Plaza Concept Plan for Council in the summer of
2017.
Once the concept plan is reviewed by the City Council, and funding is available, more detailed plans and
project description elements will be included for environmental review and for advisory body evaluation
of the master development plan of Mission Plaza (including PC).
5.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Mission Plaza concept plan
2. Notes from stakeholder’s interviews – February 18 & 19, 2016
3. Notes from Mission Plaza Community Workshop – February 20, 2016
4. Notes from Mission Plaza Community Workshop – June 29, 2016
5. Joint Study Session CC & PC Meeting Minutes – October 4, 2016
6. PRC Meeting Minutes – January 4, 2017
7. CHC Meeting Minutes – February 27, 2017
8. ARC Draft Meeting Minutes – March 20, 2017
PC2-4
L
I
M
I
T
O
F
M
A
S
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
A
R
E
A
Op
t
i
o
n
t
o
p
r
e
s
e
r
v
e
a
n
d
r
e
n
o
v
a
t
e
am
p
h
i
t
h
e
a
t
e
r
(
s
e
e
i
n
s
e
t
b
e
l
o
w
)
MI
S
S
I
O
N
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
d
e
T
O
L
O
S
A
HI
S
T
O
R
Y
CE
N
T
E
R
MU
S
E
U
M
OF
A
R
T
Pr
i
v
a
t
e
R
e
s
i
d
e
n
c
e
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
S
T
MO
N
T
E
R
E
Y
S
T
Lu
n
a
R
e
d
C
H
O
R
R
O
S
T
PA
L
M
S
T
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
S
A
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
C
R
E
E
K
Cr
e
e
k
y
T
i
k
i
SL
O
B
r
e
w
Th
e
N
e
t
w
o
r
k
Mi
s
s
i
o
n
M
a
l
l
Ce
l
a
d
o
n
Fr
o
g
&
P
e
a
c
h
No
v
o
Wa
r
d
e
n
B
u
i
l
d
i
n
g
Hi
s
t
o
r
y
C
e
n
t
e
r
Fu
t
u
r
e
E
x
p
a
n
s
i
o
n
Cr
e
e
k
s
i
d
e
Br
e
w
i
n
g
Co
m
p
a
n
y
W
A
R
D
E
N
B
R
I
D
G
E
MA
I
N
P
L
A
Z
A
CE
N
T
R
A
L
P
L
A
Z
A
SC
U
L
P
T
U
R
E
GA
R
D
E
N
AD
O
B
E
P
A
T
I
O
KE
Y
t
o
F
E
A
T
U
R
E
S
1.
S
c
r
a
m
b
l
e
C
r
o
s
s
i
n
g
2.
E
n
t
r
a
n
c
e
G
a
t
e
w
a
y
3.
P
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
P
l
a
t
f
o
r
m
4.
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
R
e
c
i
r
c
u
l
a
t
i
n
g
W
a
t
e
r
F
e
a
t
u
r
e
(
a
t
-
g
r
a
d
e
)
5.
T
r
e
l
l
i
s
6.
F
l
a
g
-
P
o
l
e
s
7.
5H
F
R
Q
À
J
X
U
H
G
6
W
H
S
V
8.
B
e
a
r
F
o
u
n
t
a
i
n
9.
E
m
e
r
g
e
n
c
y
A
c
c
e
s
s
10
.
%H
Q
F
K
W
\
S
L
F
D
O
11
.
0X
U
U
D
\
$
G
R
E
H
,
Q
W
H
U
S
U
H
W
L
Y
H
&
H
Q
W
H
U
12
.
C
r
e
e
k
O
v
e
r
l
o
o
k
13
.
P
e
d
e
s
t
r
i
a
n
B
r
i
d
g
e
14
.
3L
F
Q
L
F
7
D
E
O
H
W
\
S
L
F
D
O
15
.
L
i
v
i
n
g
H
o
l
i
d
a
y
T
r
e
e
16
.
I
n
t
e
r
a
c
t
i
v
e
A
r
t
N
o
d
e
-
N
a
t
i
v
e
A
n
i
m
a
l
s
17
.
C
a
f
e
18
.
R
e
s
t
r
o
o
m
19
.
M
a
i
n
t
e
n
a
n
c
e
S
t
o
r
a
g
e
20
.
0R
R
Q
7
U
H
H
,
Q
W
H
U
S
U
H
W
L
Y
H
(
[
K
L
E
L
W
21
.
E
l
e
v
a
t
e
d
B
o
a
r
d
w
a
l
k
t
o
C
r
e
e
k
22
.
:R
R
Q
H
U
I
Z
L
W
K
R
S
W
L
R
Q
I
R
U
I
X
O
O
V
W
U
H
H
W
F
O
R
V
X
U
H
23
.
%R
O
O
D
U
G
I
R
U
7
U
D
I
À
F
&
R
Q
W
U
R
O
24
.
L
a
w
n
25
.
B
i
k
e
R
a
c
k
s
26
.
,Q
W
H
U
S
U
H
W
L
Y
H
(
[
K
L
E
L
W
V
27
.
P
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
F
u
t
u
r
e
C
r
e
e
k
-
W
a
l
k
C
o
n
n
e
c
t
i
o
n
Un
d
e
r
n
e
a
t
h
B
r
o
a
d
S
t
r
e
e
t
B
r
i
d
g
e
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
12
12
13
14
15
16
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
22
23
23
24
3
NO
T
E
S
A.
0X
V
H
X
P
R
I
$
U
W
E
X
L
O
G
L
Q
J
V
K
R
Z
Q
U
H
Á
H
F
W
V
W
K
H
DS
S
U
R
Y
H
G
U
H
Q
R
Y
D
W
L
R
Q
H
[
S
D
Q
V
L
R
Q
G
H
V
L
J
Q
B.
+L
V
W
R
U
\
&
H
Q
W
H
U
F
R
P
S
O
H
[
V
K
R
Z
Q
UH
Á
H
F
W
V
D
S
R
W
H
Q
W
L
D
O
I
X
W
X
U
H
H
[
S
D
Q
V
L
R
Q
YL
V
L
R
Q
D
Q
G
Q
R
W
D
Q
D
S
S
U
R
Y
H
G
G
H
V
L
J
Q
C.
V
e
h
i
c
u
l
a
r
a
c
c
e
s
s
a
c
r
o
s
s
W
a
r
d
e
n
%U
L
G
J
H
Z
L
O
O
E
H
S
U
H
V
H
U
Y
H
G
D.
L
i
g
h
t
i
n
g
a
n
d
e
l
e
c
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
e
r
v
i
c
e
(
2
4
0
V
)
w
i
l
l
b
e
XS
J
U
D
G
H
G
D
Q
G
G
L
V
W
U
L
E
X
W
H
G
W
K
U
R
X
J
K
R
X
W
S
O
D
]
D
E.
M
u
r
r
a
y
A
d
o
b
e
w
i
l
l
b
e
r
e
h
a
b
i
l
i
t
a
t
e
d
su
b
j
e
c
t
t
o
f
u
r
t
h
e
r
t
e
c
h
n
i
c
a
l
s
t
u
d
i
e
s
.
14
11
26
27
25
MI
S
S
I
O
N
P
L
A
Z
A
SA
N
L
U
I
S
O
B
I
S
P
O
,
C
A
0’
40
’
20
’
1
0
’
60
’
DE
C
E
M
B
E
R
3
0
,
2
0
1
6
SC
A
L
E
1
”
=
2
0
’
DR
A
F
T
C
O
N
C
E
P
T
P
L
A
N
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
1
P
C
2
-
5
Events Variety of Spaces
Children's Day in the Plaza
Stage could be next to Museum of Art
Stage could be in the Arbor Area
Don't compete with views
Graduation High School; Graduation Middle School; Wedding (mostly Saturday) Funerals during week; Mass;
Quinceaneras
Only a problem with amplified music; need to formalize an agreement between Mission and City for events.
