HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-15-17 ARC Agenda Packet
City of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda, City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo
Agenda
Architectural Review Commission
Monday, May 15, 2017
5:00 pm
REGULAR MEETING
Council Hearing Room
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Greg Wynn
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Amy Nemcik, Brian Rolph, Allen Root, Greg Starzyk,
Richard Beller, Vice-Chair Angela Soll, and Chair Greg Wynn
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD: At this time, the general public is invited to speak before the
Commission on any subject within the jurisdiction of the Architectural Review Commission that
does not appear on this agenda. Although the Commission will not take action on any item
presented during the Public Comment Period, the Chair may direct staff to place an item on a
future agenda for formal discussion.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Minutes of the Architectural Review Commission meeting of March 20, 2017.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Note: Any court challenge to the actions taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be
limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence
delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. If you wish to speak,
please give your name and address for the record.
1. Taft to Pepper. ARCH-0360-2017: Design review of an approximately 1,700-linear-foot
section of the proposed Railroad Safety Trail, including proposed tree removals and a bridge
over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks, and adoption of a proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration of Environmental Impact for the project; R-2 and O zones; City, State, and Union
Pacific Railroad right-of-way; City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, applicant.
(Dan Van Beveren)
Architectural Review Commission Agenda Page 2
2. 1035 Madonna Road. ANNX 1502-2015: Study session for applicant to receive feedback
from the ARC on the response to direction given at the May 1, 2017 ARC meeting; Design
Guidelines for the San Luis Ranch Specific Plan project; Final EIR is being prepared for
project under CEQA; Specific Plan Area 2; Coastal Community Builders, applicant. (John
Rickenbach) Review of this item has been rescheduled to Monday, May 22, 2017 at a
Special Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission. It will no longer be reviewed on
Monday, May 15, 2017.
COMMENT & DISCUSSION
1. STAFF
a. Agenda Forecast
ADJOURNMENT
The next meeting of the Architectural Review Commission is a Special Meeting scheduled
for Monday, May 22, 2017 at 5:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers: 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California.
APPEALS
Any decision of the Architectural Review Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action. Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an
appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department,
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.
The City of San Luis Obispo wishes to make all its public meetings accessible to the public. Upon request, this
agenda will be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with disabilities. Any person with a
disability who requires a modification or accommodation in order to participate in a meeting should direct such
requests to the City Clerk’s Office at (805) 781-7100 at least 48 hours before the meeting, if possible.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805)781-7107.
Minutes - DRAFT
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISION
Monday, March 20, 2017
Regular Meeting of the Architectural Review Commission
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.
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 20, 2017 Page 2
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.
DRAFT Minutes – Architectural Review Commission Meeting of March 20, 2017 Page 3
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
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Design review of an approximately 1,700-linear foot section of the proposed Railroad
Safety Trail, including proposed tree removals and a bridge over the Union Pacific Railroad tracks,
and adoption of a proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
PROJECT LOCATION: West of California BY: Shawna Scott, Associate Planner
Boulevard, from Taft Street to Pepper Street Phone Number: (805) 781-7176
e-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: ARCH-0360-2017 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy DirectorDD
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1), which approves the design of
the project and proposed tree removals based on findings and subject to conditions, and adopts the
Mitigated Negative Declaration (Attachment 4).
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis Obispo
Project Manager Daniel Van Beveren
Zoning R‐2 (Medium Density
Residential), O (Office), and
right‐of‐way
General Plan Neighborhood Commercial,
Office, Medium Density
Residential
Linear Feet 1,700 feet
Environmental
Status
Proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration
SUMMARY
The City Public Works Department proposes to construct an approximately 1,700-linear foot section
of the Railroad Safety Trail, which would connect to the existing trail on California Boulevard, extend
behind the California Highway Patrol building on California Boulevard, parallel the Union Pacific
Railroad tracks, cross over the tracks via a new bridge structure at the terminus of Phillips Lane, and
connect with Pepper Street. The Public Works Department has provided plans and renderings for the
proposed trail, including support structures and a bridge over the railroad tracks, which require review
by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). In addition, the project would require the removal
of up to approximately 35 mature trees (primarily individual and clusters of eucalyptus trees), which
has been reviewed and approved by the City Arborist. The Public Works Department will continue
to work with the City Arborist to retain additional trees, as feasible, and replant trees within the City.
Meeting Date: May 15, 2017
Item Number: 1
ARC1-1
ARCH-0360-2017 (Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper)
Page 2
The Public Works Department has also prepared and circulated an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration, which is proposed for adoption.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The ARC’s role is to the review the proposed project, in terms of the project’s consistency with the
Community Design Guidelines (CDG) and consider adoption of the proposed Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND) (Attachment 4).
2.0 BACKGROUND
In June 2001, the City of San Luis Obispo adopted a preferred alignment for the 1.4-mile Railroad
Safety Trail Project, which will ultimately provide a safe and direct north/south commuter route
between California Polytechnic State University and the San Luis Obispo Amtrak station. The review
and adoption process for the Railroad Safety Trail included, but was not limited to, data collection,
site reconnaissance, key person interviews, a public workshop, and review by City Departments,
California Department of Transportation, Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR), San Luis Obispo Bicycle
Club, Bicycle Advisory Committee, Architectural Review Commission, Parks and Recreation
Commission, and the City Council. The Taft to Pepper section of the Railroad Safety Trail is
identified as part of “Segment 2: Marsh Street to Foothill Boulevard” in the Railroad Safety Trail plan
document, which is available on the City’s website at the following link: <<
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/public-works/programs-and-
services/bicycling/bicycling-documents>>.
3.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
3.1 Site Information/Setting
Table 3.1 Site Information and Setting
The project site consists of City streets, State right-of-way (California Boulevard/Highway 101
overpass), and UPRR right-of-way adjacent to high density residential, medium density
residential, and neighborhood commercial zones. A portion of the trail would traverse an Office
zone behind the California Highway Patrol facility and a Residential zone near the terminus of
Phillips Lane.
3.2 Project Description. As part of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and Railroad Safety
Trail, this segment of the Railroad Safety Trail Project includes the construction of a 1,700-foot
Site Size 1,700 linear feet; 3.15 acres of disturbance
Present Use & Development Roadway, UPRR tracks, right‐of‐way, undeveloped land
Land Use Designation Neighborhood Commercial, Office, Medium Density Residential
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Medium/medium high density residential (R‐4)
South: Medium/medium high density residential (R‐2, R‐3)
East: Medium/medium high density residential, CHP facility, medical
offices (C‐N, O, R‐2))
West: Medium/medium high density residential (R‐2, R‐3)
ARC1-2
ARCH-0360-2017 (Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper)
Page 3
Class I1 and Class IV2 trail from Taft Street to Pepper Street, which will serve both pedestrians
and two-way directional traffic for bicyclists (refer to Attachment 3, Project Plans). The trail
consists a 12-foot wide shared use path with 2-foot paved shoulders, and a structural section of
0.33-foot Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) over 1-foot Class 2 aggregate base.
The existing Class IV trail currently ends on California Boulevard at Taft Street. The new Class
IV trail will originate on the west side of California Boulevard at Taft Street at the terminus of
the existing trail, and will continue south for 450 feet, parallel to California Boulevard. The Class
IV trail will continue south onto the existing California Boulevard overcrossing structure at US
101 for an additional 135 feet, and continue beyond the southwest side of the overcrossing
structure for approximately 65 feet. The Class IV trail will then turn and continue southwest
between the California Highway Patrol property and UPRR right-of-way where it will become a
Class I trail, and continue approximately 835 feet south of California Boulevard to Phillips Lane.
The trail will then continue west and cross the UPRR tracks via a new bridge structure,
approximately 100 feet in length, where the trail will connect to Pepper Street (see Figure 1
Railroad Safety Trail Supports and Bridge Structure, below). The bridge structure requires an
internal metal protection barrier to prevent interference with rail operations; this barrier has been
designed to be compatible with the external bridge structure. The final portion of the project
continues south along the north side of Pepper Street for approximately 105 feet. To reduce the
impact to the UPRR right-of-way, retaining walls are required to accommodate the grade change
and minimize the construction footprint.
Figure 1. Railroad Safety Trail Supports and Bridge Structure
The project includes re-striping the vehicle travel lanes on California Boulevard to accommodate
the trail, which would decrease the number of northbound travel lanes from two to one along the
California Boulevard overcrossing structure at US 101. The City Public Works Department
completed a traffic analysis (Attachment 5), which assesses the potential traffic impacts
associated with this reduction on travel lanes, and identifies a requirement for a right-turn pocket
to accommodate vehicles exiting US 101 onto California Boulevard. The California Department
of Transportation has reviewed and approved this report, and will require the turn pocket as a
condition of the anticipated encroachment permit.
1 Provides a completely separated right-of- way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with
crossflow by motorists minimized.
2 On-street bike lanes that are physically separated from the adjacent general travel lane; physical separations
can include concrete curbs, landscaping, parking lanes, bollards, or other vertical elements.
ARC1-3
ARCH-0360-2017 (Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper)
Page 4
Implementation of the project would require the removal of approximately 35 individual and
clusters of trees over 6-inch diameter, including one 24-inch diameter oak tree, one 12-inch
diameter willow tree, two pepper tree clusters, several ornamental trees, and clusters and
individuals of eucalyptus trees. The project would result in the disturbance of approximately 3.15
acres, including approximately 0.76 acres of permanent disturbance, 2.16 acres of temporary-only
disturbance, and 0.28 acres of unpaved construction staging area. Permanent impacts include a
section of approximately 0.04 acres of California Boulevard where the vehicle travel lane and
shoulder would be converted to a Class IV trail. The City will obtain permanent easement or right-
of-way take from UPRR, the State, and potentially two private properties near the Phillips Lane
cul-de-sac. Temporary construction easements are needed from UPRR and one private property,
in addition to potential construction staging in the CHP parking lot.
4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
4.1 Railroad Safety Trail Plan (Adopted June 2001). The Railroad Safety Trail Plan includes
trail design objectives to provide separation of trail users from active railroad tracks and sensitive
adjacent land uses, including physical buffers such as fences or other barriers. The Plan also calls
for a minimum 8.5-foot setback from the railroad tracks, and installation of safety fencing between
the trail and active railroad tracks and in strategic locations depending on proximity to private
property and adjacent land uses3. The proposed trail would primarily be located greater than 25
feet from the railroad tracks, except for the approach to the proposed bridge crossing.
The Plan’s design standards state that all bridges
and supported decks should be designed to
support pedestrian live loading and maintenance
and emergency vehicles. Pre-engineered bridges
should include, at a minimum: low maintenance
weathering steel finish; asphalt deck; 54-inch high
bicycle railing; horizontal toe plates; fully
enclosed portal; and attached security fence.
Regarding lighting, the trail is not proposed to
have continuous lighting; however, where the trail
crosses public roads at grade, the Plan calls for
supplemental lighting to be incorporated into
existing street lighting, and limited lighting may
be incorporated into staging areas and where needed for safety. All lighting is required to comply
with the Night Sky Ordinance. The Plan also includes an objective to incorporate consistent design
character for all areas of the trail corridor.
3 Railroad Safety Fencing for Minimum Setback: Where the trail setback is less than 12 feet from the existing railroad
tracks centerline, the fencing will consist of the following: A. 8-foot high metal mesh fence B. Metal posts placed 8-foot
on center C. Baffling material in fence to catch train-thrown debris
Railroad Safety Fencing for Typical Setback: Where the trail can be setback 12 feet to 25 feet, from the existing railroad
tracks centerline, the fencing will consist of the following: A. 6-foot high metal mesh fence B. Metal posts placed
meters 8-foot on center C. Baffling material in fence to catch train-thrown debris when located closer than 15 feet to the
existing railroad tracks centerline D. Flowering vines
Railroad Safety Fencing Beyond 25-foot Setback: Where the trail setback is greater than 25 feet from the existing
railroad tracks centerline, the fencing will consist of the following: A. 4-foot high wood posts placed 8-foot on center B.
4 wire strands C. Flowering vines
Figure 2. Railroad Safety Trail Bridge Exhibit
ARC1-4
ARCH-0360-2017 (Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper)
Page 5
As proposed, the project is consistent with the design objectives and standards identified in the
Railroad Safety Trail Plan, and the bridge structure is similar to what was envisioned in the
adopted Railroad Safety Trail Plan (see Figure 2 Railroad Safety Trail Bridge Exhibit).
4.2 Consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. The CDG document does not include
standards specific to trails or bridges; however, general site design principles can be considered.
Consistent with the CDG4, the proposed trail alignment has been selected based on consideration
of constraints and existing topography, and features such as concrete retaining walls have been
minimized to improve the visual appearance of the trail. The renderings show concrete footings
and steel support structures, with matching railings. The bridge structure is designed similar to
the larger Jennifer Street Bridge, and includes internal protection fencing within a steel truss
structure. The function of the trail and bridge meets the objectives of the project to provide a safer
path for a variety of users.
5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
An initial study has been prepared by staff in accordance with the California Environmental Quality
Act and a MND is recommended for adoption (Attachment 4, Mitigated Negative Declaration). The
MND finds that with incorporation of mitigation measures, potential impacts to air quality, biological
resources, cultural and tribal cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, hydrology and
water quality, noise, recreation, and transportation/traffic will be less than significant. A summary of
potential impacts and recommended mitigation measures is provided below:
Air Quality: Construction-related emissions, creation of fugitive dust, exposure to asbestos and
potentially-contaminated soils. Mitigation: Implement dust control measures, obtain APCD permits
for equipment, and comply with diesel idling regulations, Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure
(ATCM), and APCD standards for management of potentially-contaminated soils.
Biological Resources: Tree removals, potential impacts to nesting birds and monarchs, potential storm
water pollution. Mitigation: Implement restoration plan, Stormwater Pollution Prevention
Plan/Water Pollution Control Plan (SWPPP/WPCP), Tree Protection and Restoration Plan pre-
construction survey and environmental training, avoid nesting birds.
Cultural and Tribal Cultural Resources: Potential unanticipated discovery of resources. Mitigation:
Monitor and survey during and following vegetation removal in areas previously inaccessible due to
dense vegetation, comply with City's Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines,
avoid and evaluate unanticipated findings, monitor per approved Cultural Resources Monitoring
Plan if significant resource is uncovered.
Hazards/Hazardous Materials: Disturbance of lead, herbicide, and petroleum hydrocarbon-containing
soils/materials during construction. Mitigation: Test/analyze soils, implement Contaminated
4 CDG 2.1 – Site Design; A. Fit the Site. Each project should be designed with careful consideration of site character
and constraints, and minimize changes to natural feature, rather than altering a site to accommodate a stock building
plan. Existing topography should be preserved where possible and excessive cuts or fills should be avoided.
B. Consider the context. Review existing development near the site and consider how the project can be designed to fit
in with the best examples of appropriate site design and architecture in the vicinity of the site.
C. Site function. The various activities and elements proposed on a site should be logically located so the project will
operate efficiently, and effectively address the needs of all users.
ARC1-5
ARCH-0360-2017 (Railroad Safety Trail, Taft to Pepper)
Page 6
Materials Management Plan, comply with existing regulations regarding handling and disposal.
Hydrology/Water Quality: Potential pollutant discharge during construction. Mitigation: Implement
Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan, Drainage Design compliance.
Noise: Construction-related noise. Mitigation: Use sound-control devices and reduce noise by
placement of stationary construction equipment, turn off idling equipment, and install acoustic
barriers; notify sensitive receptors and comply with City Noise Ordinance.
Recreation: Beneficial effect; potential impacts due to recreational project addressed in applicable
resource sections. Mitigation: See resource-specific mitigation.
Transportation/Traffic: Emergency access. Mitigation: Implement Traffic Management Plan, comply
with County Hazard Mitigation Plan.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The requirements of the other City departments are reflected in the Conditions of Approval, including
Mitigation Measures.
7.0 ALTERNATIVE RECOMMENDATIONS
7.1. Deny the project based on findings of inconsistency with the Community Design Guidelines.
This alternative is not recommended, because the project can be found consistent with the
adopted Railroad Safety Trail Plan and Bicycle Transportation Plan, and further architectural
review could be accommodated in the review process.
7.2 Continue the project to a date uncertain, with specific directional items provided.
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Resolution
2. Site Location Map
3. Project Plans and Renderings
4. Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration ER # 91375
5. Queue Analysis of NB 101 Off-Ramp at California (City Public Works)
ARC1-6
R ______
RESOLUTION NO. __________ (2017 SERIES)
A RESOLUTION OF THE ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE
DESIGN OF 1,700-LINEAR FOOT SECTION OF THE RAILROAD
SAFETY TRAIL (TAFT TO PEPPER), INCLUDING A BRIDGE OVER
THE UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD TRACKS AND ASSOCIATED TREE
REMOVALS, AND ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND
ATTACHMENTS DATED MAY 15, 2017
WEST OF CALIFORNIA BOULEVARD, TAFT TO PEPPER
(ARCH-0360-2017)
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo
conducted a public hearing in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis
Obispo, California, on May 15, 2017, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-0360-2017,
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, applicant; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo has
duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and
evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Architectural Review Commission of
the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval
to application ARCH-0360-2017, based on the following findings:
1. That the project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, and welfare of persons living or
working at the site or in the vicinity because the project will be compatible with site
constraints and the scale and character of the site and the surrounding neighborhood.
2. The proposed Railroad Safety Trail (Taft to Pepper segment) is consistent with General Plan
Circulation Element Policies regarding bicycle transportation by: expanding the bicycle
network to encourage bicycle use and making bicycling safe, convenient and enjoyable
(Policies 4.1.1 Bicycle Use and 4.1.5 Bikeway Design and Maintenance); encouraging the
use of bicycles by students and staff traveling to local educational facilities (Policy 4.1.2
Campus and School Site Trips); by identifying and pursuing the acquisition of right-of-ways
needed to implement the Railroad Safety Trail as identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan
(Policy 4.1.10 Right-of-way Acquisition); and by obtaining railroad right-of-way and
easements to establish a separated bike path and pedestrian trail through San Luis Obispo
(Policy 4.2.5 Railroad Bikeway and Trail).
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-7
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 2
3. The project implements the Bicycle Transportation Plan (November 2013), which identifies
the Railroad Safety Trail as “the top priority project” and calls for safe, reliable, and efficient
connections to all major destinations throughout the City, for both transportation and
recreational purposes. The project furthers implementation of bicycling network objectives
identified in the Bicycle Transportation Plan, including Objective 3 (increase bicycle use for
transportation to a 20% mode share).
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The Architectural Review Commission hereby
adopts the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration and associated Mitigation and Monitoring
Program, finding that it adequately addresses the project’s potentially significant impacts on the
environment, with the incorporation of the following mitigation measures:
Air Quality
Mitigation Measure AQ-1: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall
implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on
grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to
monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary,
to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when
work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided
to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of
construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the Project site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity
for no greater than three minutes in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency
will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph and cessation of grading
activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be
used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other
dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and
landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and
watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless
seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved
surface at the construction site.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-8
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 3
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load
and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash
off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall
be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
If drought conditions persist at the time of construction, the following alternative methods
for dust control are recommended. The contractor or builder shall implement the use of an
APCD-approved dust suppressant(s) to reduce the amount of water used for fugitive dust
control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that
can be accessed at the following website: slocleanair.org/business/landuseceqa.php.
Monitoring Program, AQ-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the Project proponent
shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board
and APCD permitting requirements, by contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-
5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
Monitoring Program, AQ-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure AQ-3: To reduce impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of emissions
from diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the Project and export soil from the Project
site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California
Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial
motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and
licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California
based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at
any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater,
air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or
resting in a sleeper berth for greater than five minutes at any location when within
1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the five minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use
Off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers
and operators of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-9
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 4
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to
the State required diesel idling requirements, the Project applicant shall comply with
these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the
fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the
APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
Monitoring Program, AQ-3: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to construction, a geological evaluation shall be conducted to
determine the presence of NOA. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with
the APCD. If NOA is found, the City must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM), which may include development of an Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Program, AQ-4: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. If required, the Asbestos Dust
Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program shall be submitted to APCD prior to
grading and construction. A copy of the Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and
Safety Program shall be available onsite during grading and construction, and shall be
implemented as necessary.
Mitigation Measure AQ-5: If asbestos containing materials are encountered during construction
activities, the Project may be subject to various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements
stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M
– asbestos NESHAP).
Monitoring Program, AQ-5: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure AQ-6: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during
construction activities, the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours
after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required. In addition,
the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:
1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively
involved in soil addition or removal;
2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil
or other TPH-non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed
where vapors could accumulate;
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-10
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 5
3. Covered piles shall be designated in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water.
No openings in the covers are permitted;
4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the
contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD’s
construction phase thresholds;
5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisance; and,
6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD
Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912.
Monitoring Program, AQ-6: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Biological Resources
Mitigation Measure BIO-1: In the event that special-status plant species are observed within the
Project site, all individuals will be flagged by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities,
so that they may be avoided. If special-status plants cannot be avoided by Project activities, the
appropriate permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction activities. A restoration plan
will be prepared for the Project (BIO-2), and will be implemented as necessary.
Monitoring Program, BIO-1: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a restoration plan that
provides for a 1:1 restoration ratio for temporary and permanent impacts, unless otherwise directed
by regulatory agencies. Any revegetation will be conducted using only native plant species, and
will be conducted outside of the UPRR right-of-way. The restoration plan will include
specifications for invasive species abatement and monitoring.
Monitoring Program, BIO-2: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. The restoration plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff
will periodically inspect the site for implementation of the restoration plan and continued
compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or
Water Pollution Control Plan for the Project will be prepared. Provisions of this plan shall be
implemented during and after construction as necessary to avoid and minimize erosion and storm
water pollution in and near the work area.
Monitoring Program, BIO-3: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. The Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water Pollution Control Plan shall be
reviewed by the RWQCB and City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-11
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 6
inspect the site for implementation of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water
Pollution Control Plan and continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Prior to construction, all personnel will participate in an
environmental awareness training program conducted by a qualified biologist.
Monitoring Program, BIO-4: The contractor shall provide City staff proof of compliance
regarding implementation of the environmental awareness training program.
Mitigation Measure BIO-5: During construction, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and
vehicles will occur only within a designated staging area and at least 100 ft from wetlands or
culverts that outflow to wetlands. At a minimum, equipment and vehicles will be checked and
maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
Monitoring Program, BIO-5: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO 6: Prior to removal of Eucalyptus tree or other large trees, a qualified
biologist will survey the trees to determine presence of roosting monarch butterflies. If roosting
is identified (e.g., a visible “clump” over a period of time), tree removal will be scheduled outside
of the roosting period (generally November to March).
Monitoring Program, BIO-6: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO-7: If construction activities are proposed during the typical nesting
season (February 15 to September 1), a nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified
biologist no more than two weeks prior to the start of construction to determine presence/absence
of nesting birds within the Biological Study Area and immediate vicinity. Caltrans will be notified
if nesting birds are observed during the surveys and will facilitate coordination with the USFWS
if necessary to determine an appropriate avoidance strategy. Likewise, coordination with CDFW
will be facilitated by the City if necessary to devise a suitable avoidance plan. If raptor nests are
observed within the Project site during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall
be designated an Environmental Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 500-foot avoidance
buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have
fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Similarly, if active
passerine nests are observed within the Project Site during the pre-construction nesting bird
surveys, the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area and protected by a
minimum 250-foot avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist
determines that all young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for
survival. Resource agencies may consider proposed variances from these buffers if there is a
compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as protection of a nest via concealment
due to site topography.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-12
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 7
Monitoring Program, BIO-7: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. City staff will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above
mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a Tree Protection and
Restoration Plan to be reviewed and approved by the City Arborist and City Natural Resources
Manager. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees with
construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base
of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum
1:1 ratio. Removal of native trees shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio. The Tree
Protection and Restoration Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following information:
a. Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.
b. Implementation plan (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible
parties, schedule, site preparation, and planting plan);
c. Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-term
maintenance and protection of the trees (i.e.: quarterly and annual surveys to be
conducted for a minimum of five years; protection fencing and signage where
necessary; and weed abatement);
d. Contingency measures in the event a planted tree does not survive, including
replacement of the tree to ensure no net loss of trees in the long-term;
e. Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used
by monitoring personnel;
f. Funding mechanism.
Monitoring Program, BIO-8: The Tree Protection and Restoration Plan shall be approved by the
City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager prior to construction. Compliance with the Plan
and submittal of required Monitoring Reports will be verified by the City Arborist and Natural
Resources Manager.
Cultural Resources
Mitigation Measure CR-1: If, during the course of constructing and implementing the proposed
Project, archaeological, paleontological, or cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites,
or isolated artifacts and features) are discovered, the contractor shall halt all ground disturbing
activities immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and a professional
archaeologist, architectural historian, or paleontologist (depending on the nature of the finding)
shall be retained to determine the significance of the discovery. The City shall consider mitigation
recommendations presented by the professional, and the City shall consult and agree upon
implementation of a measure(s) that they deem feasible and appropriate. Such measures may
include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or
other appropriate measures. The City shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for
the protection of archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources.
Monitoring Program, CR-1: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and
building plans, and be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-13
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 8
Mitigation Measure CR-2: In the event of human burial discovery, no further disturbance shall
occur within 100 feet of the finding until the County of San Luis Obispo (County) Coroner has
made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County
Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be
Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission
within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The City shall
allow the MLD to complete an inspection of the site (typically within 48 hours of notification) and
shall comply with MLD recommendations, which may include scientific removal and
nondestructive analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Monitoring Program, CR-2: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and
building plans, and be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. City staff will periodically
inspect the site for continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
Mitigation Measure CR-3: Additional archaeological surveys will be conducted in association
with subsequent environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act if
Project limits are extended beyond the present survey limits.
Monitoring Program, CR-3: If Project conditions change, additional cultural surveys and reporting
will be conducted.
Mitigation Measure CR-4: During removal of vegetation within any areas previously
determined to be inaccessible due to vegetation, including an approximately 100-foot segment
behind the California Highway Patrol facility, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor vegetation
removal and conduct a surface survey to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological
resources. In the event of resource discovery during the survey, and at any time during
construction, the resource shall be evaluated pursuant to mitigation measure CR-1 and the City of
San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October 2009).
Prior to redirecting or resuming construction, a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, prepared by
a qualified archaeologist, shall be prepared and implemented in the event of resource discovery.
The Monitoring Plan shall include at a minimum:
a. List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
b. Inclusion of involvement of the Native American community, as appropriate;
c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
d. Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part time, spot checking);
e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site
(e.g., What is considered “significant” archaeological resources?);
g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures; and
h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures.
Monitoring Program, CR-4: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and
building plans, and be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. The City shall oversee
survey efforts, and shall review and approve the Monitoring Plan, as required.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-14
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 9
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Prior to construction, as recommended in the Initial Site Assessment
(Padre, April 2016), the City shall complete a Preliminary Site Investigation Report including, but
not limited to, testing and analysis of soils to be disturbed as a result of grading and construction
activities. The Report shall include, but not be limited to: sampling and analysis methodology,
including the advancement of shallow drill holes along the proposed ground disturbance areas,
collection of discrete soil samples from shallow soils, and chemical analysis of selected soil
samples for presence of total petroleum hydrocarbon constituents, lead, arsenic, and chlorinated
herbicides; and identification of the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons and chlorinated
herbicides. In the event elevated concentrations of suspected contaminants are indicated in shallow
soils, the City will prepare a Contaminated Materials Management Plan (CMMP) for
implementation during the course of the construction activities. The CMMP shall include but not
be limited to detailed procedures to properly manage and dispose contaminated soils disturbed
during the course of the Project construction activities, in accordance with local, state, and federal
regulations.
Monitoring Program, HAZ-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. If required, the CMMP shall be
submitted to the City prior to grading and construction. A copy of the CMMP shall be available
onsite during grading and construction, and shall be implemented as necessary.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2: TPH-containing soil, lead contaminated soil, herbicide-containing
soil, and lead-based paint containing building materials demolished as part of the Project will be
segregated and properly packaged and disposed of at a licensed facility.
Monitoring Program, HAZ-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Noise
Mitigation Measure N-1: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less
effective than those provided on the original equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled
exhaust.
Monitoring Program, N-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure N-2: As directed by Caltrans, the contractor will implement appropriate
additional noise mitigation measures, including changing the location of stationary construction
equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent
residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary
construction noise sources.
Monitoring Program, N-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-15
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 10
Mitigation Measure N-3: At least twenty (20) days prior to commencement of construction,
the contractor shall provide written notice to all property owners, businesses, and residents within
300 feet of the trail alignment. The notice shall contain a description of the Project, the construction
schedule, including days and hours of construction, the name and phone number of the City’s
Project environmental coordinator and contractor(s), site rules and conditions of approval
pertaining to construction activities.
Monitoring Program, N-3: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans.
Mitigation Measure N-4: Construction (including preparation for construction work, such as
equipment transportation) shall only be permitted Monday through Saturday between the hours of
7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction shall not occur on legal holidays.
Monitoring Program, N-4: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure N-5: All construction equipment, including trucks and stationary
equipment, shall be professionally maintained and fitted with standard manufacturers’ mufflers,
silencing devices and engine covers.
Monitoring Program, N-5: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Mitigation Measure N-6: Temporary construction noise barriers (blanket type or non-
reflective solid type, minimum 10 feet tall at road grade, rated at STC-25 or better) shall be
installed and maintained between pile drilling work areas and affected residences on Pepper Street
during bridge construction. Noise levels shall be monitored for compliance.
Monitoring Program, N-6: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building
plans. Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Transportation/Traffic
Mitigation Measure T-1: Prior to construction, a Traffic Management Plan will be prepared
for the Project, which will identify measures to follow during lane closure, reconfiguration, and
striping on California Boulevard. The Traffic Management Plan shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
a. Identified lane closures, including vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian sidewalk closures or
limitations.
b. Safety measures including signage, safety cones, and temporary lighting.
c. Use of personnel to direct vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, and pedestrians.
Monitoring Program, T-1: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans.
Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-16
Resolution No. ______________ (2017 Series) Page 11
SECTION 3. Action. The Architectural Review Commission hereby grants approval to
application ARCH-0360-2017, with incorporation of the following conditions:
Conditions
1. The Architectural Review Commission’s approval of this project will expire after three years
if construction has not started. On request, the Community Development Director may grant
a single, one-year extension.
2. Final project design and construction drawings shall be in substantial compliance with the
project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working
drawings that lists all mitigation measures and conditions of project approval listed as sheet
number 2. Reference shall be made in the margin of listed items as to where in plans
requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, or other
conditions of approval must be approved by the Community Development Director or
Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate.
3. Final project design and construction drawings shall show the locations of all exterior lighting,
including a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut-sheets. The
selected fixture(s) shall be shielded to ensure that light is directed downward consistent with
the requirements of the City’s Night Sky Preservation standards contained in Chapter 17.23
of the Zoning Regulations.
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2017.
____________________________________
Doug Davidson, Secretary
Architectural Review Commission
ATTACHMENT 1
ARC1-17
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
S
I
T
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
A
M
E
:
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
N
U
M
B
E
R
:
D
A
T
E
:
E
N
V
I
R
O
N
M
E
N
T
A
L
S
C
I
E
N
T
I
S
T
S
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
S
,
G
E
O
L
O
G
I
S
T
S
&
a
s
s
o
c
i
a
t
e
s
,
i
n
c
.
1
F
I
G
U
R
E
N
N
S
I
T
E
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
M
A
P
B
A
S
E
M
A
P
S
O
U
R
C
E
:
T
O
P
O
!
2
0
0
1
N
A
T
I
O
N
A
L
G
E
O
G
R
A
P
H
I
C
H
O
L
D
I
N
G
S
1
5
0
2
-
2
2
1
3
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
2
0
1
6
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
L
O
C
A
T
I
O
N
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
C
A
L
I
F
O
R
N
I
A
S
C
A
L
E
I
N
F
E
E
T
0
4
,
0
0
0
8
,
0
0
0
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
C
o
u
n
t
y
,
C
A
C
i
t
y
o
f
S
a
n
L
u
i
s
O
b
i
s
p
o
Z:\Current Projects\1502-2212 City SLO PW - Railroad Safety Trail\Graphics\City SLO Railroad Safety Trail.dwg, 11/10/2016 9:20:16 AM
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
2
A
R
C
1
-
1
8
PROJECT NAME:
PROJECT NUMBER: DATE:
2
NN
SCALE IN FEET
0 200 400
SITE PLAN
BASEMAP SOURCE: GOOGLE EARTH PRO; IMAGE DATE: 8-23-2013
Railroad Safety Trail
San Luis Obispo County, CA
City of San Luis Obispo
RIGHT OF WAY
LEGEND
PROPOSED RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL
PROJECT NAME:FIGURE
1502-2213 October 2016Z:
\
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
\
1
5
0
2
-
2
2
1
2
C
i
t
y
S
L
O
P
W
-
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
\
G
r
a
p
h
i
c
s
\
C
i
t
y
S
L
O
R
a
i
l
r
o
a
d
S
a
f
e
t
y
T
r
a
i
l
.
d
w
g
,
1
1
/
1
0
/
2
0
1
6
9
:
3
1
:
1
7
A
M
ATTACHMENT 3
ARC1-19
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-20
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-21
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-22
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-23
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-24
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-25
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-26
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-27
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-28
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-29
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-30
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-31
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-32
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
1
-
3
3
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
1
-
3
4
A
T
T
A
C
H
M
E
N
T
3
A
R
C
1
-
3
5
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-36
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-37
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-38
ATTACHMENT 3 ARC1-39
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
91375
March 27, 2017
1. Project Title:
RAILROAD SAFETY TRAIL PROJECT, TAFT STREET TO PEPPER STREET
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works, Engineering
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number:
Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
(805) 783-7715
Prepared By:
Crystahl Taylor, Senior Project Manager
Padre Associates, Inc.