Need to designate a corridor access in front of Mission steps
Could move music west toward Broad would be helpful
2,000 person events in Plaza; Jazz Festival
Cooking only allowed on dog leg
60 events/year
Police will be in area but handled through event coordinator; a bit of control in place; events end by 9:00; not a
lot complaints; events are fenced off
Location of restrooms - need to consider neighbors
Love concerts in the Plaza and movies; concerts in the Plaza need more work
Space to spread out- want to expand toward Broad Street and maybe close off dog leg during events; could
bring back Taste of SLO
Constraints for events - need to understand
Annual graduation for Mission Prep; annual dinner and auction for Mission Prep; Love SLO- community-wide
day of service
Concern with noise; respect Mission sanctuary activities such as mass and weddings
Parking is an issue
Raise rate of space so it is utilized
Concerts and Santa; could be used for Taste of SLO; Via dei Colori chalk painting
Need entrance element at Museums of Art entrance
Greek Festival- 7th year- sharing food, culture, music. Music is part of the festival and there can be conflicts with
church (2 days); Bring in a porta potty
Villa de Colori- chalk; surface needs to be smooth; design that integrates access so we can minimize number
of….
Need a place for banners; power; access to Historic Museum parking lot limits length of area of dogleg
Concerts in the Plaza- More flat surfaces; stairs make it difficult to use; 1,500-2,500 people; Could use a wider
paved area; more open-less chopped; get complaints from residents all the way down Dana street about noise
Jazz festival- S1100 Stage; main entrance near Mission; 11-13 security guards; planter by Mission slopes should
be removed; 1,600-2,000 capacity
Chalk festival- paved, smooth surface
Cleaning- have to vacuum and minimize run off to storm drainage creek
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Attachment 2
PC2-6
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Security- Fri thru Sun
Saturday night- dog leg bollard off but cars run through it; more permanent bollards would be helpful
Circulation/
Dogleg Close Monterey from Plaza to Nipomo Street.
Want the community to decide
Concerned with traffic implications
Like - removable bollards or self retracting
Like- need to close it up to Historic Center Parking
One way could be a phased approach
Open air market
Remain open one way - dominant direction of traffic
Carefully consider impacts to traffic
Opportunity for roundabout at corner of Broad and Monterey near Museum of Art
Maintain 2 ways from Broad to Nipomo
Not a bad idea, too close
Need to have an agreement to clean up any overflow trash
Need to retain access to parking lot by museum
Bus zone
Need free access
Would love to see it permanently closed
Just need fire truck clearance; if closed, then need to close all of dogleg
Don't use bulb-outs like at Broad and Monterey they don't function well
Temporary closure but not permanent; use bollards to be able to attractively closed off
If you closed Monterey to Chorro then would need a round-about over parking lot; could make street and
sidewalk all one elevation - more like walking street
Drug sales behind restroom
Don't close dog leg; major thoroughfare; closing would give transients more area to hang out unobserved
If closed then it would attract homeless; no activity
Need to expand to Broad not up side of Mission
If closed; Broad street good for pedestrians
Add greenery; open to closing of dog leg
Don’t want to lose parking
Traffic- the less traffic the better time
In favor of expansion of Mission Plaza + Cultural District
Confuses tourists
Walkability desired
City staff who clean restroom. Park at dog leg.
Dangerous for pedestrians crosswalk - not respected by cars
Ambivalent on complete closure but need a good reason to do it. Need a traffic survey
Attachment 2
PC2-7
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
See a lot of trucks on Monterey
Who uses it for traffic where are they going?
Could be a phased approach
As a parent, like the closure
Issue is with parking; people who work at the event are not allowed to park or leave car overnight
Have to leave sidewalks open even when street is being used for pedestrians only - would love to see
Would need to be able to unload for events if closed dog leg
Get rid of Broad St/dog leg to create ambiance
Would love to see it permanently closed
Restrooms The more the merrier
Can we integrate into SLO Museum of Art as Phase I?
Need to relocate- not at Termino
Don't like location
Need restrooms
Could we put new restrooms in History Center?
Many people use the restrooms inside the Mission
Needs more storage; get cleaned between 11-3am
Lighting yellow
Not enough
Pay restroom; self cleaning
Need lighting; inadequate size; dark and dreary more open air
May be part of Museum of Art
Had locking bathrooms downtown and it attracted homeless and drug issues
Like Laguna Lake bathrooms
Currently put porta pottys at corner of Mission and dumpster
Veterans Pasadena restrooms are awesome; clean and architecturally appealing
No workable doors; vandal resistant, need to be inviting to public
First question to Chamber- "Where is the Mission" , then where is the restroom? "Bubblegum Alley"?
Close restrooms after bars close
History Center gets restroom overflow because of transient and homeless
Self-sanitizing - charge for restroom
Analyze other spaces
Need major upgrade - clean
Stopped using because not clean or safe
Horrifying
Transient population; uninviting
No soap
Attachment 2
PC2-8
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Amphitheater Underutilized
Need to be bigger
Community movie events - May
Rotary Club built the Amphitheater
Useful
Have not seen much use. Could there be improvements?
Good plan for amplified music to not conflict
Like grass- can lose some of it; movies; booths block
3 times a tear. 75-100 plus bike
Ducky Derby
Never see it get used
Needs a rethinking; slope is too steep; could be bigger; be sensitive to planting too much grass; use drought
tolerant planting
Use for kids in Plaza Event
Should be used by field trips and summer camps
Show movies
Face to downtown instead of neighborhood; raise grade
Only used by transients
Don’t use it; some people sit there and eat
Ramp up for quality for bigger events
Kids climb up art structure
Bring up elevation so it is more useable. Make all grass and raise
Security Get rid of grass to help minimize the homeless
5 Cities Security come through - the security hired by church
Crosswalk at Broad Dog leg not safe
Homeless; thefts; amphitheater not so much loitering of homeless in arbor; bike test patrol; keep fire clearance
through plaza will not walk at night; line of sight issues; shadows; needs lighting; homeless congregate where
there is less visibility
May be discussion of public cameras
More lights on creek would help
Safety an issue
Crosswalk at Broad Dog leg not safe - duplicate?
Raised crosswalk; speed bump might help
Need more police patrol; surveillance and lighting
Feels not safe
Not being enjoyed by residents
Attachment 2
PC2-9
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Adobe Educational component
Could start docent-lead tour
Like coffee shop idea
Concession at Achievement House for food and beverages
Used for Downtown Association and recreation support
It is a waste, underutilized
A lot of visitors in Mission so the Adobe could be used for: visitor center; police substation; café
Gets used for storage at events; hot spot for drugs
Could put a display about Walter Murray
Has exposed brick that needs protection
Concession opportunity
Charge too much for renting it
Used for storage overnight; not used during festival; door to homeless
Arbor Area Underutilized
Heavy trellis; light is not good
Coffee shop; or vendors; outdoor kiosk
Underutilized; bring up to grade; eliminate
Need to create a gathering space all through different times of the day
Dead zone; use for VIP furniture
Used for art vendors
Signage/
Amenities Better Signage
Not an issue per se; small sign at corner of Mission
Need wayfinding signs; history walk signs; interpretive sign on Broad St.
Use balloon for events flyers; need a place to hang banner
Need for place for banner to advertise event and sponsors
Outdoor theatre 500 people
Motion lights might be helpful for portico
More lights and motion lighting
Sitting areas, relaxing areas
Liked the previous design where walkway line of sight terminus was at the History Museum
Need more lighting; lighting in the trees
Lighting would help
Sensor lights
Santa Barbara- constant control has helped
Had lighting but gets behind Warden Building
Lighting is key
Strong LED lighting
Don’t light too much like car dealership; light the trees
Railings need retrofitting for safety
Attachment 2
PC2-10
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Miscellaneous Park and event location
Didn't realize how long the plaza is
Preserve traditions
Vast changes will not go over well with people
Community with Mission
Bridges - Architects Bridges
Art Museum
Trolley- Consider a stop here
Public Art at center of intersection
Standards for Mission should be applied to east side of bridge
Taxi service drop off and pick up areas
Is there ways to formalize the use agreements about uses in the Plaza and Events?
Mission Portico can become a camping space
Wall- people like to climb on it
Food Trucks- policy to allow on Broad Street
Grass- events in plaza has to put down plywood which can be an issue
Creek walk should be part of Mission Plaza and great opportunity
Parking - 18 public spaces
Outdoor pavilion - i.e., Pike Place Market with concessions
Splash pad enclosed so kids can go in - Thousand Oaks
Information Desk- Chamber
Plant rose bushes and cactus
Policy - noise ordinance
Trees- eucalyptus trees - are reaching their lifespan
Grass under eucalyptus trees a problem
Could make entry longer
Electric outlets- get used for cell phones; should get locked and only open for events
Hazardous traffic cueing at intersection of Chorro and Monterey
May be need for flashing crosswalk
Landscape design key to line of sight safety; keep trees trimmed up
Novo pedestrian bridge connection - align with door of History Museum
Art Museum- timing at 3 million need a total of 5 million; 15 months building process; will load on Broad Street
for art museum
Art Museum future design will open up onto Plaza
Would like to see a sculpture garden that connects Art Museum to the Bear Fountain not pop art
Like the Bear Fountain
Take care of existing conditions, i.e., flatness of tile, stairs uneven walkways, transients
Southside of creek needs to be included in planning
Homeless in Plaza and near Monterey
Deliveries on Broad - park and wheel
Attachment 2
PC2-11
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Parking behind Warden Building- 3-4 cars, 7 days a week; 7:00 am- 5:00 pm
They (Downtown Association) let them know when there will be an event
SLO Brew will activate creek/plaza
People congregate
Families moving downtown; need places for kids to play
The more families that are in the plaza the better
Treehouse
Pull Mission theme over creek and into surrounding business and building
Materials - durable
Vegetation in creek - keep access for kids
Homeless and drugs
Southside of creek needs to be included
Area behind Mission Mall - City owns to creek
Bridge- can be slippery
Brooks are in need of repair - dark and moist
Homeless/migrant vagrant- free camping area (16-24 years old)
Lighting would help under bridge
More police
Any nook and corner is abused by homeless
Concern with flow of traffic on Broad St.
Concerned with Monterey, Palm can't support that traffic if dog leg closes
Noise level concerns
Need sidewalk access properly
Easement- City used easement but doesn’t keep up the City's side of the bargain; maintaining landscape
Pedestrian easement does not make sense
City needs to maintain
Need to expand exhibit to show . . .
Put fence up on roof to keep homeless out- homeless camp on roof
Ambient music to drive away camping
Love events in Plaza
La Fiesta- was one of the best community events
New yellow signs
Find location for Holiday Tree
Bridges could be treated as works of art
Bathrooms could include art
Art should be included
Bridges are different to walk on and unwelcoming; incline is different
Utilize for students
Art - "Interactive" artwork
Attachment 2
PC2-12
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
SF market near Jewish museum has interactive chairs- great example of interactive art
Vision- what should this space be?
Park with greenery
Everyone loves eucalyptus trees
Love the wisterias on Mission
Park with events capacity
Welcome and safe - balance aesthetics and lighting
Grassy knoll next to Arbor not easy to work with
Want area near adobe to be family-oriented during concerts
Chorro and Monterey - change of parking at intersection
Strategically located hook-ups near events; water bottle filler
Need to look at both sides of Creek
Get all business along Creek to do a Public/Private partnership
Outlets: need a 220 outlet where events are located; avoid cords across plaza
Need to keep Farmers Market on Higuera
Paving: Want smooth pavement for chalk painting but don’t want this to drive
Don’t want it to be slippery
Could integrate art
Integrate Museum of Art
Place for people to interact for all ages
Place for kids
Seating for lunch
Art in Public Places Master Plan- "Should be reviewed"
Consider no curbs- so people can roll in a piano during events
Space for pop-up entertainment; permitted entertainers
Old Mission School- uses church; for ceremony
Plaza is uneven paving so impacts auction event
Expanding plaza
Paving under trees, will kill trees next to Mission, it will make unstable
Homes on Broad
Palm Street residents are against closure
Interview Linnea Phillips- part of the City when Plaza opened
Historic Center- remove grass
Park as Plaza- Issue as Park designation
Could have big screen to watch World Cup
Parks permit events - maybe revise policies about who maintains it
Millennials need places to go after hours that are not alcohol-oriented
Adverting space - with children and families
Neighbors need to be informed well in advance
Crosswalks - no respect for pedestrians in crosswalks
Attachment 2
PC2-13
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
February 18th, 2016
Stakeholder Meetings - Feedback
Varied pavement and rise in grade
Ashland Oregon - Creek development
Think sewer main has been removed
Don’t plant trees or build structures over utility lines
Steelhead trout in creek so fine sediment and steep slopes need to be revegetated
Shade over creek is good
Invasive species- Tree of Hewn or stink tree or Somark - can push up sidewalk
Ongoing water quality
Opportunity to do nature vegetation education- botanical signage
CA Nature Plant Society, Cal Poly, Cal Conservation Core, Planting Palette, erosion control
Grass is a maintenance issue, grass attracts social issue when not visible, grass is well liked
Eucalyptus - are fine and part of ambiance
There is an add-hock committee for looking at creek vegetation
Power- need more
Parking - 18 public spaces
Vending- need power; extra trash, dumpsters, place for vendors
Attachment 2
PC2-14
IDEAS & AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
Open House/Workshop in Mission Plaza
February 20th, 2016
Comments from Walking Tour Site Map Hand Outs
Restroom Bathrooms
Eliminate Restrooms at Monterey and Broad St.
Get rid of restrooms
Like the current restrooms, they're in a good area and the building compliments the Mission
More public restrooms
Move restrooms to less prominent location- closer to museum. Put in museum parking lot
Newer or better restrooms somewhere else
Put restroom into design of ART center and/or history center. Make ADA compliant. Current restroom
should be turned into a drop off area/ circular drive or an extended seating area for historic adobe
Quasi public- within a open café or such in order to monitor users
Re-do restroom area
Remove and locate new restrooms in expanded history center. Open (Chorro St. entrance) up to street
Restroom major problem. Close and relocate. The area is not supervised after hours. A modern facility
with changing tables for infants
Restroom upgrade, keep central location. Increase capacity and security
Restrooms
Restrooms- needed; there is a design solution (I don’t know what it is). Keep reasonably central
Update restrooms/ clean leave here, but remodel
Signage/
Amenities "…?" tables and places for families and pedestrians
Add more seating options
Add Wi-Fi
Art Installations
Better lighting for drama and highlight trees and mission
Change to drought tolerant landscape
Get rid of the grass!