(805) 786-2650 x 11
4. Project Location:
West of California Boulevard, from Taft Street to Pepper Street, San Luis Obispo, CA
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works, Engineering
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-40
2
Project Representative Name and Address:
Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo
Public Works, Engineering
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Neighborhood Commercial, Office, Medium Density Residential
7. Zoning:
R-2 (Medium Density Residential), O (Office), Right-of Way
8. Description of the Project:
Project History and Existing Infrastructure
In June of 2001, the City of San Luis Obispo (City) adopted a preferred alignment for the Railroad
Safety Trail Project. The overall Railroad Safety Trail Project spans 1.4 miles within the City limits
and is primarily located adjacent to California Boulevard and the Union Pacific Railroad (UPRR)
right-of-way. The proposed Class I/Class IV bicycle trail and multi-use pathway will serve
bicyclists, pedestrians, and other recreational users. The intent of the facility is to promote
alternative forms of transportation and provide new recreational opportunities consistent with the
goals set forth in the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan. The trail will ultimately provide a safe
and direct north/south commuter route between California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly)
and the San Luis Obispo Amtrak station.
The existing California Boulevard / US 101 overcrossing structure is 58 feet wide from the barrier
separating the sidewalk on the west side to the inside of the barrier on the east side of the roadway.
This section of California Boulevard is a three-lane major arterial within the Project limits. The
design speed for California Boulevard is 40 miles per hour (mph) with a posted speed limit of 35
mph. Pedestrians and bicyclists, accessing Cal Poly, heavily travel this corridor. The existing
striping within California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) right-of-way consists of two
11-foot northbound lanes and one 11-foot southbound lane separated by a painted median that
varies from 9 feet to 10 feet in width. Traveling south along California Boulevard, the median
opens up to provide a left-turn pocket for the northbound US 101 on-ramp. The existing bridge
also has two 5-foot sidewalks on both sides of the roadway. The east side sidewalk and barrier are
not proposed to be impacted by the proposed Project.
For purposes of this discussion, the UPRR track is assumed to run from north to south, as is
California Boulevard.
Project Description
As part of the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan and Railroad Safety Trail, this segment of the
Railroad Safety Trail Project includes the construction of a 1,700-foot Class I and Class IV trail
from Taft Street to Pepper Street, which will serve both pedestrians and two-way directional traffic
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-41
3
for bicyclists. The existing Class IV trail currently ends on California Boulevard at Taft Street.
The proposed Project consists of a 12-foot wide shared use path with 2-foot paved shoulders. The
trail will consist of a structural section of 0.33 feet Hot Mix Asphalt (Type A) over 1 foot Class 2
aggregate base. This new segment will connect to the existing trail on California Boulevard and
Taft Street as described below:
The new Class IV trail will originate on the west side of California Boulevard at Taft Street, and
will continue south for 450 feet, parallel to California Boulevard. The Class IV trail will continue
south onto the existing California Boulevard overcrossing structure at US 101 for an additional
135 ft. The Class IV trail will continue beyond the southwest side of the overcrossing structure
for approximately 65 feet. The Class IV trail will turn and continue southwest between the
California Highway Patrol (CHP) property and the UPRR right-of-way where it will become a
Class I trail, and continue approximately 835 feet south of California Boulevard to Phillips Lane.
The trail will then continue west and cross the UPRR tracks via a new bridge structure,
approximately 100 feet in length, where the trail will connect to Pepper Street. The final portion
of the Project will continue south along the north side of Pepper Street for approximately 105 ft.
The Project includes re-striping the vehicle travel lanes on California Boulevard to accommodate
the trail, which would decrease the number of northbound travel lanes from two to one along the
California Boulevard overcrossing structure at US 101.
The profile of the trail along California Boulevard will follow the profile of the roadway and
overcrossing structure. As the trail turns south, adjacent to the CHP property, the profile of the
trail will gradually decrease in grade, but will fill in an existing drainage basin located between
the CHP property and the UPRR tracks. As the trail approaches the end of the CHP property line,
the profile of the trail rises to reach the required minimum vertical clearance requirement of 23.5
feet over the railroad tracks near Phillips Lane. The profile will then descend to match the existing
grade at Pepper Street. To reduce the impact to the UPRR right-of-way, retaining walls are required
to accommodate the grade change and minimize the footprint needed for the trail construction.
The trail will be constructed using Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards. Along
California Boulevard, the trail begins outside of the curb, gutter, and sidewalk and then transitions
to be adjacent to the shoulder along the street grade. A stamped concrete section with variable
width will be constructed to separate the multi-use path with the vehicle traffic on California
Boulevard. ADA ramps will be provided for pedestrian access onto the existing sidewalk located
on the northwest side of the California Boulevard overcrossing structure. A 42-inch picket railing
with a concrete curb (Type A3) will be constructed to separate vehicle traffic from the multi-use
trail. A similar ADA ramp will be constructed on the southwest side of the overcrossing structure
to access the trail. Prior to crossing the railroad, the trail will have a connection to the Phillips
Lane cul-de-sac. The connection will be 10 feet wide and require some fill material to get the
connection to the existing sidewalk grade. In order to get back to grade, a ramping structure will
be used and will be approximately 100 feet long. The trail will end on Pepper Street and serve as
a connecting point to the next segment of the overall trail.
Drainage
There are existing 2:1 slopes that grade the existing ground surface from California Boulevard as
well. The slopes are also adjacent to the CHP parking lot down to the UPRR tracks. At the toe of
slope between the CHP property and the UPRR tracks there is an existing basin which collects
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-42
4
storm water runoff from the CHP property. The purpose of this basin is to retain the drainage from
encroaching into the UPRR right-of-way. The proposed trail will fill in this existing basin. In
order to mitigate the drainage impacts to the existing basin, a 1-foot minimum depth v-ditch with
2:1 side slopes is proposed between the CHP property and the trail. The ditch will be maintained
for approximately 500 ft. In lieu of the basin, this ditch will serve as the retention area between
the CHP property and the UPRR tracks.
The storm water collected in the basin currently drains to a headwall and pipe inlet near the US
101 right-of-way. To maintain the existing drainage pattern, the storm water collected in the
proposed v-ditch will flow to an open pipe inlet and an 18-inch pipe that will connect from the
drainage inlet to the headwall and drain at the same location. Existing storm drain pipes that outfall
from the CHP property will be maintained and will outfall into the proposed ditch instead of the
existing basin.
Right-of-Way
In order for the trail to be constructed along the proposed alignment, the City will need to obtain
permanent easement or right-of-way take from UPRR, State of California Department of General
Services (DGS) and, potentially, two private properties near the Phillips Lane cul-de-sac.
Temporary construction easements will be needed from UPRR and one private property. DGS
will also be contacted to determine if the parking lot at the CHP property could be made available
for a construction staging area.
See the attached plans for locations and size of each permanent and temporary easement location.
Traffic
With the new trail located along California Boulevard, a Traffic Management Plan (TMP) will be
prepared for the Project due to potential effect on California Boulevard travelers. California
Boulevard will also need to be re-striped to accommodate the reduction of available space for
traffic on the overcrossing. The proposed Project will decrease the number of northbound travel
lanes from two to one for crossing the California Boulevard overcrossing. It is estimated that there
will be four days of lane closures; two days for each of the planned phases for lane closure. Lane
closure details will be included in the TMP prepared for the Project.
Bridge and Retaining Wall Construction
The existing California Boulevard overcrossing over US 101 (Bridge No. 49-0079) is 58 feet wide
from the barrier separating the sidewalk on the west side to the inside of the barrier on the east side
of the roadway. This structure will be modified to include a 1-foot raised curb. This curb will also
support a 42-inch tall picket railing to separate the trail from vehicle traffic. The sidewalk barrier
on the west edge of the existing western edge of the bridge will remain unchanged.
As the pathway diverts away from California Boulevard, construction for the retaining
walls/approach structures and the abutments for the bridge over the railroad track could be rather
difficult due in part to the steep slopes of the existing terrain. In order to minimize the impacts to
the adjacent UPRR property, several retaining walls/approach structures will be required along the
trail alignment described in the following table.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-43
5
Retaining Wall/
Approach Structure
Stations Limits
Trail Side Total Length
(ft)
Maximum Height
(ft)
16+28 to 16+80 West 52 5
21+25 to 24+78 West 353 20
22+60 to 23+95 East 135 8
24+35 to 24+78 East 43 8
26+01 to 27+00 East 99 8
26+01 to 26+90 West 89 8
The retaining wall/approach structure is currently shown in many typical sections as a retaining
wall either on one side of the path or on both sides in order to elevate the pathway above the
original ground. These retaining walls are currently shown to be spread footings, but as
geotechnical exploration is performed and analyzed, it may be determined that piles will be
required to support the walls. Piles would be placed vertically so as to stay within the right-of-way
of the path. Another alternative is to elevate the pathway on a slab bridge supported on pile bent
foundations (i.e., two piles per bent) with the bents spaced approximately every 40 ft. The
disadvantage associated with a slab bridge is the creation of habitat for homeless or transient
people to take up residence beneath the bridge.
The trail will cross the railroad tracks and connect to Pepper Street using a single-span
prefabricated steel truss bridge, which will be approximately 97 feet in length (station 24+91 to
25+88). A reinforced concrete abutment will support each end of the truss bridge and provide the
transitions (landings) between the retaining walls/approach structures and the bridge. Finally, a
large 84-inch diameter cast-in-drilled-hole reinforced concrete pile will support each abutment.
Staged Construction
A staged construction concept will be implemented. Temporary lane closures along California
Boulevard across the California Overcrossing of US 101, as well as Pepper Street near Phillips
Lane, will be required and will be performed pursuant to the TMP prepared for the Project. The
TMP will also include the use of temporary traffic control devices to limit access to the Phillips
Lane cul-de-sac during construction of the bridge and retaining wall.
Temporary staging areas have been identified for the Project. One temporary staging area will be
located within the CHP visitor parking lot, along with three smaller temporary staging areas along
the trail alignment.
Utilities
The following existing utilities would either be avoided or modified as described below:
Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) underground electric exists within the south side sidewalk
of California Boulevard. Overhead PG&E electric lines exist on the south side of Pepper
Street. PG&E lines are not in conflict with the Project, and will not require relocation.
An existing sewer manhole along California Boulevard at Taft Street will be raised to
grade. Additional sewer facilities located between the railroad tracks and the CHP facility
will also be adjusted to grade.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-44
6
Existing storm drain pipe outfalls are located behind the CHP property visitor parking lot,
as well as a pipe headwall and storm drain outfall pipe. The Project will avoid the storm
drain pipe outfalls, pipe headwall, and storm drain outfall pipe; therefore, no relocation is
required.
Fiber optic lines within the railroad right-of-way will not be impacted by this Project.
A pole with a loud-speaker on it exists at the end of the Phillips Lane cul-de-sac. Initial
investigation appears that the pole may belong to the County Department of Emergency
Services as part of their emergency warning system. The Project will avoid the pole, and
it will not require relocation.
Ground Disturbance and Vegetation Removal
Implementation of the Project would require the disturbance of approximately 3.15 acres,
including approximately 0.76 acres of permanent disturbance, 2.16 acres of temporary-only
disturbance, and 0.28 acres of unpaved construction staging area. The permanent impacts include
an approximately 0.04-acre section of California Boulevard where the vehicle travel lane and
shoulder will be converted to a Class IV trail. The City would implement standard erosion control
and stormwater management measures pursuant to the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP) prepared for the Project. The Project would require the removal of vegetation within the
trail corridor, including the removal of eucalyptus trees, pepper trees, and an ash tree.
9. Setting and Surrounding Land Uses:
The Project is a linear trail located west of California Boulevard and primarily east of the UPRR
tracks. The trail will connect to the existing trail on California Boulevard at Taft Street and will
terminate on the west side of the UPRR track at Pepper Street. The Project site consists of City
streets, State right-of-way (California Boulevard/Highway 101 overpass), and UPRR right-of-way
adjacent to high density residential, medium density residential, and neighborhood commercial
zones. A portion of the trail would traverse an office zone behind the California Highway Patrol
facility and a residential zone near the terminus of Phillips Lane.
Existing uses surrounding the site area are as follows:
West: Developed with medium density residential and medium-high density residential.
North: Developed with medium density residential and medium-high density residential.
East: Developed with medium density residential and medium-high density residential. The
California Highway Patrol office and medical offices are also located to the east.
South: Developed with medium density residential and medium-high density residential.
10. Project Entitlements Requested:
Architectural Review and City Council approval of Project.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or
participation agreement.): Caltrans /Federal Highways Administration (FHWA), Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control
Board (APCD).
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-45
7
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least
one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
X
Hydrology / Water Quality X
Recreation
X
Biological Resources
Land Use / Planning X
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils
X
Noise X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Wildlife has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the Project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Wildlife fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Wildlife Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State
agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-46
8
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and
a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made,
by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will
be prepared.
X
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or
NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or
mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
3 - 2 8 - 1 7
S i g n a t u r e D a t e
Tyler Corey, Principal Planner For: Michael Codron
Print Name Community Development Director
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-47
9
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like
the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where
it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors
to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there
are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063
(c) (3) (D). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they
addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-48
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
10
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1, 5,
24,
29, 36
--X--
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
5, 11,
24, 28
--X--
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 11,
24, 29
--X--
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
5,
10,11,
12,
24, 29
--X--
Evaluation
The City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: the Los Osos Valley
which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and the San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest into
the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the City and its surroundings is generally
defined by several low hills and ridges such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis Obispo. These peaks are also known as Morros
and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of the area
and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard urban edge where
development has remained in the lower elevations. The Project site vicinity within the residential neighborhoods south of
Foothill Boulevard exhibits a more suburban character than those in the downtown core. The street pattern is a rectilinear grid,
providing a degree of formality and long visual sightlines along some streets. As elsewhere in the City, these neighborhoods
enjoy the benefits of mature street trees and the unique visual backdrop provided by Cerro San Luis Obispo and Bishop Peak.
The Project site is adjacent to high density, medium-high density, and medium density residential zones, as well as office and
neighborhood commercial zones. On the eastern side of US 101, the UPRR lies between the proposed pathway and high density
and medium-high density neighborhoods. The elevations of California Boulevard and the railroad are several feet higher than
the base of the eastern residences, which increases the total area of visible sky via their dropped rooflines. Along the trail
alignment, the visual setting includes approximately 600 feet along California Boulevard, and approximately 1,000 feet in the
direct vicinity of the UPRR. Along the UPRR, the trail is bordered by residential housing and offices.
a) The proposed Project is located in an urbanized section of the City on a site with relatively flat topography and gradients not
exceeding two percent. The Project site is visible from multiple public viewing areas including California Boulevard, Taft
Street, Phillips Lane, Pepper Street, and UPRR tracks. Potential viewers include drivers and passengers in vehicles, bicyclists,
pedestrians, and train passengers. California Boulevard and US 101 (east of California Boulevard) are identified as scenic
roadways with “moderate scenic value” and no locally-designated scenic vistas are present in the Project area. The trail
alignment is not visible from US 101.
Much of the Project does not elevate the current road shoulder or bridge walkway to a height greater than what currently exists,
and should not create any new obstructions to scenic vistas. A portion of the Project will be within an area designated by the
City as having a "moderate scenic value", but the finished structure will be low-lying pavement and asphalt, and will not
significantly obstruct views from California Boulevard. Based on the location and design of the Project, views from US 101
would not be affected. On the southeastern side of US 101, the proposed pathway will slope upward until it turns into a bike
and pedestrian truss bridge, which will span over the UPRR tracks from the eastern bank of the UPRR near Phillips Lane over
to the eastern edge of Pepper Street. This area of Phillips Lane and Pepper Street does not contain unique visual features that
would distinguish the site from surrounding areas, nor is it located within a designated scenic vista.