Improve Lighting
Kids activities
More benches
More benches and seating
More benches and tables (in shade)
More electricity/ Outlets
More people to sit but not transients
More tree lighting- ambiance and safety
Plants- keep lawn as visual rest and cooling
Provide Bicycle parking at Mission Plaza and at Museum
Remove some grass- not all
Walking lights not too bright- soft lighting
Attachment 3
PC2-15
IDEAS & AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
Open House/Workshop in Mission Plaza
February 20th, 2016
Comments from Walking Tour Site Map Hand Outs
Events Better stage
More events when Palm and Monterey are closed
Rise the Lawn(?) for tents and concessions
Stage for Concerts (where arbor is today)
Amphitheater Amphitheater under utilized
Amphitheater: See what Grand Performances has done in DTLA www.grandperformances.org. SLO's
amphitheater is was under used.
Amphitheatre- Enlarge
Downward Amphitheater
Improve amphitheater
Make amphitheater bigger (a few more rows of seats)
Make amphitheater bigger and revised for bigger acts- like plays
Partially enclosed amphitheater- Cooperative effort with SLOLT
Upward rising amphitheater
Wheelchair access to amphitheater and to Arbor
Adobe Adobe - Coffee shop with table and chairs and/or café with Museum of Art
Adobe brick was vital to the SW US indigenous cultures, etc. Olvera Street in DTLA has a section with
recreated displays and actors etc.
Adobe bldg.: turn into a living museum recreating what life was like during the time it was built.
Adobe could be info center for visitors
Adobe- For this building, engage history center to use it for exhibit space- possibly a tea house
Adobe lighting
Adobe needs more activity, not sure what- tourist info center, less grass and less places for transients to
loiter. Good idea have bike police officers; lose the trellis
Adobe- repurpose with History related materials, tourist information center
Adobe- tie to history center
Improve overall lighting
Make adobe a tourist info center
Move Chamber of Commerce
Murray adobe added to history museum
Murray Adobe for history exhibit
Police bicycle office
Provide ADA ramp from the dogleg behind (east of) Murray Adobe
Reduce grass
Remove wall on west side of Adobe, provide lighting, remove grass, provide open access, sign no camping
etc.; city code so has to be enforceable
Reprise Adobe for Homeless outreach. Destroy the Magnolia at Arbor
Volunteers could be docents at Adobe
Attachment 3
PC2-16
IDEAS & AREAS FOR IMPROVEMENT
Mission Plaza Master Plan Project
Open House/Workshop in Mission Plaza
February 20th, 2016
Comments from Walking Tour Site Map Hand Outs
Arbor Area Arbor area is well- used on Fridays
Open up Naman Property (Arbor) for plaza activity uses.
Raise plaza area and open to Vista of Mission
Raise the arbor, add seating
Remove bushes in front of Arbor area. Open up the area
Remove steps (one set) and install a ADA ramp in center
Reuse Arbor to street level
The Arbor- has a potential to be a great space, perhaps a seating area or space for extra seating (for the
amphitheater)
Miscellaneous Align visual entrance with Monterey (Thanks Lief)
Art museum doesn’t feel part of the plaza
Balance water hungry grass with places for people to sit/lie down. Some grass but strategic for use.
Better connection to restaurants and businesses on east side- active elements
Better control of panhandlers
Better flow around Plaza, not just through
Build new design of "Iconic Mission Plaza Elements" Adelaide Stone Walls, "Bear Fountain", Mission
Façade, Eucalyptus Trees
Don’t object to carefully sited tall building but views from plaza to hill very important.
Expand walking path further down Broad and/or Monterey (around SLOMA and History Center
How can we connect the creek walk under Broad St
Keep buildings 1-2 stories. Not 3!
Keep historical feel of mission
Keep trees and green aspects of plaza- not all concrete
Less cars. I love more walking/ biking thoroughfares so we have less reliance on cars downtown, make it
easier to get around on bike/ by foot. Similar to a town such as Burlington, UT. Lots of lights at night.
Mission theme good
More flowers or gardening
Native trees
New trees- spend the money for nature at the beginning
Open up views/paths to creek
Preserve sky and town views from plaza
Respect for the Mission and its primary purpose as a church
Shops/food
Take down wall near historic adobe- Open up for marriage ceremony, memorials, or? With a little elbow
grease that area can be significantly improved.
Visual impact of new museum- removal of trees? Constricts views
Attachment 3
PC2-17
Attachment 4
PC2-18
Attachment 4
PC2-19
Council Minutes
City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo
Tuesday, October 4, 2016
Regular Meeting of the City Council
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis
CouOncil
Heariispo
n Room,
ll was called
located at
990to
order on
Palm Street, San Luys
October 4, 2016 at 4:30 p.m. in theg
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson, Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON CLOSED SESSION ITEMS
Stewart Jenkins spoke regarding the Rental Housing Inspection Ordinance.
End of Public Comment ---
CLOSED SESSION
A. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of
Government Code § 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One.
B. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of
Government Code § 54956.9: No. of potential cases: One.
A point has been reached where, in the opinion of the legislative body of the local agencyon the advice of its legal counsel, based on existing facts and circumstances, there is a
significant exposure to litigation against the local agency. These facts and circumstances
that might result in litigation, the local agency believes are not yet known to a potential
plaintiff or plaintiffs. (Government Code § 54956.9 (e)(1))
Page 1
San Luis Obispo
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-20
San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of October 4 2Ulfi Pae 2
C. CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATORS
Pursuant to Government Code § 54957.6
Agency Negotiators: Monica Irons, Katie Lichtig, Derek Johnson,
Greg Zocher, J. Christine Dietrick, Jon
Ansolabehere, Garret Olson, Rick Bolanos
Represented Employee Organization: International Association of Firefighters
Local 3523
D. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL —EXISTING LITIGATION
Paragraph (1) of subdivision (d) of Govei iment Code § 54956.9; Name of case: San Luis
Obispo Police Officers Association v. City of San Luis Obispo; State of California Public
Employment Relations Hoard Case No. LA -C E -729-M
E. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL — ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to paragraph (4) of subdivision (d) of Section 54956.9:
One case.
RECESSED AT 5:30 P.M. TO REGULAR MEETING OF OCTOBER 4, 2016 TO BEGIN
AT 6:00 P.M.
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-21
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 4, 2016 Pa 7e 3
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the San Luis Obispo City Council was called to order on Tuesday,
October 4, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Mayor Marx.
ROLL, CALL
Council Members
Present: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan Rivoire, Vice Mayor
Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx.
Council Members
Absent: None
City Staff
Present: Katie Lichtig, City Manager; Christine Dietrick, City Attorney; Derek Johnson,
Assistant City Manager; and Carrie Gallagher, City Clerk; were present at Roll
Call.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter led the Pledge of Allegiance.
CITY ATTORNEY REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION
City Attorney Dietrick stated that there was no reportable action for Closed Session Items A
through E.
INTRODUCTIONS
1. SHMA SCOTT - ASSOCIATE PLANNER AND STEVEN SHEATS - CODE
ENFORCEMENT OFFICER
Community Development Director Codron introduced Shawna Scott as a new Associate
Planner and Steven Sheats as a new Code Enforcement Officer.
PRESENTATIONS
2. PRESENTATION BY PETER WILLIAMSON REPRESENTING SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS SLOCOG REGARDING PLEDGE TO
MAKE A SMART COMMUTE CHOICE DURING RIDESHARE WEEK
OCTOBER 3-7 2016
Peter Williamson representing; San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG)
provided a presentation regarding their pledge to make a smart commute choice during
Rideshare Week, October 3-7, 2016.
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-22
San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of October 4 20 10 Pa e 4
3. PROCLAMATION - DENTAL HYGIENE MONTH
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Chantel Arnold, Julie Dodson, Kristina Mankins,
Brittany Soto, Maureen Titus and Melanie Water, declaring October as "National Dental
Hygiene Month."
4. PROCLAMATION - COMMUNITY PLANNING MONTH
Mayor Marx presented a Proclamation to Community Development Director Michael
Codron, declaring October as "Community Planning Month."
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
Dia Hurd, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding a lack of community outreach and noticing of City
Council and Planning Commission agenda items.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo stated that Council regularly ignores Community Design
Guideline recommendations provided to them by the different Advisory Bodies.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo mentioned Ridesliare Week, he noted that electric bikes are
extremely popular and are currently not allo n°cd on City busses; he asked that C minci l reconsider
this restriction.
Camille Small, San Luis Obispo stated her belief that the Architecture Review Commission's
approval of a lighted flashy marquee sign does not fit the downtown area it is intended for.
End of Public Comment ---
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER CHRISTIANSON, CARRIED 5-0, to approve the Consent Calendar Items 5-6.
5. WAIVE READING IN FULL OF ALL RESOLUTIONS AND ORDINANCES
CARRIED 5-0, to waive reading of all resolutions and ordinances as appropriate.
6. JENNIFER STREET SEWER LINE REPLACEMENT PROJECT AWARD
SPECIFICATION NO. 91185
CARRIED 5-0, to:
Award a contract to Specialty Construction, Inc. in the amount of $1,493, 870 for the
Jennifer Street Sewer Line Replacement Project, Specification No. 91185; and
2. Approve a transfer of $756,870 from Sewer Fund working capital to the project account.
RECESSED AT 6:29 PM TO THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING
COMMISSION MEETING.
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-23
San Luis Obis o City Council Minutes of October 4 2016 Pa e 5
JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Marx
ROLL CALL: Council Members John Ashbaugh, Carlyn Christianson, Dan
Rivoire, Vice Mayor Dan Carpenter, and Mayor Jan Marx
Planning Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Daniel Knight, John
Larson, and Chairperson Charles Stevenson
ABSENT: Planning Commissioner Ronald Malak and Vice Chairperson John Fowler
STUDY SESSION
7. DOWNTOWN CONCEPT PLAN UPDATE
Community Development Director Codron and Associate Planner Gershow reviewed the
contents of the report. Loreli Cappel of Michael Baker International, provided the
PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council and Planning Commission inquiries.
Public Comment:
Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo stated his belief that the voice of the people is buried and
that the presentation provided tonight was not easily understood.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo speaking on behalf of Save our Downtown noted findings of
an online survey and at recent workshops.
Anne Wyatt, representing Bike SLO County noted her appreciation of the current plan,
thanked the Council for their work and stated that Bike SLO County members feel " heard"
by the Council.
Eric Meyer, San Luis Obispo County Planning Commissioner speaking as a private citizen
requested careful consideration for future planning for the last 20% of available building
space in the City.
Karen Kile, San Luis Obispo, Executive Director of the San Luis Obispo Museum of Art
sliolce on change coming to the area and asked Council to listen to the voice of the people in
regards to comments provided in recent workshops.
Keith Gurnee, San Luis Obispo noted providing feedback to Council in writing, he stated
liking many aspects of the proposed plan however added that he has many concerns.
Kyle Wiens, San Luis Obispo resident and local business owner speaking on behalf of his
employees noted the need for a parking structure on the North side of town.
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo spoke regarding the need to provide proper noticing to residents
affected by proposed projects; he rejects the idea of channeling traffic.
End of Public Comment---
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-24
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 4 2016 Pa re 6
By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commission received the report and provided
input to staff regarding the working draft of the Downtown Concept Plan and accompanying
mobility diagrams.
Mayor Marx called for a recess at 9:03 p.m.
The City Council and Planning Commission returned to the dais at 9: 18 p.m.
8. MISSION PLAZA A5SESSMENT AND MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT
Senior Civil Engineer Guzman reviewed the contents of the report. City consultant's Debbie
Rudd and Leif McKay with RRM Design provided the PowerPoint presentation and
responded to City Council and Planning Commission inquiries.
Public Comment:
Ken Schwartz, San Luis Obispo stated his confusion of the process used by Council; noted
that he asked that the progress be tied together with landscape in order to breed artistic
efforts; wants an open space free of anything with wheels.
David Brodie, San Luis Obispo spoke on behalf of Save Our Downtown; read a proposal
that was included in the Council agenda packet; voiced the importance of the creek and
asked for Council to not rush into a decision.
Dominic Tartaglia, San Luis Obispo Executive Director of the Downtown District spoke
regarding the significance of the amphitheater and its uses, he feels the Council needs to
consider the implication these plans have on the future of the City.
Keith Gurnee, San Luis Obispo felt the consultants provided a good range of choices for the
public, he noted his involvement in the public input process.
End of Public Comment ---
By consensus, the City Council and Planning Commission received the report and providedinputtostafftoproceedwiththedevelopmentofapreferredplanusing; elements from
Concept Plans A and B and other sources.
MAYOR MARX ADJOURNED THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANING
COMMISSION MEETING AT 10:55 P.M.
RECONVENE AT 10:56 P.M. TO THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
ACTION: MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER ASHBAUGH, SECOND BY COUNCIL
MEMBER RIVOIRE, CARRIED 5-0 by consensus, to continue the meeting past 11:00 p.m.
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-25
San Luis Obispo City Council Minutes of October 4, 2016 Page 7
STUDY SESSION
9. WASTEWATER COLLECTION SYSTEM CAPACITY CONSTRAINTS
Utilities Director Mattingly and Utilities Wastewater Deputy Director Hix provided a
PowerPoint presentation and responded to City Council inquiries.
Public Comment:
Paul Rys, San Luis Obispo believes in preventative maintenance, spoke on clogged sewer
lines.
Todd Katz, San Luis Obispo noted that much clarity is needed regarding this proposal; he
mentioned additional services available to deal with roots intruding into sewer lines and
believes that residents will not obtain permits if required.
End of Public Comments ---
By consensus, the City Council received and filed the Wastewater Collection System
Capacity Constraints Report.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
Written Council Liaison Reports were received from Council Member Christianson and Mayor
Marx.
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 11:17 p.m. The next Regular City Council Meeting is scheduled
for Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
Carrie Gatagher
City Clerk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 12/13/2016
Attachment 5Attachment 5
PC2-26
4 January 2017
Regular Meeting of the Advisory Body Committee Commission
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission was called to order on the 4th day of January,
2017 at 5:31 p.m. in the City Council Chambers located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California,
by Chair Whitener.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Greg Avakian, Susan Olson, Keri Schwab, Douglas Single, Rodney Thurman,
Vice Chair Susan Updegrove and Chair Jeff Whitener
Absent: Commissioner Schwab, Commissioner Single, Vice Chair Updegrove
Staff: Parks and Recreation Director Shelly Stanwyck, Recreation Manager Melissa Mudgett, Senior
Civil Engineer Manny Guzman, Consultant RRM Design Group Leif McKay, Consultant JFR
Consulting John Rickenbach.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None
PRESENTATIONS, INTRODUCTIONS, APPOINTMENTS
None
CONSENT AGENDA AND CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
ACTION: APPROVE THE REGULAR MEETING MINUTES OF DECEMBER 7, 2016 AS
AMENDED, MOTION BY AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN.