Review of the Project site and Project plans indicate that the Project would not result in substantial adverse impacts to the visual
environment, nor would there be any negative impacts to any scenic views or other visual resources. The trail would continue
from the current trail terminus, and will drop down out of site along the UPRR. The removal of some trees and exotic plant
species would result in the restoration of views of the surrounding hillsides including those of Cerro San Luis Obispo, Bishop
Peak, and the Santa Lucia Coastal Range as seen from California Boulevard. No scenic vistas will be significantly impacted
by the Project.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-49
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
11
b) The affected segment of US 101 is identified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway (not officially designated) by the California
Scenic Highway Mapping System. California Boulevard and US 101 (east of California Boulevard) are identified in the City’s
Conservation and Open Space Element as local scenic roadways with moderate scenic value. There are no rock outcroppings
that would be affected by the Project and the Project site contains no scenic open space. Based on the Project’s location, the
Project would not obstruct any views of historical buildings or negatively impact the architectural integrity and continuity of
historical buildings or neighborhoods. The pathway will not obstruct views as seen from US 101 or California Boulevard. There
are multiple trees present on the Project site that will need to be removed for completion of the pathway and bridge. These
include a stand of eucalyptus trees on the western bank of the railroad tracks, an Ash tree and pepper trees adjacent to the CHP
parking visitor lot, and possibly additional pepper trees on the Pepper Street side of the Project. Some of the trees that will be
removed are visible from California Boulevard and Pepper Street; however, the trees are not visible from US 101.
c) Due to the removal of trees along the alignment, the visual character of the Project site will be affected. There is a well-
established tree canopy within the Project site. The tree removal likely not be noticeable to the public traveling in the vicinity
of the alignment. The trees are not visible from US 101, and slightly visible traveling south on California Boulevard; therefore,
the impacts are less than significant.
d) The Project proposes limited lighting, which will not be continuous throughout the trail. The Project is located in a developed
and urbanized area accustomed to light from residential uses and vehicle circulation on neighboring streets. The Project will
not contribute substantial amounts of light or glare to the daytime views in the area. The Project will conform to the City’s
Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23), as well as the outdoor lighting requirements in the
General Plan, Policy 9.2.3 of the Conservation and Open Space Element. All light sources from the Project will conform to
these standards and therefore be less than significant impacts.
Conclusion: The Project will have a less than significant impact on aesthetics.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 12,
13,
21, 24
--X--
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1, 12,
13,
21, 24
--X--
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1, 12,
13,
21, 24
--X--
Evaluation
The City is located in the heart of San Luis Obispo County and the Central Coast Region, both of which are important key
agricultural centers within the State of California. The region’s agricultural industry is an important part of the local economy.
It provides employment and income directly for those in agriculture, and it helps drive growth in the tourism industry, which
in turn generates further economic activity and consumer spending.
a) The Project site is not designated as Prime or Unique Farmland or Farmland of Statewide Importance on the maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. Therefore, the proposed
Project would not result in conversion of these agricultural resources to nonagricultural use, and no impact would occur.
b) The Project site is not located on farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The Project site is designated for
residential uses in the General Plan and is zoned R-3 (Medium-High Density Residential), C-N (Neighborhood Commercial),
and O (Office). The Project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed Project
would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-50
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
12
c) No farmland is present within or in the vicinity of the Project site; therefore, development of the Project site will not result
in the conversion of farmland. Based on the urban location of the Project, construction and operation of the Project would not
result in any changes that would result in the conversion of Farmland either on or off-site, and no impact would occur.
Conclusion: The Project will have no impacts to agricultural resources.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
14,
22,
29, 30
--X--
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
14,
22,
29, 30
--X--
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
14,
22,
29, 30
--X--
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
14,
22,
29, 30
--X--
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
14,
22,
29, 30
--X--
Evaluation
Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e.,
the Upper Salinas River Valley and the East County Plain), although the physical features that divide them provide only limited
barriers to transport pollutants between regions. The County is designated nonattainment for the one‐hour California Ambient
Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The western portion of
the County is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality
from the monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions.
a, b, c, d) The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLO APCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002.
The 2001 CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLO APCD and other local agencies,
including the City, on how to attain and maintain the State standards for ozone and PM10. Conservation and Open Space Element
Policy 2.3.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the CAP. The CAP presents a detailed description of the sources
and pollutants which impact the jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an
appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality. The Project is consistent
with the CAP because it would provide an important link to the Railroad Safety Trail for both recreational and commuting
users, and would provide an additional opportunity for non-vehicular transportation.
Both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established
ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient air quality standards are levels of contaminants
representing safe levels that avoid specific adverse health effects associated with each pollutant. The ambient air quality
standards cover what are called “criteria” pollutants because the health and other effects of each pollutant are described in
criteria documents. Areas that meet ambient air quality standards are classified as attainment areas, while areas that do not meet
these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently designated as
nonattainment for the State and Federal ambient air quality standards for ground-level ozone and PM2.5 as well as the state
standards for PM10.
CEQA Appendix G states the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control
district may be relied upon to make significance determinations. Assessment of potential air quality impacts that may result
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-51
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
13
from the proposed Project was conducted using the April 2012, CEQA Air Quality Handbook. The CEQA Air Quality
Handbook is provided by the County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District for the purpose of assisting lead agencies
in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development, and includes thresholds
of significance and mitigation measures specific to criteria pollutants and impacts to sensitive receptors. Under CEQA, the
SLO County APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse
impacts to air quality.
The Project site lies within an area defined by the SLO APCD as potentially containing naturally-occurring asbestos
(NOA). The City will be required to comply with the NOA Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying and Surface Mining Operations, which will include preparation and submittal of a geologic evaluation to the SLO
APCD and implementation of dust control measures for the control of airborne dust during the course of construction activities.
Impacts related to NOA are considered less than significant with mitigation.
Construction Significance Criteria:
Temporary impacts from the Project, including but not limited to, excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions
from heavy duty equipment, have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and
intermediate periods.
Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity
to the proposed Project site. The Project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors; therefore, the impacts related to fugitive
dust and diesel particulate emissions during proposed construction activities are considered less than significant with mitigation.
Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, and may be subject to CARB or SLO APCD
permitting requirements. This includes portable equipment, 50 horsepower (hp) or greater or other equipment listed in the SLO
APCD’s 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendices, page 4-4. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions
are considered less than significant with mitigation.
Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts:
The Project is a segment of a bicycle and pedestrian trail, and does not include any additional parking or trailhead staging areas;
therefore, the Project would not result in operational emissions.
e) The Project is a bicycle and pedestrian trail; therefore, would not include any potential land uses which would have the
potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
AQ-1: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control
measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person
or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent
transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name
and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior
to commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the Project site
and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for no greater than three minutes in any 60 minute period.
Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation
of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all
construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans shall be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-52
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
14
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown
with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting,
or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building
pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and equipment
leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall
be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
If drought conditions persist at the time of construction, the following alternative methods for dust control are recommended.
The contractor or builder shall implement the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant(s) to reduce the amount of water
used for fugitive dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA Air Quality Handbook that can be
accessed at the following website: slocleanair.org/business/landuseceqa.php.
AQ-2: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the Project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are
compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements by contacting the APCD Engineering
Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements.
AQ-3: To reduce impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of emissions from diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct
the Project and export soil from the Project site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This
regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more
than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than five minutes at any location, except as noted
in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any
ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than five minutes at
any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the five minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of
the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s
five minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling
requirements, the Project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to
nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and
number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply.
AQ-4: Prior to construction, a geological evaluation shall be conducted to determine the presence of NOA. If NOA is not
present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found, the City must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM), which may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-53
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
15
AQ-5: If asbestos containing materials are encountered during construction activities, the Project may be subject to various
regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants
(40 CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP).
AQ-6: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD must be notified as
soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be required.
In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated soil is discovered:
1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition or
removal;
2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH-non-permeable
barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate;
3. Covered piles shall be designated in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in the covers
are permitted;
4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil must be
evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD’s construction phase thresholds;
5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance; and,
6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division
at (805) 781-5912.
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, including clarifications to mitigation measures as
recommended by the SLO APCD, the Project will have a less than significant impact on air quality. The supplemental
mitigation measures would further mitigate potential impacts identified in the publicly-circulated document, and would not
result in potentially significant impacts upon implementation.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other
sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
native wildlife nursery sites?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
5, 29,
30, 31
--X--
Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-54
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
16
The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: the Los Osos Valley
which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and the San Luis Valley which drains to the south‐ southwest into
the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo, Stenner, Prefumo, and Brizzolara Creeks, and
numerous tributary channels pass through the City, providing important riparian habitat and migration corridors connecting
urbanized areas to less‐developed habitats in the larger area surrounding the City.
Much of area outside the City limits consist of open rangeland grazed year-round, along with agricultural lands dominated by
annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the City,
and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of which are
considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native habitats are
located in the larger and less developed areas outside the City limits.
A Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impact has been prepared for the Project (Padre, 2016a). The following discussion
provides a general overview of the habitat type found on the Project site:
The biological study area (BSA) was selected to encompass the entire undeveloped alignment corridor of the Project.
The Project site is comprised of ruderal and ornamental vegetation. The northeastern slope is dominated by blue gum
eucalyptus (Eucalyptus globulus) and pepper trees (Schinus molle). The understory is mainly comprised of leaf litter, scattered
native (Heteromeles arbutifolia) and ornamental shrubs (Cotoneaster pannosus), and non-native annual grasses (Bromus
diandrus, Bromus madritensis). The drainage ditch is dominated by non-native annual grasses, associated with tall sedge
(Cyperus eragrostis), giant reed (Arundo donax), curly dock (Rumex crispus), Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis), and English
plantain (Plantago lanceolata). Vegetation along the UPRR right-of-way appears to have been periodically cleared, as evident
from willow (Salix sp.) stumps observed north of the UPRR tracks.
An outlet culvert located near US 101 is blocked with vegetation, sedimentation, and refuse and has caused the drainage ditch
along the northern side of the UPRR tracks to retain water. An ephemeral drainage was observed along the north side of the
railroad tracks, between the toe-of-the-slope along the existing fence-line and the railroad gravel substrate. The ephemeral
drainage was reportedly created in the 1950s to manage stormwater within the UPRR (Armstrong, 2016). Padre biologists
identified ostracods, copepods, mosquito larva (Diptera), and Sierran treefrog (Pseudacris sierra) tadpoles and egg masses
within the ephemeral drainage.
a) A desktop review of the Project site was performed that included correspondence with the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS), queries of ecological databases, and review of relevant technical studies performed in the vicinity or
applicable to special-status species with potential to occur within the Project site. Biological surveys, including botanical
surveys, were conducted on January 18, February 2, March 31, and May 9, 2016. The survey effort did not identify 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 (CDFW) or USFWS that would be impacted by the Project (Padre, 2016). No
habitats or CDFW Natural Communities of Concern are located within the Project site. Potential habitats for vernal pool fairy
shrimp (VPFS) and monarch butterflies were evaluated with proper survey and sampling techniques. A small ephemeral
drainage was found to not support a VPFS population, and a stand of eucalyptus trees in the Project site was found to be too
small to serve as a significant habitat for roosting monarch butterflies. In total, three butterflies were identified in the Project
site.
Removal of trees and vegetation has the potential to disturb nesting birds, if present, which would result in a potentially
significant impact. Project construction will be conducted outside of the bird breeding season, to the greatest extent feasible.
However, if construction occurs during the breeding season, a breeding bird survey would be conducted prior to construction
and all active nests would be protected and avoided. The Project will comply with the Migratory Bird Treaty Act; therefore,
this impact is considered less than significant with mitigation.
Botanical surveys were conducted during the appropriate blooming season. No special-status plant species were observed, nor
are they expected to occur. Impacts related to special-status plants are considered less than significant, and contingency
mitigation is identified below to further mitigate potential impacts.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-55
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
17
b, c) The Project does not include waters of the U.S. or streambeds under Fish and Game Code jurisdiction. The ephemeral
drainage along the UPRR does not have a defined bed and/or bank, nor does it have connectivity to a navigable water; therefore,
it is not jurisdictional as a Federal or State water.
d) The proposed Project is located within residential and commercial zones and is adjacent to major surface streets. The habitat
within the Project is fragmented by a network of roadways and railroad tracks, including US 101 and California Boulevard.
The proposed Project does not provide wildlife migration corridors or habitat linkages; therefore, no impact would occur.
e) Project construction will result in the removal of approximately 20 trees, including eucalyptus trees, pepper trees, and an ash
tree. Trees identified within the Project site will be avoided to the greatest extent feasible. If removal is required, the tree will
be replaced at a minimum 1:1 ratio as soon as feasible outside of the UPRR right-of-way, pursuant to a Tree Protection and
Replacement Plan approved by the City Arborist. Therefore, potential impacts due to tree removal would be less than significant
based on implementation of identified mitigation measures.
f) The Project will not conflict with other adopted local, regional, or State plans as there are no protected species or habitats in
the Project site, and tree removal will be conducted in a manner compliant with permits obtained from the City. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
BIO-1: In the event that special-status plant species are observed within the Project site, all individuals will be flagged by a
qualified biologist prior to construction activities, so that they may be avoided. If special-status plants cannot be avoided by
Project activities, the appropriate permits will be obtained prior to the start of construction activities. A restoration plan will
be prepared for the Project (BIO-2), and will be implemented as necessary.
BIO-2: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a restoration plan that provides for a 1:1 restoration ratio for temporary and
permanent impacts, unless otherwise directed by regulatory agencies. Any revegetation will be conducted using only native
plant species, and will be conducted outside of the UPRR right-of-way. The restoration plan will include specifications for
invasive species abatement and monitoring.
BIO-3: Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water Pollution Control Plan for the Project will be
prepared. Provisions of this plan shall be implemented during and after construction as necessary to avoid and minimize erosion
and storm water pollution in and near the work area.
BIO-4: Prior to construction, all personnel will participate in an environmental awareness training program conducted by a
qualified biologist.
BIO-5: During construction, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles will occur only within a designated staging
area and at least 100 ft from wetlands or culverts that outflow to wetlands. At a minimum, equipment and vehicles will be
checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
BIO-6: Prior to removal of Eucalyptus tree or other large trees, a qualified biologist will survey the trees to determine presence
of roosting monarch butterflies. If roosting is identified (e.g., a visible “clump” over a period of time), tree removal will be
scheduled outside of the roosting period (generally November to March).
BIO-7: If construction activities are proposed during the typical nesting season (February 15 to September 1), a nesting bird
survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the start of construction to determine
presence/absence of nesting birds within the Biological Study Area and immediate vicinity. Caltrans will be notified if nesting
birds are observed during the surveys and will facilitate coordination with the USFWS if necessary to determine an appropriate
avoidance strategy. Likewise, coordination with CDFW will be facilitated by the City if necessary to devise a suitable
avoidance plan. If raptor nests are observed within the Project site during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s)
shall be designated an Environmental Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 500-foot avoidance buffer until the breeding
season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or
parental care for survival. Similarly, if active passerine nests are observed within the Project site during the pre-construction
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-56
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
18
nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 250-foot
avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are no
longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Resource agencies may consider proposed variances from these
buffers if there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as protection of a nest via concealment due to site
topography.
BIO-8: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a Tree Protection and Restoration Plan to be reviewed and approved by the
City Arborist and City Natural Resources Manager. Requirements shall include but not be limited to: the protection of trees
with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required;
and a replacement plan for trees removed including replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Removal of native trees shall require
a minimum 4:1 replacement ratio. The Tree Protection and Restoration Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following
information:
a. Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.
b. Implementation plan (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site preparation,
and planting plan);
c. Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-term maintenance and protection of
the trees (i.e.: quarterly and annual surveys to be conducted for a minimum of five years; protection fencing and
signage where necessary; and weed abatement);
d. Contingency measures in the event a planted tree does not survive, including replacement of the tree to ensure no net
loss of trees in the long-term;
e. Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring personnel;
f. Funding mechanism.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on biological
resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
16,17,
18,29,
30,32,
33,38
--X--
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
16,17,
18,29,
30,32,
33,38
--X--
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
16,17,
18,29,
30,32,
33
--X--
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
16,17,
18,29,
30,32,
33,38
--X--
e) Have a significant adverse effect on a Tribal Cultural Resource?
16,17,
18,29,
30,32,
33,38
--X--
Evaluation
Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, archaeological evidence
demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years,
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-57
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
19
and that Native American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C.,
demonstrating that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San
Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people
of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, including the Arroyo Grande area, and from
the Santa Maria River north to approximately Point Estero. The earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes
from archaeological sites along the coast.
Historic Resource Setting: The area of San Luis Obispo became colonialized by the Spanish Incursion initially in 1542, with
the first official settlement on Chumash Territory occurring in 1772, when the Mission San Luis Obispo de Tolosa was
established. By the 1870s (after the earliest arrivals of Chinese immigrants in 1869), a Chinatown district had been established
in the downtown area near Palm and Morro Street. By 1875, 2,500 residents were documented in a 4-square mile area around
what is now the City of San Luis Obispo. By 1901, the City was served by the Pacific Coast Railway and mainline Southern
Pacific, and in 1903 the California Polytechnic State University was established. The last era of growth generally lasted from
1945 to the present.
a, b, c, d, e) Preliminary research for the area bounded by a 0.5 mile radius showed that no documented historical sites exist in
the Area of Potential Effects (APE) and that the sites outside of the APE are generally well documented by previous studies in
San Luis Obispo. No indirect impacts to surrounding cultural resources were identified. No built environment resources have
been previously documented within the APE.