1. Consideration of Minutes
CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to approve the minutes of the Parks and Recreation Advisory Body for the
meetings of 12/07/16.
AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE,
PUBLIC HEARINGS AND BUSINESS ITEMS
2. Presentation of the Preferred Mission Plaza Concept Plan
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-27
Senior Civil Engineer, Manny Guzman, and design consultant (Leif McKay of RRM Design
Group) presented to the Commission the preferred conceptual design of the Mission Plaza
Master Plan. Staff Guzman said the Mission Plaza Master Plan was developed based on
community, business, and City feedback which included a year of public review and input
through various community workshops, which was used to develop the preferred design
concept. Mr. McKay shared that RRM Design Group also evaluated the Mission Plaza’s uses,
existing infrastructure conditions, and the feasibility of expanding the Mission Plaza into Broad
and Monterey streets. Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan design as
presented to the Commission balances both the active and passive recreational needs, presents
options for activating the space to improve safety and encourage positive uses, improves
connectivity within, and to, the Mission Plaza, and creates more flexible and functional spaces.
Mr. McKay presented the main features of the preferred design Mission Plaza concept, which
include the following elements:
Main Plaza with a formal entrance
Raised platform for special event staging
Water feature in Main Plaza
ADA accessible pedestrian bridge crossing the creek
Central Plaza with outdoor café and patio
Historic Adobe retrofitted as an interpretive building
Remodel of public restrooms
Amphitheater renovated to improve functionality and accessibility
Sculpture Garden adjacent to the SLO Museum of Art with pathway to accessible
bridge crossing
“Dog-leg” section of Broad Street converted as an extension of the plaza to encourage a
more pedestrian and bicycle friendly street (parking preserved and opportunity for a
new bus stop location)
Mr. McKay added that the Mission Plaza Master Plan preferred concept improves ADA and
Emergency Vehicle accessibility to the Plaza. The project could be phased-in over the next
decade as funding becomes available.
Public Comment
None
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Avakian asked about the size of the stage areas. Mr. McKay responded that it
was similar to a performance platform which would be approximately 18” high; allowing
flexibility for multiple uses. Commissioner Avakian asked if there were historic trees at the
plaza that would need to be removed as a result of this design concept. Mr. McKay responded
that all heritage trees would be preserved and in accordance with City adopted arboriculture
practices. Commissioner Avakian stated he was in support of the multi-functional use of the
Mission Plaza. Commissioner Avakian also asked if plaza elements would be added to deter
skateboarding.
Commissioner Olson was in support of modifying the current amphitheater to a more functional
space. Commissioner Olson asked if the Sculpture Garden would include both temporary and
permanent public artworks. Mr. McKay responded that the Sculpture Garden is still in the
concept stage and would be fully explored at a later date through the City’s Public Art Program.
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-28
Commissioner Thurman stated he was in support of the water feature but recommended
consideration of an alternative location other than the main entrance to the plaza.
Commissioner Thurman asked if there were vehicle barriers proposed for the “Dog-Leg” to
limit the interaction between vehicles and pedestrian/bicycles. Mr. McKay responded that the
design is conducive to vehicles slowing down but would not completely limit vehicle access.
He added that the concept would require further review and study by the City’s Traffic
Engineering program. Commissioner Thurman asked about use of permeable paving materials
in the construction of the plaza to capture stormwater and he encouraged the use of drought
tolerant turf.
Chair Whitener asked about if bicycle racks would be added to the Mission Plaza and if
complete closure of the “Dog-Leg” was considered. Mr. McKay responded that the City is
required to provide street and parking access to the residents located on this “Dog-Leg”. Chair
Whitener read a question aloud from Vice Chair Updegrove regarding the location of the
restrooms in which Mr. McKay responded that the restroom location is conceptual.
The Parks and Recreation Commission is asked to comment on all de sign features and
amenities of the draft Master Plan, including but not limited to the following:
1) Is the Commission in support of the overall Mission Plaza design style
which includes the Woonerf design concept for the “dogleg” (Broad to
Monterey Street), outdoor café, public restroom location and replacement
of the amphitheater with a flat surface plaza?
The Commission was in support of the preferred Mission Plaza design
concept as presented.
2) Does the Commission have any significant concerns regarding the general
site layout, plaza design, proposed recreational facilities or use?
The Commission expressed some concern about the safety of the “Dog-
Leg” with the proposed Woonerf design and intermingling of vehicles and
pedestrian/bicycle traffic but recommend approval with further review and
study by the City’s Traffic Engineering program.
3) What other types of active or passive recreation would the Commission
like to see incorporated on-site?
No additional recreation types were recommended by the Commission.
4) Is the Commission in support of the proposed “sculpture garden?
The Commission was in support of the proposed public art sculpture
garden.
3. Review and Determination of Avila Ranch’s Parks General Plan Policy Conformity;
Review of Parks in Construction Phases One through Three; and Feedback on Parks
Construction Phases Four through Five.
John Rickenbach, JFR Consulting, provided background on the Avila Ranch Development
plan. The applicant team received the Commission’s prior feedback in September and
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-29
November 2015 and have responded with a modified proposal that is consistent with the
General Plan Park and Recreation. The applicant is seeking the Commission’s approval of 18
acres of parks, which include detailed park plans for Parks A through E, and conceptual designs
for Parks F through I.
Stephen Peck, Avila Ranch Project Applicant, said that specific effort was made to incorporate the
Commission’s feedback into a modified design to include many design features and elements that
the Commission had earlier expressed was absent in the original design. He added that the
proposed Community Facilities District would provide dedicated funding through the assessment
of property tax and for the maintenance of the project’s parks, open space trails and facilities
within this development through a restricted fund.
Melanie Mills, Landscape Architect for the project, shared with the Commission park design
features and how the landscape celebrates the existing characteristics of the site. She added that
the park landscape will focus on drought resistant native species, neighborhood turf areas, use of
recycled water, bioretention integration areas that would receive and integrate stormwater, and low
impact development bioretention areas for use of recycled water. Ms. Mills provided a review of
the proposed parks within the Avila Ranch Development phases 1 through 5.
The Commission was asked to provide feedback on the proposed park plans and recommend
the City Council’s approval for the following recommendations:
1. Recommend to the City Council that the project parks proposal is consistent with
the Parks & Recreation Element of the General Plan.
2. Approve detailed park plans for proposed Parks A through E.
3. Review and provide recommendations on conceptual designs for Parks F through I
Public Comment
Jean Hyduchak, Ambassador for National Pickleball Association and SLO Pickleball Club,
spoke about the popularity of pickleball and asked the Commission to recommend that the
applicant consider changing the proposal to add pickleball courts to Neighborhood Park G.
Commission Comments followed.
Commissioner Thurman thanked the project applicant for their thoughtful use of landscape and
bioretention in the modified design. He added that the turf could be removed from Park B and
that trees planted in decomposed granite typically fail to thrive. Commissioner Thurman
expressed concern about the level of water and care needed for an orchard to produce. He added
his support for a separate dog park and recommended permanent concrete seating for the
farmer’s market area. Commission Thurman was also in support of dedicated pickleball courts.
Commissioners Olson and Avakian were in support of the turf area in Park B. Commissioner
Olson was in support of the proposed dog park and asked for separate consideration for larger
and smaller dogs. Commissioner Olson asked if water would be a cost issue for the community
gardens. Director Stanwyck responded that the proposed gardens would most likely use
recycled water. Commissioner Olson was in support of dedicated pickleball courts in Park G.