Research and a survey of the APE were conducted and yielded no significant findings of historic or cultural resources as defined
in §15064.5 (Padre, 2016). The APE was surveyed using ten meter (m) (32 ft) intervals combined with inspections of bare soil
patches, along with color photograph documentation. The entire APE was surveyed, excepting the UPRR right-of-way and a
100-foot segment behind the CHP facility that was impassible due to vegetation density.
The field survey was negative for cultural resources. Fragments of a vehicle bridge that carried Phillips Lane over the UPRR
tracks were observed at the base of the slope. According to the Caltrans Programmatic Agreement (PA) (Attachment 4:
Properties Exempt from Evaluation), the following archaeological property type is exempt from evaluation: “minor, ubiquitous,
or fragmentary infrastructure elements” (FHWA, 2014). As a result, the bridge fragments meet the criteria for exemption from
National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) evaluation as a “fragmentary infrastructure element” in accordance with the PA,
and therefore, has no potential to be a historic property and warrants no evaluation or further study. Therefore, no significant
impact to built environment historic resources would occur.
Paleontological resources are not anticipated to occur within the Project area. Franciscan Formation occurs within the Project
area, which further precludes the potential presence of paleontological resources. The Franciscan formation is a late Jurassic
to early Cretaceous aged metamorphic rock with a low potential for flora or fauna fossils. Therefore, no significant impacts to
paleontological resources would occur.
Pursuant to Assembly Bill (AB) 52, the City mailed letters on January 11, 2017 to the individual Native American tribes that
are currently on the City’s list for AB 52 consultation. The City received responses from three of the Native American tribes.
Consultation with the Native American tribes did not result in the identification of any tribal cultural resources. Based on these
consultation efforts, the City and responding tribal representatives agreed to mitigation that would include further investigation
of the area that could not be surveyed due to dense vegetation (during and immediately following vegetation removal associated
with the project), and evaluation and proper treatment and mitigation for any unanticipated discoveries, pursuant to the City’s
Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Based on implementation of these measures, potentially
significant impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures:
The following mitigation measures are proposed in the event cultural resources are discovered during construction activities:
CR-1: If, during the course of constructing and implementing the proposed Project, archaeological, paleontological, or cultural
resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, or isolated artifacts and features) are discovered, the contractor shall halt all
ground disturbing activities immediately within 50 feet of the discovery, the City shall be notified, and a professional
archaeologist, architectural historian, or paleontologist (depending on the nature of the finding) shall be retained to determine
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-58
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
20
the significance of the discovery. The City shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the professional, and the
City shall consult and agree upon implementation of a measure(s) that they deem feasible and appropriate. Such measures may
include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data recovery, or other appropriate measures.
The City shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary for the protection of archaeological, paleontological, and
cultural resources.
CR-2: In the event of human burial discovery, no further disturbance shall occur within 100 feet of the finding until the County
of San Luis Obispo (County) Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98.
The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the human remains are determined to be Native American,
the County Coroner will notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a
Most Likely Descendant (MLD). The City shall allow the MLD to complete an inspection of the site (typically within 48 hours
of notification) and shall comply with MLD recommendations, which may include scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
CR-3: Additional archaeological surveys will be conducted in association with subsequent environmental review pursuant to
the California Environmental Quality Act if Project limits are extended beyond the present survey limits.
CR-4: During removal of vegetation within any areas previously determined to be inaccessible due to vegetation, including an
approximately 100-foot segment behind the California Highway Patrol facility, a qualified archaeologist shall monitor
vegetation removal and conduct a surface survey to confirm the presence or absence of archaeological resources. In the event
of resource discovery during the survey, and at any time during construction, the resource shall be evaluated pursuant to
mitigation measure CR-1 and the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October
2009). Prior to redirecting or resuming construction, a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified
archaeologist, shall be prepared and implemented in the event of resource discovery. The Monitoring Plan shall include at a
minimum:
a. List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
b. Inclusion of involvement of the Native American community, as appropriate;
c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
d. Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part time, spot checking);
e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., What is considered
“significant” archaeological resources?);
g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures; and
h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the Project will have a less than significant impact on cultural resources,
including tribal cultural resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-59
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
21
IV. Landslides? 4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2
[Table 1806.2) of the California Building Code (2007) [2010],
creating substantial risks to life or property?
4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
4, 9,
19,
24, 28
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the recent City Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast
Range Geomorphic Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends
from Oregon to northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex, and is comprised of sub‐
parallel northwest‐southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges.
Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and
greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive and
extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation are also
found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary aged
volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay. Hollister
Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are all comprised of these volcanic plugs.
Faulting and Seismic Activity: The predominant northwest‐southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are
related to the San Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. Other faults in the San Luis Obispo area that are considered active or
potentially active include the San Juan Fault, the East and West Huasna Faults, the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Oceano Fault,
the Oceanic Fault, Cambria Fault, the Edna Fault, the Hosgri Fault, and the Los Osos Fault. The East and West Huasna Faults,
the Nacimiento Fault Zone, the Cambria Fault, and the Edna Fault have not yet been officially classified by the California
Division of Mines and Geology.
The Alquist‐Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone (formerly known as a Special Studies Zone) is an area within 500 feet from a known
active fault trace that has been designated by the State Geologist. Per the Alquist‐Priolo legislation, no structure for human
occupancy is permitted on the trace of an active fault. The portion of the fault zone closest to the city is located near the southern
flank of the Los Osos Valley, northwest of Laguna Lake, but lies just outside of the city limits.
Seismically Induced Ground Acceleration: Seismically induced ground acceleration is the shaking motion that is produced by
an earthquake. Probabilistic modeling is done to predict future ground accelerations, taking into consideration design basis
earthquake ground motion, applicable to residential or commercial, or upper‐bound earthquake ground motion, applied to
public use facilities like schools or hospitals.
Landslides: Landslides occur when the underlying support can no longer maintain the load of material above it, causing a slope
failure. Ground shaking and landslide hazards are mapped by the City and are shown in the General Plan. Much of the
development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. However, the city contains
extensive hillsides. Several are underlain by the rocks of the Franciscan group, which is a source of significant slope instability.
The actual risk of slope instability is identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified
professionals. The building code requires site‐specific investigations and design proposals by qualified professionals in areas
that are susceptible to slope instability and landslides.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-60
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
22
Liquefaction: Liquefaction is defined as the transformation of a granular material from a solid state to a liquefied state as a
consequence of increased pore water pressure. As a result, structures built on this material can sink into the alluvium, buried
structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefaction include lateral
spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with the depth of
groundwater below the site and the types of sediments underlying an area.
The soils in the San Luis Obispo area that are most susceptible to ground shaking, and which contain shallow ground water,
are the ones most likely to have a potential for settlement and for liquefaction. The actual risk of settlement or liquefaction is
identified by investigation of specific sites, including subsurface sampling, by qualified professionals. Previous investigations
have found that the risk of settlement for new construction can be reduced to an acceptable level through careful site preparation
and proper foundation design, and that the actual risk of liquefaction is low.
Differential Settlement: Differential settlement is the downward movement of the land surface resulting from the compression
of void space in underlying soils. This compression can occur naturally with the accumulation of sediments over porous alluvial
soils within river valleys. Settlement can also result from human activities including improperly placed artificial fill, and
structures built on soils or bedrock materials with differential settlement rates. This phenomenon can alter local drainage
patterns and result in structural damage. Portions of the City have been identified as possibly being underlain by soft organic
soils, resulting in a high potential for settlement (General Plan Safety Element).
Subsidence: Ground subsidence occurs where underlying geologic materials (typically loosely consolidated surficial silt, sand,
and gravel) undergo a change from looser to tighter compaction. As a result, the ground surface subsides (lowers). Where
compaction increases (either naturally, or due to construction), the geologic materials become denser. As a result, the ground
surface overlying the compacting subsurface materials subsides as the underlying geologic materials settle. Ground subsidence
can occur under several different conditions, including:
Ground‐water withdrawal (water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to
settle);
Tectonic subsidence (ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding);
and
Earthquake‐induced shaking causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground‐surface subsidence.
Expansive Soils: Expansive soils are soils that are generally clayey, swell when wetted and shrink when dried. Wetting can
occur in a number of ways (i.e., absorption from the air, rainfall, groundwater fluctuations, lawn watering, broken water or
sewer lines, etc.). Soil expansion can cause subtle damage that can reduce structural integrity. Portions of the city are known
to exhibit the soil types (refer to General Plan Safety Element) identified as having a moderate to high potential for expansion.
a, c) There are no fault lines within the Project site or within close proximity. Structures must be designed in compliance with
seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D. To minimize this potential impact, the
California Building Code and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an
earthquake.
The Project will be partially located within an area identified as having high liquefaction potential in the Safety Element of the
General Plan, which is true for most of the City. The Project site is also near or partially within a moderate landslide risk area.
Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation
of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to resist such shaking or to
remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required California Building Code, City Codes, and development in
accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will ensure potential impacts related to seismic hazards would be less than
significant.
b) Construction methods will minimize losses of soil to erosion. The trail is designed to have adequate drainage and will not
contribute to the loss of soil due to increased runoff from impervious surfaces. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
d) Two predominate soil types are present at the Project site and described as they occur from north to south. The first is the
Cropley soil formation, which is characterized as a fine grained, loamy soil (silts and clays), with slow infiltration rates, and a
slight erosion hazard. This formation is located along the northern most portion of the proposed trail alignment adjacent to Taft
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-61
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
23
Street and north of the California Boulevard bridge over US 101. The second soil formation at the Project site is the Los Osos
formation, which is characterized as a fine grained, clayey soil (silts and clays), with slow infiltration rates, and a slight erosion
hazard. This formation dominates the remainder of the proposed Trail alignment. Both soil types present a high corrosion
hazard to uncoated steel.
No substantial risk to life or property will result from the Project because the trail and bridge design will take into account the
plasticity and expansive properties of the soil to maintain structural integrity that conforms to all State and local building
codes. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
e) No septic systems or alternative wastewater systems will be used in this Project; therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion: With proposed development in accordance with applicable California Building Code and City Code requirements,
impacts are considered less than significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 14,
22,
29, 30
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for
the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1, 14,
22,
29, 30
X
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, prominent greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions
contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons
(HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of
natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural
warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include
fossil fuel combustion in both stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment,
agricultural sources, deforestation, high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other
activities.
The major sources GHG emissions in the City are transportation‐related emissions from cars and trucks, followed by energy
consumption in buildings. These local sources constitute the majority of GHG emissions from community‐wide activities in
the city, and combine with regional, statewide, national, and global GHG emissions that result in the cumulative effect of global
warming, which is causing global climate change. A minimum level of climate change is expected to occur despite local,
statewide, or other global efforts to mitigate GHG emissions. The increase in average global temperatures will result in a
number of locally‐important adverse effects, including sea‐level rise, changes to precipitation patterns, and increased frequency
of extreme weather events such as heat waves, drought, and severe storms.
Statewide legislation, rules and regulations that apply to GHG emissions associated with the Project Setting include the Global
Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (Assembly Bill [AB] 32), the Sustainable Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008
(Senate Bill [SB] 375), Advanced Clean Cars Rule, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, California
Building Codes, and recent amendments to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to SB 97 with respect
to analysis of GHG emissions and climate change impacts.
Plans, policies and guidelines have also been adopted at the regional and local level that address GHG emissions and climate
change effects in the City. SLO APCD adopted a CEQA Air Quality Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission
thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012). The
City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction
targets, and includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions. The CAP
also includes measures and actions to help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-62
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
24
a, b) The proposed Project is a bicycle and pedestrian trail and would not result in any operational GHG emissions. The Project
would result in development consistent with the anticipated growth under the inventory and assumptions of the 2012 CAP,
because the Project is not growth inducing, would not increase land use intensity, and does not include any features that require
significant energy to operate. Therefore, any GHG emissions from the Project would not conflict with California’s commitment
to GHG reduction under AB 32. Greater use of the bikeways in the City may encourage some commuters who currently drive
to instead walk or bicycle to their workplace or destination, thereby offering commuters saved resources and less traffic
congestion.
Short Term Construction-Related GHG Emissions: Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use of
on‐ and off‐road construction equipment. Mitigation Measures AQ-3 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include
provisions for reducing those impacts to below a level of significance.
Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: The Project provides an important connecting segment of the Railroad Safety Trail,
which has a small potential to reduce vehicle use in the area. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: As noted above, the Project would not result in a significant impact related to GHG emissions, and no mitigation
is required.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
4, 25,
29,
30, 34
--X--
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
4, 25,
29,
30, 34
--X--
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
12, 13
--X--
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
12,
13,
29,
30, 34
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1, 4
--X--
g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
4
--X--
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
4, 34
--X--
Evaluation
As outlined in the recent City Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, the analysis of hazards and hazardous material
impacts relates to hazards regarding safety risks posed by airport flight patterns, impeding of adopted emergency
response/evacuation plans, and wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas; and hazardous materials or
substances regarding routine transport or disposal of substances, explosion or release of substances, and emissions or handling
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-63
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
25
of substances within one‐quarter mile of an existing or planned school. The following is a brief outline of the primary identified
hazards:
Fire Hazards: Fires have the potential to cause significant losses to life, property, and the environment. Urban fire hazards
result from the materials that make up the built environment, the size and organization of structures, and spacing of buildings.
Additional factors that can accelerate fire hazards are availability of emergency access, available water volume and pressure
for fire suppression, and response time for fire fighters. Fire hazard severity in rural areas, including areas on the edge between
urban and rural land (commonly called the wildland interface), are highly influenced by the slope of the landscape and site
vegetation and climate. This risk is somewhat amplified by the native Mediterranean vegetation common to the rural setting in
which the City is located that has evolved to rely on wildfires for its ecological sustainability. Where wildland fires may be a
threat, plant fuels are often managed by replacement planting, grazing, plowing, or mechanical clearing.
Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability,
corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. This includes, for example,
chemical materials such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated
chemical materials. Additionally, hazards include known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of release
of hazardous materials to soil, sediment, groundwater, or surface water. If a historical release exists, then there is a risk
associated with disturbing the historical release area. The potential for risks associated with hazardous materials are varied
regionally. The primary risk concerns identified by the City, as stipulated in the City’s General Plan Safety Element, include
radiation hazards and the transportation of hazardous materials in and around the city. Most of these incidents are related to the
increasing frequency of transport of chemicals over roadways, railways or through industrial accidents. US 101 and a rail
corridor are major transportation corridors through the San Luis Obispo area.
Airport Hazards: The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the area.
The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft incidents on approach and take‐off. Aircraft
flight operations are determined largely by the physical layout of the airport and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration.
The County manages activities on the airport property through the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). As the means of
fulfilling these basic obligations, the ALUC, must prepare and adopt Airport Land Use Plans for each airport within their
jurisdiction. The policies in the ALUP are intended to minimize the public’s exposure to excessive noise and safety hazards
while providing for the orderly expansion of airports (Public Utility Code Section 21670(a)(2). The ALUC has developed an
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) for the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport that was first adopted in 1973, was updated
in May 2005, and is currently being updated. The ALUP has identified safety zones with associated land use density and
intensity restrictions. The ALUP defines these as:
Runway Protection Zones – Areas immediately adjacent to the ends of each active runway, within which the level of
aviation safety risk is very high and in which, consequently, structures are prohibited and human activities are
restricted to those which require only very low levels of occupancy.
Safety Areas S‐1 a through c– The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of
reduced visibility at altitudes less than 500 feet above ground level (AGL).
Safety Area S‐2 – The area within the vicinity of which aircraft operate frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility
at altitudes between 501 and 1000 feet AGL. Because aircraft in Area S‐2 are at greater altitude and are less densely
concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered
to be lower than that in Area S‐1 or the Runway Protection Zones.
a) The proposed Project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport,
use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed Project would be required to comply with applicable
building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and
occupancy of the Project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and
diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition
to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the Project
would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of
hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not
limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and Safety Code. No
foreseeable reasonable use of the completed Project would include the use or transport of hazardous materials on the Railroad
Safety Trail. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-64
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
26
b) As discussed in impact a, the proposed Project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission
of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title
49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety Element would reduce any
impacts associated with the potential for accidental release during construction or occupancy of the proposed Project or by
transporters picking up or delivering hazardous materials to the Project site. These regulations establish standards by which
hazardous materials would be transported, within and adjacent to the proposed Project. Where transport of these materials
occurs on roads, the CHP is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations. Therefore, based on the nature of the Project
and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts due to the use of potentially hazardous materials during
construction and maintenance of the project would be less than significant.
There is a potential for some amount of lead contamination to exist on the Project site (Padre 2016). Painted wood railings
along the western edge of Phillips Lane and the eastern edge of Pepper Street may be painted with lead-based paint (LBP),
which is assumed to contain lead levels above regulatory limits and should be removed/disposed of according with local, State,
and Federal regulations unless objectively determined otherwise by laboratory data. The immediate shoulders and medians
along U.S. 101 are known to potentially contain elevated lead concentrations due to the historical use of leaded gasoline. Due
to the distance and elevation difference between the US 101 roadway and the planned areas of ground disturbance, aerially-
deposited lead is not considered a significant risk to the environment or public because the material can be segregated and
transported off-site for disposal at a licensed disposal facility.
Based upon a review of available historical information, the Project site has been used as undeveloped land and as Southern
Pacific Railroad (now UPRR) right-of way since 1897 (Padre 2016). Railroad right-of-ways are known to be routinely sprayed
with herbicides to reduce vegetative growth and resulting fire hazard. Due to the Project site’s proximity to the UPRR, arsenic,
lead, and organophosphorus and chlorinated herbicide concentrations resulting from historical herbicide applications may be
present in the shallow soil located within a portion of the Project site. This is not considered a significant risk to the environment
or public because the impacted soil can be segregated and transported off-site for disposal at a licensed disposal facility.
The Initial Site Assessment (ISA) prepared for the project concluded that the Project site may contain elevated concentrations
of chlorinated herbicides associated with historical spraying of the railroad right-of-way. Additionally, the Project may
encounter petroleum hydrocarbon-containing soils during grading activities at the CHP property, as described below (see
d). The potential for elevated concentrations of lead in surface and shallow subsurface soils associated with historical use of
leaded gasoline was determined to not pose a significant risk to the Project because it can be segregated and transported off-
site. Finally, existing painted wood railings at Phillips Lane and Pepper Street may contain lead-based paint. This is not
considered a significant risk to the environment or public because the painted wood railings can be segregated and transported
off-site for disposal at a licensed disposal facility.
Therefore, based on implementation of identified mitigation measures, including soil testing within areas to be disturbed and
graded and preparation and implementation of a site-specific Contaminated Materials Management Plan and Health and Safety
Plan, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
c) There are no schools, proposed or existing, within a quarter mile (1,320 ft) of the Project site; therefore, no impact would
occur. The nearest school is the Love to Learn Preschool, which is approximately 1,700 ft from the Project site. In addition, as
discussed in impacts a and b, the proposed Project is a pedestrian and bicycle path that would not result in the routine transport,
use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the
environment.
d) The Project would not be located on one of the Hazardous Waste and Substances sites, known collectively as the “Cortese”
list compiled by the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) under Government Code Section 65962.5.
Other sites of interest that meet “Cortese List” requirements pursuant to the California Environmental Protection Agency, are:
a 7-11, former Chevron Station, former Cosley’s Union, and the CHP Station, known as Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) case numbers 406, 413, 3345, and 3691, respectively. These sites were once designated as active Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Cleanup Sites, but are all now considered closed cases according to the State Water
Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GEOTRACKER database. These are the only such sites listed within 500 feet of any given
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-65
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
27
point on the Project site. According to the ISA, the 7-11 and former Chevron Station sites are not anticipated to pose an
environmental concern to the Project site based on distance, direction, media affected, and current regulatory status. Similarly,
the former Cosley’s Union site is not anticipated to pose an environmental concern to the Project site.
Project construction near the CHP Station will disturb a small amount of soil contaminated with hydrocarbons (RWQCB Case
Number 3691). The site is listed with soil only affected by a release of both diesel fuel and waste oil (motor, hydraulic,
lubricating) from a historical LUST Site. A total of three Underground Storage Tanks (USTs) and their associated components
were removed from the site in December of 2008, and were replaced with an above-ground storage tank (AST) system. Several
site assessment activities have been performed at this site. Soil assessment activities performed by ASR Engineering Inc. (ASR)
and AMEC Geomatrix Inc. (AMEC) indicate that impacted soil material associated with the fuel dispenser, former product
line, and the former waste oil UST is concentrated centrally at the facility as well as total petroleum hydrocarbon (TPH)
concentrations downgradient and westward toward the Project alignment. However, it is noted that land-use restrictions and
notification requirements have been instituted at the site by the RWQCB due to the remaining TPH contaminated soil remaining
on-site. No records or reports were available to indicate soil remediation has taken place at the CHP property. The Project
alignment is approximately 100 feet west and topographically down-gradient from TPH-containing soil at the CHP station.
Project construction within this corridor proposes soil fill activities, and minor ground disturbance during the retaining wall
construction. TPH-containing soil at the CHP station does not pose an environmental concern to the proposed trail construction
activities at the Project site because the impacted soil can be segregated and transported off-site for disposal at a licensed
disposal facility.
Therefore, based on implementation of identified mitigation measures, including soil testing within areas to be disturbed and
graded and preparation and implementation of a site-specific Contaminated Materials Management Plan and Health and Safety
Plan, potential impacts would be mitigated to less than significant.
e, f) The Project site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within 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, or future users of the Project. Therefore, no impact would occur.
g) The Project would be subject to the requirements contained in the City’s emergency response and evacuation plans.
Therefore, impacts related to impaired implementation or physical interference with an adopted emergency response or
evacuation plan are considered less than significant.
h) The Project site is located in the City of San Luis Obispo and is not located within a wildland hazard area. The surrounding
land is developed with urban and residential uses. The proposed Project will have no significant impact on the placement of
people or structures next to wildland areas that could result in loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires.
Mitigation Measures:
HAZ-1: Prior to construction, as recommended in the Initial Site Assessment (Padre, April 2016), the City shall complete a
Preliminary Site Investigation Report including, but not limited to, testing and analysis of soils to be disturbed as a result of
grading and construction activities. The Report shall include, but not be limited to: sampling and analysis methodology,
including the advancement of shallow drill holes along the proposed ground disturbance areas, collection of discrete soil
samples from shallow soils, and chemical analysis of selected soil samples for presence of total petroleum hydrocarbon
constituents, lead, arsenic, and chlorinated herbicides; and identification of the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons and
chlorinated herbicides. In the event elevated concentrations of suspected contaminants are indicated in shallow soils, the City
will prepare a Contaminated Materials Management Plan (CMMP) for implementation during the course of the construction
activities. The CMMP shall include but not be limited to detailed procedures to properly manage and dispose contaminated
soils disturbed during the course of the Project construction activities, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
HAZ-2: TPH-containing soil, lead contaminated soil, herbicide-containing soil, and lead-based paint containing building
materials demolished as part of the Project will be segregated and properly packaged and disposed of at a licensed facility.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the Project will have less than significant impacts on hazards and
hazardous materials.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-66
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
28
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
5, 7,
15, 24
--X--
i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
4, 5,
7, 15,
24
--X--
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4, 5,
7, 15,
24
--X--
Evaluation
As discussed in the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, the Project site is located within the San Luis Obispo
Creek Hydrologic Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west
of the Coastal Range. The Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit stretches roughly 80 miles between the Santa Maria River and the
Monterey County line and includes numerous individual stream systems. Within the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, the San Luis
Obispo Creek watershed drains approximately 84 square miles.
The City of San Luis Obispo is generally located within a low‐lying valley centered on San Luis Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo
Creek is one of four major drainage features that create flood hazards in the City, with the others being Stenner Creek, Prefumo
Creek, and Old Garden Creek. In addition, many minor waterways drain into these creeks, and these can also present flood
hazards. Because of the high surrounding hills and mountains in the area, the drainage sheds of these creeks are relatively small,
but the steep slopes and high gradient can lead to intense, fast moving flood events in the City.
According to the RWQCB, water quality in the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is generally considered to be good.
However, the water quality fluctuates along with seasonal changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease
and dilution is reduced, water quality decreases. According to the RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project for
San Luis Obispo Creek, the creek has been reported to exceed nutrient and pathogen levels.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-67
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
29
Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo Valley Sub‐basin flows toward the south‐southwest, following the general gradient
of surface topography. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply,
municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use.
a, f) Construction of the Project would result in the disturbance of approximately 3.15 acres. Project construction activities will
minimize risks of discharging pollutants on or off-site by implementing the measures provided in the SWPPP. The completed
trail segment will not generate any discharges beside the expected runoff from wet weather events, which would be directed
into the v-ditch adjacent to the trail which flows to an open pipe inlet and an 18-inch pipe that connects to the City’s drainage
infrastructure. No planned uses for the trail include occasions for solid or liquid waste to be generated, stored, or released.
Prior to reaching any natural stream or channel, storm water discharges from the Project site first reach the City’s wastewater
treatment facility, which ensures National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) discharges are within the
standards set by the permit.
The Project is subject to Drainage Design review according to the City’s Water Way Management Plan (WWMP).
The Project would include the preparation and implementation of a SWPPP, and Best Management Practices and Pollution
Prevention Methods are required to be incorporated into grading and construction plans for the short and long-term management
and protection of water quality (refer to BIO-3). Based on compliance with existing regulations, and incorporation of identified
mitigation measures to protect water quality, the Project would not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements, and potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The Project will not involve the creation of any new production wells for water that could lower the local water table and
will not significantly alter groundwater recharge. The creation of more pervious surfaces for the pathway will not significantly
affect the groundwater supply because water will be able to penetrate into the ground. Therefore, no impact would occur.
c) The Project will result in an incremental increase to the local drainage volumes, but the design of the trail will ensure
proper drainage for rain events and will not increase the risk of erosion in the area. The Project is not located near a natural
channel and would not result in the alteration of any stream or river courses.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) The Project will not result in flooding on or off-site from the alteration of drainage patterns or alteration of a stream or river
course. The Project does not include any work in a stream bed or stream banks. The Project site is not within the City’s Special
Floodplain Management Zones or the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 100-year floodplain, and its drainage
will not contribute significantly to flooding in areas within those zones or floodplains. Therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant.
e) The Project will have a total impervious surface area of 13,870 ft2 (0.32 acre), which will drain into existing storm water
system connections. The 18-inch drain inlet that will drain the site has a capacity of 7.5 cubic feet per second (cfs) according
to calculations done with Caltrans right-of-way standards. A 10-minute storm with a 100-year return interval would result in a
flow of 5.02 cfs, which is safely below the rated capacity of the drain. The approximate return interval for a storm needed to
exceed this drainage inlet would be at least 1,000 years, or a less than 0.1% chance per year. This is well within State and local
requirements for post-construction drainage requirements. The Project would comply with RWQCB Post Construction
Requirements (refer to Section 17. Utilities for post-construction requirements). Therefore, based on compliance with existing
regulations, potential impacts would be less than significant.
g, h) This is not a housing Project and is not located within the 100-year flood hazard area; therefore, no impact would occur.
i) The Project site is not within the potential path of a flood from levee or dam failure. Its construction does not increase the
risk of flooding to existing residences or other structures. Therefore, no impact would occur.
j) The proposed Project is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope Projects do not generate
significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. Therefore, no impact would occur.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-68
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
30
Conclusion: Hydrology and Water Quality impacts are considered less than significant with mitigation based on compliance
with existing regulations and implementation of BIO-3.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 2,
10,
12, 24
--X--
b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not
limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or
mitigating an environmental effect?
1, 2,
10,
12, 24
--X--
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plan?
1, 5,
12
--X--
Evaluation
a) The Project will not divide any community; it will create a new pedestrian and bicycle connection between two
neighborhoods. The Project conforms to the Circulation Element of the City’s General Plan to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle
use in residential corridors and neighborhoods. Therefore, no impact would occur.
b) The Project does not conflict with any zoning ordinances, coastal plans, or specific plans. The Project will serve to
accomplish goals of the City’s Railroad District Plan. Tree removal is required for this Project, but appropriate replacement
mitigation measures will be taken to reduce the impact in compliance with the City Tree Ordinance. Therefore, potential impacts
would be less than significant.
c) The proposed Project would not conflict with any habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan.
Conclusion: The Project will have a less than significant impact on Land Use and Planning.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
5, 24
--X--
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
5, 24
--X--
Evaluation
a, b) No known mineral resources are present at the Project site. Implementation of the proposed Project would not result in
the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. The Project site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or
other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on Mineral Resources.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
3, 24,
35
--X--
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
3, 24,
35
--X--
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
3, 24,
35
--X--
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-69
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
31
d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
3, 24,
35
--X--
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1, 3,
24, 35
--X--
12, 24
--X--
Evaluation
The City’s General Plan Noise Element includes standards for the acceptability of noise sensitive uses to be constructed near
transportation noise sources (refer to Table 1). In addition, the Noise Element includes maximum noise exposure levels for
proposed new transportation noise sources, including:
Outdoor activity area standard of 60 dBA Ldn (or Community Noise Equivalent Level [CNEL]) for residences, hotels,
motels hospitals, nursing homes, theaters, auditoriums, music halls, churches, meeting halls, office buildings and
mortuaries.
Indoor standard of 45 dBA Ldn (or CNEL) for residences, hotels, motels hospitals and nursing homes.
Indoor standard of 35 dBA Leq(h) for theaters, auditoriums and music halls.
Indoor standard of 45 dBA Leq(h) for churches, meeting halls, office buildings and mortuaries.
Table 1. Acceptability of New Noise Sensitive Uses Exposed to Transportation Noise Sources
Land Use Category
Community Noise Exposure
Ldn or CNEL, dBA
55 60 65 70 75 80
Residences, Theaters, Auditoriums,
Music Halls
Motels, Hotels
Schools, Libraries, Churches, Hospitals,
Nursing Homes, Meeting Halls, Churches,
Mortuaries
Playgrounds
Office Buildings
Neighborhood Parks
Acceptable: development may be permitted without specific noise studies or mitigation.
Conditionally Acceptable: development may be permitted if designed to meet noise exposure standards; a specific
noise study is usually required.
Unacceptable: development with acceptable noise exposure is generally not possible.
The Noise Element also includes maximum noise exposure levels for proposed new noise-sensitive uses due to existing
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-70
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
32
stationary noise sources, including:
Daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) standard of 50 dBA Leq(h).
Nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) standard of 45 dBA Leq(h).
These City standards do not apply to the proposed Project as it consists of a bicycle/pedestrian trail and not a roadway or
railroad line. Therefore, operational noise would be limited to user’s voices, and bicycle tire and chain noise, which is typical
of surrounding residential and commercial land uses and would not cause exceedances of noise exposure levels.
A Noise Study Report has been prepared for the Project (Padre, 2016c). The proposed bicycle/pedestrian multi-use trail would
not generate any vehicle trips or modify local traffic patterns, such that no long-term noise increases would occur. Therefore,
Project noise impacts would only be from short-term construction noise.
The noise environment of the Project area is dominated by vehicle traffic on US 101 (trail alignment crosses over US 101), rail
traffic on the UPRR tracks, and local traffic (including California Boulevard). Other noise sources include outdoor activities
(baseball, basketball, skating) at Santa Rosa Park, and landscape maintenance activities at surrounding residential and
commercial land uses.
a) Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of 60 dB
are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and 45 dB for indoor areas. Exterior noise levels will be less than 60 dB when
attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into account. No adverse noise impacts from construction are
anticipated because construction would be conducted in accordance with Caltrans Standard Specifications Section 14-8 (Noise
& Vibration), applicable City noise standards, and noise mitigation identified below. Construction noise would be short-term,
intermittent, and overshadowed by local traffic noise.
The trail would generally parallel the railroad, and users would occasionally be exposed to high noise levels exceeding 65 dBA
Ldn when trains pass. However, infrequent and short duration noise would not significantly impact potential trail users, who
are accustomed to varying levels of ambient noise within urban areas.
b) Increases in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed Project would be primarily associated with short-term
construction-related activities. Construction activities would likely require use of rotary drill rig and wheeled loader, motor
grader, and roller compactor. Construction activities will be limited to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City
ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code), impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than
significant. The proposed Project is a trail project; therefore, no long-term operational groundborne noise or vibration impacts
will result from the Project.
c) Operation of the Project does not include any features or uses that would generate significant levels of noise above ambient
conditions; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
d) Noise generated by the Project would occur during short-term construction. Noise levels during construction would be higher
than existing noise levels, but only for the duration of construction. Although there would be intermittent construction noise in
the Project area during the construction period, noise impacts would be less than significant based on compliance with
mitigation identified below. In addition, construction would be short term and restricted to the hours and noise levels allowed
by City ordinance.
e, f) The Project Site is not located within an airport land use plan area or within two miles of a public use airport or private
airstrip. Implementation of the proposed Project would not expose individuals to excessive noise levels associated with aircraft
operations. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
N-1: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original equipment.
No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-71
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
33
N-2: As directed by Caltrans, the contractor will implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures, including
changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment, rescheduling construction activity,
notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction
noise sources.
N-3: At least twenty (20) days prior to commencement of construction, the contractor shall provide written notice to all property
owners, businesses, and residents within 300 feet of the trail alignment. The notice shall contain a description of the Project,
the construction schedule, including days and hours of construction, the name and phone number of the City’s Project
environmental coordinator and contractor(s), site rules and conditions of approval pertaining to construction activities.
N-4: Construction (including preparation for construction work, such as equipment transportation) shall only be permitted
Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction shall not occur on legal holidays.