Commissioner Avakian asked about the density of the R2 development. Applicant Steven Peck
said R2 is low density and is typically 4 to 6 housing units. He added that Park A could be
considered as a potential location to add a basketball half-court. Commissioner Avakian asked
about BBQ areas and Ms. Mills responded that the neighborhood park does include some BBQ
areas. Commissioner Avakian asked if there was a standard size for the community gardens.
Director Stanwyck responded that the typical size is a 10x10 raised garden bed and that
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-30
construction would be responsive to the surrounding housing. Commissioner Avakian was in
support of dedicated pickleball courts for Park G.
Chair Whitener asked if the bioretention areas are calculated into the open space requirement
for park acreage. Director Stanwyck added that the applicant has provided a comprehensive
proposal for parks. Chair Whitener expressed concern about maintenance and safety of the
proposed orchard. Chair Whitener added his support for additional soccer turf fields in Park G.
ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL TO ADOPT THE AVILA RANCH DEVELOPMENT
PROPOSED PARK PLANS FOR PARKS A THROUGH I, AS CONSISTENT WITH
THE PARKS AND RECREATION ELEMENT OF THE GENERAL PLAN, MOTION
BY COMMISSIONER THURMAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN.
.
CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption.
AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE,
4. Review and Recommend to Council Adoption of the Proposed Recreation Agreement
between the City and San Luis Obispo County YMCA
Director Stanwyck provided an overview of the proposed recreation agreement between the
City and the YMCA. The Parks and Recreation Department and the YMCA desire to continue
to collaboratively offer programming together and avoid duplication of programs and efforts by
memorializing their partnership via this proposed agreement. Director Stanwyck noted that for
the past year, staff from both parties have met to develop this recreational partnership
agreement that memorializes the longstanding relationship between the City and the YMCA.
Public Comment
Monica Grant, Chief Executive Officer of the SLO County YMCA, thanked the Commission
and Parks and Recreation staff for their support in seeking creative partnership opportunities
with the City to continue to offer affordable recreational opportunities for the community.
Commission Comments followed.
The Commission thanked Parks and Recreation staff and the YCMA for their joint efforts in
providing affordable and accessible recreational opportunities.
Commissioner Thurman asked for background information about the Ken Hampian hockey
rink.
Commissioner Avakian asked about the fiscal impact of the agreement, how the fees were
calculated and how they will be collected. Staff Mudgett explained the methodology and the
tiered-payment recommendation for the 4-year term of the Agreement.
ACTION: RECOMMEND CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED RECREATION
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
Y.M.C.A. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER AVAKIAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
OLSON.
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-31
CARRIED 4:0:0:3 to recommend Council Adoption.
AYES: AVAKIAN, OLSON, THURMAN, WHITENER
NOES: NONE
ABSTAIN: NONE
ABSENT: SCHWAB, SINGLE, UPDEGROVE,
COMMITTEE COMMUNICATIONS
5. Director’s Report
Director Stanwyck provided a brief update of current Parks and Recreation programming and City
updates:
Community Forum on January 10th at 6:30pm at the Ludwick Community Center. She
added that Advisory Body goals have been forwarded to the City Council and encouraged
Commissioners to attend the Forum.
City Council Goal Setting will be held on January 28th at the Library Community Room.
Sinsheimer Playground project will begin construction after Jan uary 23, 2017 and
completion is anticipated by Summer 2017.
LIAISON REPORTS
6. Subcommittee Liaison Reports
Adult and Senior Programming: Commissioner Single was absent. No report.
Bicycle Advisory Committee: Commissioner Olson said there was no meeting. No report.
City Facilities (Damon Garcia, Golf, Pool & Joint Use Facilities): Commissioner
Avakian reported the planting of nine trees at the Course and field closures due to rain.
Tree Committee: Commissioner Thurman said there was no meeting. No report.
Jack House Committee: Vice Chair Updegrove was absent. No report.
Youth Sports: Commissioner Schwab was absent. No report.
Commission Communications
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 8:17 p.m. to the regular Parks and Recreation Commission scheduled for
01, February, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the City Council Chambers, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California.
APPROVED BY THE PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION: 02/01/2017
DR
A
F
T
Attachment 6
PC2-32
Monday, February 27, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage Committee was called to order on Monday,
February 27, 2017 at 5:30 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street,
San Luis Obispo, California, by Chair Hill.
ROLL CALL
Present: Committee Members Sandy Baer, Craig Kincaid, Shannon Larrabee, James Papp, Leah
Walthert, Vice-Chair Thom Brajkovich, and Chair Jaime Hill
Absent: None
Staff: Senior Planner Brian Leveille and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff
members presented reports or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
--End of Public Comment--
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY VICE CHAIR BRAJKOVICH, SECOND BY COMMITTEE
MEMBER KINCAID, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to approve the minutes of the Cultural
Heritage Committee meeting of January 23, 2017 as amended:
Page 1: Correct Roll Call section to reflect Committee Member Baer’s absence.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Mission Plaza Concept Plan. OTHR-0172-2017: Conceptual review and discussion of
the Mission Plaza Concept Plan within the Downtown Historic District; discussion of this
item is not subject to CEQA; C-D-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Attachment 7
PC2-33
Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group, narrated a PowerPoint presentation providing
background information and an overview of the Mission Plaza Concept Plan.
Senior Planner Leveille provided information on the timeline of the Mission Plaza
Concept Plan and requested Committee feedback.
Ms. Rudd responded to Committee inquiries and requests for clarification.
In response to inquiry by Chair Hill, Manny Guzman stated the conceptual nature of the
Mission Plaza Concept Plan does not currently include design detail, noting that once
funding is obtained, design details will be developed and reviewed.
In response to inquiry by Committee Member Papp, Ms. Rudd clarified the two existing
pedestrian bridges are not accessible to the handicapped and clarified the intent and
accessibility of the proposed new bridge.
In response to Committee Member Kincaid, Senior Civil Engineer estimated the cost of
the project to be near $5 million to be constructed in phases.
Public Comments:
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
Saro Rizzo, suggested incorporation of a simple play area.
--End of Public Comment--
Committee Member Larrabee voiced support for the concept and stated she especially
appreciated the effort put into making the area handicap accessible.
Committee Member Baer stated she enjoys the amphitheater and is unsure of whether
she would like to see it changed but is otherwise pleased with the concept.
Chair Hill stated the current design is not functional for families with small children
and stated she would like to see more turf in southeast portion of the plan and voiced
concern regarding the splash pad at the entrance of the plaza dissuading locals from
doing business in the area.
Committee Papp commented on the reconfiguration of the stage area and provided
historical information on the area, stated he admires the outreach efforts extended to the
community.
Committee Member Brajkovich stated he thought the concept was thorough and
incorporated the feedback from the community. He suggested the plan include a play
area for children and recommended closing off Broad Street to accommodate the
increase in pedestrian traffic.
Attachment 7
PC2-34
2. 116 Chorro Street. HIST 4114-2016: Review of a Historical Preservation Agreement
(Mills Act Contract) for the Master List Historic Michael C. Halpin House, with a
categorical exemption from environmental review; R-1 zone; Robert and Shawn Harper,
applicants.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
Public Comments:
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
Buzz Kowkaski, inquired about the process monitoring maintenance of Mills Act
properties.
In response to Mr. Kowkaski, Chair Hill and Senior Planner Leveille provided
information on the Mills Act Reform law.