N-5: All construction equipment, including trucks and stationary equipment, shall be professionally maintained and fitted with
standard manufacturers’ mufflers, silencing devices and engine covers.
N-6: Temporary construction noise barriers (blanket type or non-reflective solid type, minimum 10 feet tall at road grade, rated
at STC-25 or better) shall be installed and maintained between pile drilling work areas and affected residences on Pepper Street
during bridge construction. Noise levels shall be monitored for compliance.
Conclusion: With recommended construction mitigation measures, the Project will have less than significant Noise impacts.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1, 6,
24
--X--
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
1, 6,
24
--X--
1, 6,
24
--X--
Evaluation
a) The Project will not contribute to population or housing growth directly. The City’s goal in the Land Use Element for
population growth in San Luis Obispo is a rate of one percent per year. As of 2013, the City’s population is estimated at 46,377.
A one percent increase in population would be approximately 463 individuals. There is no foreseeable nexus between this
expansion of the Railroad Safety Trail and an increase of 463 residents in the City or a cumulative contribution to this number
Therefore, no impact would occur.
b, c) No housing will be removed by the Project. The Project would not be built on any residential zoned parcels or areas used
by people for housing. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Conclusion: The Project will have no impact on Population and Housing.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance
objectives for any of the public services:
a) Fire protection? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
b) Police protection? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-72
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
34
c) Schools? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
d) Parks? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
f) Other public facilities? 1, 4,
9,24
--X--
Evaluation
Fire Protection: The San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides fire and emergency services to the City of San Luis
Obispo. The Fire Department is organized into five divisions: Emergency Operations, Fire Prevention and Life Safety, Training
and Equipment, Administrative, and Support Services. In addition to providing fire and emergency services to the city, SLOFD
maintains an Emergency Services Contract with Cal Poly. Under the current contract, SLOFD provides fire and emergency
services to the university in return for a set annual fee.
Police Protection: The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection services within the city limits.
SLOPD is responsible for responding to calls for service, investigating crimes and arresting offenders, enforcing traffic and
other laws, and promoting community safety through crime prevention and school‐safety patrols. The Police Department
consists of two bureaus, Administration and Operations, each of which has four divisions. The Police Department operates out
of one main facility located at 1042 Walnut Street and a small additional office at 1016 Walnut Street.
Public Schools: The San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD) serves an area between the coast and the Los Padres
National Forest, and from Morro Bay to the north and Arroyo Grande to the south. In total, the District operates ten elementary
schools, two middle schools, two high schools, one continuation high school, and an adult education facility. In addition to the
K‐12 educational program, the SLCUSD offers a variety of additional educational programs, including: cooperative preschool,
preschool early education, and parent participation. Within the San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Planning
Subarea, the District operates six elementary schools, one middle school, one high school, and one continuation high school.
a) The proposed Project site is served by the SLOFD. Implementation of the proposed Project would increase the intensity of
use of the Project 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 Project site is already served by the City for fire
protection. The development of the Project site is consistent with the anticipated land use for the Project site and proposed
development would be consistent with the neighborhood commercial zoning for the Project site and consistent with the
neighboring residential uses. As stated in the recent City Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, adherence to the
Safety Element Policy 3.0 (Adequate Fire Services) will reduce impacts related to increased fire protection needs. Trail design
objectives include secure and controlled fire access. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The Project site is served by the SLOPD for police protection services. The subject property is currently developed with
residential uses and redevelopment of the Project site would not result in the need for increased patrols or additional units such
that new police facilities would need to be constructed. There would be no physical impacts related to the construction of new
police facilities, and impacts related to police protection would be less than significant. Trail design objectives include secure
and controlled police access.
c) The trail will enhance neighborhood pedestrian and bicyclist access to California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly).
The Project would not have a less than significant impact on schools.
d) Although the proposed Project would result in an increase in the number of people utilizing park facilities relative to the
City’s existing population, and may increase activity at nearby parks that may be made more accessible by the trail (such as
Santa Rosa Park), a significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration at parks and recreation-oriented public facilities is not
expected. As a recreational amenity, the trail would inherently improve recreational opportunities in the City. Therefore, the
proposed Project would have a less than significant impact on parks.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-73
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
35
e, f) As noted above, because the proposed use is similar to surrounding uses and would result in a relatively minor increase in
users relative to the existing volume of travelers in the area, significant deterioration or accelerated deterioration of
transportation infrastructure and other public facilities from possible increased usage is not expected. The proposed Project
would have a less than significant impact on transportation infrastructure and public facilities.
Conclusion: The Project will have a less than significant on Public Services.
15. RECREATION.
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
1, 24
--X--
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
1, 10,
24
--X--
Evaluation
a) As stated in 14d of this document, this Project is not expected to produce such a volume of new users that any nearby parks
or recreation areas will be significantly impacted or deteriorated. The proposed Project is in part a recreational facility and is
described as a City and regional amenity in the City’s General Plan. Impacts would be beneficial; the Project’s implementation
would help further the City and County’s recreational goals.
b) The physical impacts of the Project on biological resources and the local environment are discussed in sections 1, 4, 6, 8,
and 9 of this document, including identification of mitigation measures to address potentially significant impacts.
Conclusion: Overall, the project would have beneficial effects on recreation, because it would provide an important link in the
Railroad Safety Trail. Potential impacts resulting from the construction and operation of the project are assessed in applicable
resource sections in this Initial Study.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
2, 12,
23, 24
--X--
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1, 2,
4, 24
--X--
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
12, 24
--X--
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
2, 23,
24, 29
--X--
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4, 24 --X--
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
2,24
--X--
Evaluation
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-74
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
36
As discussed in the recent City Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, the City is accessed primarily by roadways
including US 101, State Route (SR) 1 and SR 227. Routes of regional significance providing access include Los Osos Valley
Road, Foothill Road, Broad Street, O’Connor Way, Prefumo Canyon Road, South Higuera Street and Orcutt Road. The local
roadway system is characterized by a regular street grid in the downtown area and neighborhood street patterns in other parts
of the City.
Although Federal transportation regulations mandate the use of a Federal classification system, local jurisdictions, such as City
of San Luis Obispo, also develop classification systems to define their own roadways. A total of 75 roadway segments in the
local, county, and State roadway system were studied under the Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR using the City’s
AADT LOS thresholds. The City considers roadways operating at LOS D or better to be acceptable, excepting segments
downtown where LOS is allowed to drop to E. The only segment noted to be deficient under existing conditions is Broad Street
south of Buckley Road, which is under State of California and County jurisdiction.
According to the 2014 Circulation Element, the City’s objectives for the proportions of transportation modes by trip percentage
is 50% motor vehicle, 12% transit, 20% bicycles, and 18% walking, carpools, and other forms. These objectives are tied to the
City’s adoption of a Multimodal Level of Service (MLOS) standard for determining traffic impacts and conducting traffic
analysis.
a, b) This Project complies with the City’s Circulation Element. The Project also furthers City transportation objectives in the
Circulation Element in sections 1.7.2, 4.1.1, 4.2.5, 4.2.6, and the MLOS objectives in general. The Project is a portion of the
larger Railroad Safety Trail, designed to increase use of the bicycle transportation mode. Development of the trail facility is
intended to change existing vehicular traffic patterns. It is anticipated that a small percentage of commuters currently using
automobiles would instead use bicycles on the trail facility. The trail is consistent with regional and local goals and policies
that encourage alternative modes of transportation. It would not result in increased traffic or parking demand on regional
roadways. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
c) The Project is not located in the vicinity of any public or private airports and will not result in any changes to air traffic
patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. Therefore, no impact would occur.
d) The Project involves the loss of one travel lane on California Boulevard, and restriping on California Boulevard. In addition,
the Project will involve the creation of a new paved surface adjacent to California Boulevard, Pepper Street, and Philips Lane.
The road restriping will be completed according to City and Caltrans specifications and will involve no significant alterations
to the curves or slopes of the road. The bridge that connects Pepper Street to the Railroad Safety Trail will create a new source
of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. This will require an extension of the trail down the length of Pepper Street to the next sidewalk
or a crosswalk from the trail end to the other side of Pepper Street where a sidewalk already exists. The section of Pepper Street
where the Project will be built is not a major artery. The connection to Philips Lane is within a cul-de-sac, which has existing
sidewalks and does not experience heavy traffic.
The trail design does include some varying slopes, with a maximum 8.25 percent grade with two percent grade breaks in these
steepest sections.
e) The Project has been designed to allow emergency vehicle access and Project objectives include bridges capable of safely
supporting maintenance and emergency vehicles. The Project must adhere to emergency access requirements identified in the
County’s 2011 Hazard Mitigation Plan and Land Use Ordinance. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant
with mitigation.
f) The Project is in conformance with City’s plans and policies regarding public transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. The
Project will provide a benefit for public transportation for the City. Therefore, no impact would occur.
Mitigation Measures:
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-75
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
37
T-1: Prior to construction, a Traffic Management Plan will be prepared for the Project, which will identify measures to follow
during lane closure, reconfiguration, and striping on California Boulevard. The Traffic Management Plan shall include, but not
be limited to, the following:
a. Identified lane closures, including vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian sidewalk closures or limitations.
b. Safety measures including signage, safety cones, and temporary lighting.
c. Use of personnel to direct vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, and pedestrians.
Conclusion: With recommended mitigation measures, the Project will have less than significant impacts to
Transportation/Traffic.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
7, 20,
24
--X--
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
7, 20,
24,
26, 27
--X--
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
7, 20
--X--
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
7, 20,
34
--X--
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
7, 20,
24,
26, 27
--X--
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
5, 8,
24
--X--
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
5, 8,
24
--X--
Evaluation
Barring certain exemptions, projects within the City are subject to the RWQCB Post Construction Requirements (PCR)
regarding the runoff of stormwater and the Project’s associated best management practices (BMPs) or low impact development
(LID) measures. The City has adopted these measures for its own stormwater requirements and Stormwater Control Plan
(SWCP). The PCR detail specifications, such as total impervious surface area and BMP performance standards, that are
systematically determined through a series of questions about the project. There is a total of five possible performance
requirements with several conditions in each. It is not possible for a project to be subject to all five of the requirements, as the
fifth is exclusive of requirements three and four. Projects are categorized under the PCR as being either Exempt or Regulated.
Exempt projects, meeting predefined conditions in the PCR, do not need to satisfy any of the stormwater performance
requirements. Regulated projects must prepare a SWCP and SWCP Application.
Part of the PCR determination relies on the Watershed Management Zone (WMZ) designation for a given project site. There
are ten possible zones classified by the RWQCB that are defined by various hydrologic characteristics. Depending on which
WMZ a given project may occupy, the Peak Management requirement can have varying conditions. These conditions include
the use of an applicable rainfall event, defined as either the 85th or 95th percentile 24-hour storm, and the means of compliance
required to achieve a pre-development hydrology condition that performs similarly to the natural infiltration of the site.
a, b) The Project will not generate a significant amount of wastewater in its construction or long-term operation, and will not
require wastewater connections. The Project will connect to currently existing storm water systems. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-76
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
38
c) There are existing 2:1 slopes that grade the existing ground surface from California Boulevard as well as adjacent to the
CHP parking lot down to the UPRR tracks. At the toe of slope between the CHP property and the UPRR tracks, there is an
existing basin, which collects storm water runoff from the CHP property. The purpose of this basin is to retain the drainage
from encroaching into the UPRR right-of-way. As mentioned earlier, the proposed trail will fill in this existing basin. In order
to mitigate the drainage impacts to the existing basin, a 1 ft minimum depth v-ditch with 2:1 side slopes is proposed between
the CHP property and the trail. The ditch will be maintained for approximately 500 ft. In lieu of the basin, this ditch will serve
as the retention area between the CHP property and the UPRR tracks.
The storm water collected in the basin currently drains to a headwall and pipe inlet near the US 101 right-of-way. To maintain
the existing drainage pattern, the storm water collected in the proposed v-ditch will flow to an open pipe inlet and an 18-inch
pipe that will connect from the drainage inlet to the headwall and drain at the same location. Existing storm drain pipes that
outfall from the CHP property will be maintained and will outfall into the proposed ditch instead of the existing basin.
The total increase to existing drain inputs from the post-construction site is 6.8%, or a total increase of 0.22 cfs. This volume
of water will not overwhelm the existing infrastructure, which is capable of draining water from a ten-minute storm at the 100
year interval.
The Project would not contribute to the average dry weather flow for the City. A significant increase in dry weather sewer flow
would be two percent of 3.72 million gallons per day (mgd), or 74,400 gallons per day. Dry weather flows from the Project
will be negligible and well below this threshold.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) The Project will be landscaped with vegetation having low water and maintenance requirements; irrigation works will not
use a significant amount of water. Sufficient water supply is available to serve the Project, and the potential impact is less than
significant.
e) The incremental increase in runoff from the Project will not significantly burden wastewater treatment facilities; therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
f) The Project itself will not generate solid waste besides what will be initially required for construction. Construction operations
will be conducted in a manner that reduces solid waste generation to the maximum extent feasible.
g) All Project construction and operational activities will conform to state and federal solid waste regulations, and local landfills
have the capacity to serve the Project. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: The Project will have a less than significant impact on Utilities and Service Systems.
18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
--X--
The Project is an infill development in an urbanized area of the City. As discussed above, potential impacts to air quality,
biological and cultural resources, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, and noise will be less than significant with
incorporation of recommended mitigation measures.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
--X--
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-77
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
39
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)?
The impacts of the proposed Project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” Although
incremental changes in certain issue areas can be expected as a result of the proposed Project, all environmental impacts that
could occur as a result of the proposed Project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with
existing regulations discussed in this Initial Study and/or implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this
Initial Study for the following resource areas: air quality, biological and cultural resources, hydrology and water quality, and
noise.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
--X--
Implementation of the proposed Project would result in no environmental effects that would cause substantial direct or indirect
adverse effects on human beings with incorporation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study.
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should
identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, available for review at the City Community
Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following web site:
http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately
analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by
mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR have been added to
each impact issue area discussion. Where Project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not
addressed in the Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR, original analysis has been provided and mitigation has been
recommended to reduce impact levels as needed.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific
conditions of the project.
N/A
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014
2. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014
3. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, May 1996
4. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element, March 2014
5. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 (December 2014 Revision)
6. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element, January 2015
7. City of San Luis Obispo Water and Wastewater Element, July 2010
8. City of San Luis Obispo Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department
9. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
10. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010
11. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
12. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations March 2015
13. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Map. January, 2015
14. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, August 2012
15. City of San Luis Obispo Waterways Management Plan
16. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community
Development Department
17. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map
18. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-78
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
91375
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
40
19. 2013 California Building Code
20. 2015 Water Resources Status Report, 2015, on file with in the Utilities Department
21. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
22. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012
23. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community Development
Department
24. San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element Update EIR. June 13, 2014
25. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List:
http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/SectionA.htm
26. Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study 2012
27. Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 2016
28. NRCS Soil Survey Website
29. Applicant Project Plans
30. Applicant Project Description
31. Natural Environment Study-Minimal Impact, Railroad Safety Trail Taft to Pepper Street Project. Padre, August,
2016
32. Archaeological Survey Report, Railroad Safety Trail Taft to Pepper Street Project. Padre, September 2016
33. Caltrans Section 106 Programmatic Agreement, FHWA 2014
34. Initial Site Assessment Railroad Safety Trail Project Taft Street to Pepper Street. Padre, April 2016
35. Noise Study Report. Padre, February 2016
36. Scenic Resource Evaluation and Visual Impact Assessment. City of San Luis Obispo, August 2016
37. Personal Communication: Glenn Armstrong, TRC, October 2016
38. Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines, City of San Luis Obispo, October 2009
Note All of the above reference sources that are not attached as appendices to this Initial Study are available upon
request in the Community Development Department, City of San Luis Obispo
Attachments:
1. Site Vicinity/Project Location Map (Figure 1)
2. Project Site Plan/Aerial Photo Overlay (Figure 2)
3. Project Plans
4. Natural Environment Study, Minimal Impacts (Padre, October 2016)
5. Initial Site Assessment (Padre, April 2016)
6. Noise Study Report (Padre, February 2016)
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-79
91375
41
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate
(dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the
contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased
watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such
persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to
commencement of construction.
a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.
b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the
Project site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20 percent opacity for no greater than three minutes
in any 60 minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed
15 mph and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-
potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work.
c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as
needed.
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project revegetation and landscape plans
shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading
shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is
established.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil
binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition,
building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the
construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least
two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or wash off trucks and
equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water
sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping
when feasible.
If drought conditions persist at the time of construction, the following alternative methods for dust control are
recommended. The contractor or builder shall implement the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant(s) to
reduce the amount of water used for fugitive dust control. For a list of suppressants, see Section 4.3 of the CEQA
Air Quality Handbook that can be accessed at the following website: slocleanair.org/business/landuseceqa.php.