Home owner, inquired about the City’s purview for improvements or renovations to
historical homes.
--End of Public Comment--
Chair Hill responded to the home owner’s question, stating each property has a unique
agreement but generally, for private residences, the City’s concern is related to the
exterior design.
In response to Committee Member Papp, Senior Planner Leveille stated the intent of
the Mills Act contract is to enhance and present the historic character of the property.
Committee Member Papp requested staff consider reducing the Mills Act application
fees.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECOND BY
COMMITTEE MEMBER LARRABEE, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to forward
a recommendation to City Council to approve the applicant’s request to be a part of the
Mills Act Preservation Program.
3. 1020 Railroad Avenue. ARCH 2769-2016 & USE-2770-2016: Review of the
installation of a new wireless telecommunications facility, including two new “chimney
cupola” screening elements to be constructed on a Contributing List Resource within the
Railroad Historic District with a categorical exemption from environmental review; C-R-
S-H zone; Verizon Wireless, applicant.
Attachment 7
PC2-35
Chair Hill acknowledged receipt of correspondence from John Grady prior to the
meeting.
Assistant Planner Walter Oetzell presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint
presentation.
In response to inquiry by Committee Member Papp, Assistant Planner Oetzell stated the
City does not allow uncovered wireless telecommunications facilities.
Public Comments:
Chair Hill opened the public hearing.
Applicant Representative explained the current proposed design and responded to
Committee inquiries regarding the necessity of the design, location and size of the
antennas.
Saro Rizzo, Building Owner, provided background information for the building and
requested constructive feedback if a redesign is required.
Chair Hill closed the Public Comment Period.
--End of Public Comment--
Vice-Chair Brajkovich suggested an architectural redesign.
Chair Hill requested staff provide information on the height of building.
Committee Member Papp commented on the design and stated the building does not fit in
with the essence of the railroad district and the design guidelines for the district cannot be
applied to this building.
Committee discussion ensued regarding the project’s consistency with historic
preservation guidelines.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMITTEE MEMBER PAPP, SECOND BY CHAIR
HILL, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 7-0 to continue the item to a date uncertain with
direction to simplify the screening enclosure.
Chair Hill left the room at 7:22 p.m. and returned at 7:24 p.m.
LIAISON REPORTS
Senior Planner Leveille presented a Memorandum of Understanding (included in the agenda
packet) between the City and the Friends of the La Loma Adobe and responded to Committee
inquiries.
Attachment 7
PC2-36
Chair Hill provided information regarding the potential uses of the space and invited Buzz
Kowkaski to provide input.
Mr. Kowkaski provided background information on the property.
Senior Planner Leveille provided an agenda forecast and information regarding training
opportunities.
Committee Member Papp requested the Committee agendize discussion regarding community
outreach and cultural heritage education.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting adjourned at 7:39 p.m. The next Regular Meeting of the Cultural Heritage
Committee is scheduled for Monday, March 27, 2017 at 5:30 p.m., in the Council Hearing
Room, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE CULTURAL HERITAGE COMMITTEE: XX/XX/2017
Attachment 7
PC2-37
Monday, March 20, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER
A Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission was called to order on Monday,
March 20, 2017 at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Hearing Room, located at 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, by Chair Wynn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Allen Root, Angela Soll, Vice Chair Suzan Ehdaie
(arrived at 5:05 p.m.), and Chair Wynn
Absent: Commissioner Brian Rolph
Staff: Community Development Deputy Director Doug Davidson, Associate Planner Kyle
Bell, and Recording Secretary Monique Lomeli. Other staff members presented reports
or responded to questions as indicated in the minutes.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA
None.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER NEMCIK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER
SOLL, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 4-0-2 to approve the Minutes of the Architectural Review
Commission meetings of January 9, 2017 and January 30, 2017 as presented.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
1.135 Ferrini Road. ARCH-2451-2015: Continued review of a three story multi-family
residential project that includes five residential units, with a categorical exemption from
environmental review; R-4 zone; Zac Missler, applicant.
Associate Planner Kyle Bell presented the staff report with use of a PowerPoint presentation
and responded to Commissioner inquiries.
Attachment 8
PC2-38
As requested by Chair Wynn, Associate Planner Bell provided a brief overview of the traffic
impacts associated with the project.
Applicant Truitt Vance expressed appreciation for the consideration showed by the
Commission and responded to Commission inquiries.
Public Comment:
Ed Hazencamp requested information regarding the barrier between the project and his
property.
--End of Public Comment--
Associate Planner Bell confirmed the barrier between Mr. Hazencamp’s property and the
project will be a 6 -foot wooden fence.
Commission discussion followed.
Applicant Truitt Vance responded to Commission comments regarding the revised color
palette, stating the palette is not as mute as it appears in the presentation and that another
project in the neighborhood used a similar palette with positive feedback from the
community.
Chair Wynn requested paint samples be provided on future color boards.
ACTION: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROOT, SECOND BY
COMMISSIONER SOLL, CARRIED BY CONSENSUS 5-0-1 to approve the project
as presented in the staff report with the following amendment to condition #4:
4. The applicant shall work with staff to revise and refine the colors and materials to provide
lighter colors and consider utilizing wood siding on the upper levels. The applicant shall
note the use of smooth finish stucco on the building plans to the satisfaction of the
Community Development Director.
2. Mission Plaza Concept Plan. OTHR-0172-2017: Conceptual review and discussion of the
Mission Plaza Concept Plan within the Downtown Historic District; discussion of this item
is not subject to CEQA; C-D-H zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Debbie Rudd, RRM Design Group, presented an in-depth review of the conceptual plan
with use of a PowerPoint presentation and responded to Commission inquiries.
Public Comments:
Chuck Crotser, San Luis Obispo, provided feedback on various elements of the concept
plan and suggested future collaboration with the Downtown Concept Plan Creative
Vision Team.
Attachment 8
PC2-39
Ken Schwartz spoke in favor of the project, provided background information on the
concept, and suggested incorporating a cultural center.
Dean Miller provided background information on the plaza and feedback on the current
concept plan, and suggested the intersection at Chorro and Monterey Street become part
of the plaza concept.
--End of Public Comment--
Commissioner Root spoke in favor of the concept; stated an archway at the entrance
would create a sense of confinement and he would prefer to see an alternative;
expressed interest in Chorro and Monterey Streets becoming part of the concept.
Commissioner Soll spoke in favor of the concept; stated she would like to see the
splashpad relocated closer to the children’s museum and is not in favor of the archway
entrance.
Vice-Chair Ehdaie spoke in favor of the wheel-free space and expressed interest in
more information about connectivity from the creek-side path to the other side of the
bridge.
Commissioner Nemcik spoke in favor of the concept and voiced support for the
removal of the amphitheater; stated she would like to see the adobe repurposed as a
living museum.
Chair Wynn spoke in favor of the concept and agreed with previous comments
regarding the archways, relocation of the splash pad, and possible expansion of the
project to include Chorro and Monterey; stated he would like to see a reduced number
of switchbacks.
COMMENTS AND DISCUSSION
Deputy Director Davidson provided an agenda forecast. There was a brief discussion regarding
the future appointment of two new members and the end of Vice-Chair Ehdaie’s term on the
ARC.
ADJOURNMENT
The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 p.m. The next Regular meeting of the Architectural Review
Commission is scheduled for Monday, April 3, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Hearing Room,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California.
APPROVED BY THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION: XX/XX/2017
Attachment 8
PC2-40