Monitoring Program, AQ-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
AQ-2: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the Project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and
operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements, by
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-80
91375
42
contacting the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting
requirements.
Monitoring Program, AQ-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
AQ-3: To reduce impacts to sensitive receptors as a result of emissions from diesel vehicles and equipment used
to construct the Project and export soil from the Project site, the applicant shall implement the following
idling control techniques:
1. California Diesel Idling Regulations
a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of
regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross
vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It
applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that
drivers of said vehicles:
1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location,
except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner,
or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater
than five minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the five minute idling restriction identified in Section
2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-Road Diesel regulation.
c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators
of the state’s 5 minute idling limit.
2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required
diesel idling requirements, the Project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements
to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors.
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted.
c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended.
d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posed and enforced at the site.
3. Soil Transport. The final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling
route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and
conditions will apply.
Monitoring Program, AQ-3: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
AQ-4: Prior to construction, a geological evaluation shall be conducted to determine the presence of NOA. If
NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. If NOA is found, the City must
comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM), which may
include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for
approval by the APCD.
Monitoring Program, AQ-4: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. If required, the Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos
Health and Safety Program shall be submitted to APCD prior to grading and construction. A copy of the Asbestos
Dust Mitigation Plan and Asbestos Health and Safety Program shall be available onsite during grading and
construction, and shall be implemented as necessary.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-81
91375
43
AQ-5: If asbestos containing materials are encountered during construction activities, the Project may be subject to
various regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP).
Monitoring Program, AQ-5: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
AQ-6: Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction activities, the APCD must be
notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD
Permit will be required. In addition, the following measures shall be implemented immediately after contaminated
soil is discovered:
1. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved in soil addition
or removal;
2. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed uncontaminated soil or other TPH-
non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed where vapors could accumulate;
3. Covered piles shall be designated in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No openings in
the covers are permitted;
4. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the contaminated soil
must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD’s construction phase thresholds;
5. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public nuisance; and,
6. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD Engineering &
Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912.
Monitoring Program, AQ-6: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Biological Resources
BIO-1: In the event that special-status plant species are observed within the Project site, all individuals will be
flagged by a qualified biologist prior to construction activities, so that they may be avoided. If special-
status plants cannot be avoided by Project activities, the appropriate permits will be obtained prior to the
start of construction activities. A restoration plan will be prepared for the Project (BIO-2), and will be
implemented as necessary.
Monitoring Program, BIO-1: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. City staff
will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
BIO-2: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a restoration plan that provides for a 1:1 restoration ratio for
temporary and permanent impacts, unless otherwise directed by regulatory agencies. Any revegetation will
be conducted using only native plant species, and will be conducted outside of the UPRR right-of-way.
The restoration plan will include specifications for invasive species abatement and monitoring.
Monitoring Program, BIO-2: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. The
restoration plan shall be reviewed by the City’s Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the
site for implementation of the restoration plan and continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
BIO-3: Prior to construction, a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water Pollution Control Plan for the
Project will be prepared. Provisions of this plan shall be implemented during and after construction as
necessary to avoid and minimize erosion and storm water pollution in and near the work area.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-82
91375
44
Monitoring Program, BIO-3: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. The Storm
Water Pollution Prevention Plan or Water Pollution Control Plan shall be reviewed by the RWQCB and City’s
Natural Resources Manager. City staff will periodically inspect the site for implementation of the Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan or Water Pollution Control Plan and continued compliance with the above mitigation
measure.
BIO-4: Prior to construction, all personnel will participate in an environmental awareness training program
conducted by a qualified biologist.
Monitoring Program, BIO-4: The contractor shall provide City staff proof of compliance regarding
implementation of the environmental awareness training program.
BIO-5: During construction, the cleaning and refueling of equipment and vehicles will occur only within a
designated staging area and at least 100 ft from wetlands or culverts that outflow to wetlands. At a
minimum, equipment and vehicles will be checked and maintained on a daily basis to ensure proper
operation and avoid potential leaks or spills.
Monitoring Program, BIO-5: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. City staff
will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
BIO 6: Prior to removal of Eucalyptus tree or other large trees, a qualified biologist will survey the trees to
determine presence of roosting monarch butterflies. If roosting is identified (e.g., a visible “clump” over a
a period of time), tree removal will be scheduled outside of the roosting period (generally November to
March).
Monitoring Program, BIO-6: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. City staff
will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
BIO-7: If construction activities are proposed during the typical nesting season (February 15 to September 1), a
nesting bird survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than two weeks prior to the start of
construction to determine presence/absence of nesting birds within the Biological Study Area and
immediate vicinity. Caltrans will be notified if nesting birds are observed during the surveys and will
facilitate coordination with the USFWS if necessary to determine an appropriate avoidance strategy.
Likewise, coordination with CDFW will be facilitated by the City if necessary to devise a suitable avoidance
plan. If raptor nests are observed within the Project site during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys,
the nest(s) shall be designated an Environmental Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 500-foot
avoidance buffer until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have
fledged and are no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Similarly, if active passerine
nests are observed within the Project Site during the pre-construction nesting bird surveys, the nest(s) shall
be designated an Environmentally Sensitive Area and protected by a minimum 250-foot avoidance buffer
until the breeding season ends or until a qualified biologist determines that all young have fledged and are
no longer reliant upon the nest or parental care for survival. Resource agencies may consider proposed
variances from these buffers if there is a compelling biological or ecological reason to do so, such as
protection of a nest via concealment due to site topography.
Monitoring Program, BIO-7: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. City staff
will periodically inspect the site regarding continued compliance with the above mitigation measure.
BIO-8: Prior to construction, the City will prepare a Tree Protection and Restoration Plan to be reviewed and
approved by the City Arborist and City Natural Resources Manager. Requirements shall include but not
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-83
91375
45
be limited to: the protection of trees with construction setbacks from trees; construction fencing around
trees; grading limits around the base of trees as required; and a replacement plan for trees removed including
replacement at a minimum 1:1 ratio. Removal of native trees shall require a minimum 4:1 replacement
ratio. The Tree Protection and Restoration Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following
information:
a. Specific areas proposed for revegetation and their size.
b. Implementation plan (rationale for expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule,
site preparation, and planting plan);
c. Specific habitat management and protection concepts to be used to ensure long-term maintenance and
protection of the trees (i.e.: quarterly and annual surveys to be conducted for a minimum of five years;
protection fencing and signage where necessary; and weed abatement);
d. Contingency measures in the event a planted tree does not survive, including replacement of the tree to
ensure no net loss of trees in the long-term;
e. Reporting requirements to ensure consistent data collection and reporting methods used by monitoring
personnel;
f. Funding mechanism.
Monitoring Program, BIO-8: The Tree Protection and Restoration Plan shall be approved by the City Arborist
and Natural Resources Manager prior to construction. Compliance with the Plan and submittal of required
Monitoring Reports will be verified by the City Arborist and Natural Resources Manager.
Cultural Resources
CR-1: If, during the course of constructing and implementing the proposed Project, archaeological,
paleontological, or cultural resources (i.e., prehistoric sites, historic sites, or isolated artifacts and features)
are discovered, the contractor shall halt all ground disturbing activities immediately within 50 feet of the
discovery, the City shall be notified, and a professional archaeologist, architectural historian, or
paleontologist (depending on the nature of the finding) shall be retained to determine the significance of
the discovery. The City shall consider mitigation recommendations presented by the professional, and the
City shall consult and agree upon implementation of a measure(s) that they deem feasible and appropriate.
Such measures may include avoidance, preservation in place, excavation, documentation, curation, data
recovery, or other appropriate measures. The City shall be required to implement any mitigation necessary
for the protection of archaeological, paleontological, and cultural resources.
Monitoring Program, CR-1: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and building plans, and
be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measure.
CR-2: In the event of human burial discovery, no further disturbance shall occur within 100 feet of the finding until
the County of San Luis Obispo (County) Coroner has made a determination of origin and disposition
pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. The County Coroner must be notified of the find immediately. If the
human remains are determined to be Native American, the County Coroner will notify the Native American
Heritage Commission within 24 hours, which will determine and notify a Most Likely Descendant (MLD).
The City shall allow the MLD to complete an inspection of the site (typically within 48 hours of notification)
and shall comply with MLD recommendations, which may include scientific removal and nondestructive
analysis of human remains and items associated with Native American burials.
Monitoring Program, CR-2: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and building plans, and
be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. City staff will periodically inspect the site for continued
compliance with the above mitigation measure.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-84
91375
46
CR-3: Additional archaeological surveys will be conducted in association with subsequent environmental review
pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act if Project limits are extended beyond the present
survey limits.
Monitoring Program, CR-3: If Project conditions change, additional cultural surveys and reporting will be
conducted.
CR-4: During removal of vegetation within any areas previously determined to be inaccessible due to vegetation,
including an approximately 100-foot segment behind the California Highway Patrol facility, a qualified
archaeologist shall monitor vegetation removal and conduct a surface survey to confirm the presence or
absence of archaeological resources. In the event of resource discovery during the survey, and at any time
during construction, the resource shall be evaluated pursuant to mitigation measure CR-1 and the City of
San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines (October 2009). Prior to
redirecting or resuming construction, a Cultural Resources Monitoring Plan, prepared by a qualified
archaeologist, shall be prepared and implemented in the event of resource discovery. The Monitoring Plan
shall include at a minimum:
a. List of personnel involved in the monitoring activities;
b. Inclusion of involvement of the Native American community, as appropriate;
c. Description of how the monitoring shall occur;
d. Description of frequency of monitoring (e.g., full-time, part time, spot checking);
e. Description of what resources are expected to be encountered;
f. Description of circumstances that would result in the halting of work at the project site (e.g., What is
considered “significant” archaeological resources?);
g. Description of procedures for halting work on the site and notification procedures; and
h. Description of monitoring reporting procedures.
Monitoring Program, CR-4: All mitigation measures shall be noted on Project grading and building plans, and
be clearly visible to contractor and City inspectors. The City shall oversee survey efforts, and shall review and
approve the Monitoring Plan, as required.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
HAZ-1:Prior to construction, as recommended in the Initial Site Assessment (Padre, April 2016), the City shall
complete a Preliminary Site Investigation Report including, but not limited to, testing and analysis of soils
to be disturbed as a result of grading and construction activities. The Report shall include, but not be limited
to: sampling and analysis methodology, including the advancement of shallow drill holes along the
proposed ground disturbance areas, collection of discrete soil samples from shallow soils, and chemical
analysis of selected soil samples for presence of total petroleum hydrocarbon constituents, lead, arsenic,
and chlorinated herbicides; and identification of the concentration of petroleum hydrocarbons and
chlorinated herbicides. In the event elevated concentrations of suspected contaminants are indicated in
shallow soils, the City will prepare a Contaminated Materials Management Plan (CMMP) for
implementation during the course of the construction activities. The CMMP shall include but not be limited
to detailed procedures to properly manage and dispose contaminated soils disturbed during the course of
the Project construction activities, in accordance with local, state, and federal regulations.
Monitoring Program, HAZ-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring. If required, the CMMP shall be submitted to the City prior to
grading and construction. A copy of the CMMP shall be available onsite during grading and construction, and shall
be implemented as necessary.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-85
91375
47
HAZ-2: TPH-containing soil, lead contaminated soil, herbicide-containing soil, and lead-based paint containing
building materials demolished as part of the Project will be segregated and properly packaged and disposed
of at a licensed facility.
Monitoring Program, HAZ-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Noise
N-1: All equipment will have sound-control devices that are no less effective than those provided on the original
equipment. No equipment will have an unmuffled exhaust.
Monitoring Program, N-1: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
N-2: As directed by Caltrans, the contractor will implement appropriate additional noise mitigation measures,
including changing the location of stationary construction equipment, turning off idling equipment,
rescheduling construction activity, notifying adjacent residents in advance of construction work, and
installing acoustic barriers around stationary construction noise sources.
Monitoring Program, N-2: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
N-3: At least twenty (20) days prior to commencement of construction, the contractor shall provide written notice
to all property owners, businesses, and residents within 300 feet of the trail alignment. The notice shall
contain a description of the Project, the construction schedule, including days and hours of construction,
the name and phone number of the City’s Project environmental coordinator and contractor(s), site rules
and conditions of approval pertaining to construction activities.
Monitoring Program, N-3: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans.
N-4: Construction (including preparation for construction work, such as equipment transportation) shall only be
permitted Monday through Saturday between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Construction shall not
occur on legal holidays.
Monitoring Program, N-4: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
N-5: All construction equipment, including trucks and stationary equipment, shall be professionally maintained
and fitted with standard manufacturers’ mufflers, silencing devices and engine covers.
Monitoring Program, N-5: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
N-6: Temporary construction noise barriers (blanket type or non-reflective solid type, minimum 10 feet tall at
road grade, rated at STC-25 or better) shall be installed and maintained between pile drilling work areas
and affected residences on Pepper Street during bridge construction. Noise levels shall be monitored for
compliance.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-86
91375
48
Monitoring Program, N-6: These conditions shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public
Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Transportation/Traffic
T-1: Prior to construction, a Traffic Management Plan will be prepared for the Project, which will identify
measures to follow during lane closure, reconfiguration, and striping on California Boulevard. The Traffic
Management Plan shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
a. Identified lane closures, including vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian sidewalk closures or limitations.
b. Safety measures including signage, safety cones, and temporary lighting.
c. Use of personnel to direct vehicular traffic, bicycle traffic, and pedestrians.
Monitoring Program, T-1: This condition shall be noted on all Project grading and building plans. Public Works
Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-87
California Home Friday, April 7, 2017
OPR Home > CEQAnet Home > CEQAnet Query > Search Results > Document Description
Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street (ER# 91375)
SCH Number: 2017031074
Document Type: MND - Mitigated Negative Declaration
Project Lead Agency: San Luis Obispo, City of
Project Description
Project includes the construction of a new 1,700-ft Class I and Class IV trail from Taft St to Pepper St, to serve pedestrians and bicyclists, and
consisting of a 12-ft wide shared use path with 2 ft paved shoulders. Project includes: construction of the path; a bridge structure over UPRR tracks;retaining walls; the removal of approx 20 trees; and re-striping vehicle travel lanes, which would decrease the number of northbound travel lanes from
two to one along the California Blvd overcrossing structure at US 101. Project would result in the disturbance of approx 3.15 acres, including 0.76 acres
of permanent disturbance, 2.16 acres of temporary only disturbance, and 0.28 acres of unpaved construction staging area. Permanent or ROW take and
temporary construction easements are needed.
Contact Information
Primary Contact: Dan Van Beveren City of San Luis Obispo
(805) 783-7715
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Project Location
County: San Luis Obispo City: San Luis Obispo Region:
Cross Streets: California Blvd, Taft St, Phillips Lane, Pepper St
Latitude/Longitude: 35° 17' 57" / 120° 39' 09" Map
Parcel No: 001-052-004, -131-008
Township: 30 Range: 12
Section: 26
Base: MD
Other Location Info:
Proximity To
Highways: 101/1/227 Airports: Railways: UPRR
Waterways: San Luis Obispo, Stenner, and Brizziolara Creeks
Schools: ES, HS, Public/private
Land Use: roads, UPRR tracks, ROW, CHP facility/MD Residential, Office, ROW/neighborhood commercial, office, MD Res
Development Type
Recreational (1700 lf, improved, multi use pathway)
Local Action
Other Action (public pathway)
Project Issues
Aesthetic/Visual, Agricultural Land, Air Quality, Archaeologic-Historic, Biological Resources, Cumulative Effects, Drainage/Absorption, FloodPlain/Flooding, Forest Land/Fire Hazard, Geologic/Seismic, Growth Inducing, Landuse, Minerals, Noise, Other Issues (tribal cultural res.),
Population/Housing Balance, Public Services, Recreation/Parks, Schools/Universities, Sewer Capacity, Soil Erosion/Compaction/Grading, Solid
Waste, Toxic/Hazardous, Traffic/Circulation, Vegetation, Water Quality, Water Supply, Wetland/Riparian
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-88
Reviewing Agencies (Agencies in Bold Type submitted comment letters to the State Clearinghouse)
Resources Agency; Department of Fish and Wildlife, Region 4; Department of Parks and Recreation; California Highway Patrol; Caltrans, District 5;Regional Water Quality Control Board, Region 3; Air Resources Board, Transportation Projects; Native American Heritage Commission; Public Utilities
Commission
Date Received: 3/30/2017 Start of Review: 3/30/2017 End of Review: 4/28/2017
CEQAnet HOME | NEW SEARCH
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-89
l0O% Posl Consumer Recycled Poper
G*Air Pollution Control District
San Luis Obispo County
April26,2017
Dan Van Beveren
City of San Luis Obispo Public Works
9'19 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo Ca 93401
SUBJECT: APCD Comments Regarding the Railroad Safety Trail Project
Dear Mr. Van Beveren:
Thank you for including the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) in
the environmental review process. We have completed our review of the proposed
project located at Pepper Street in San Luis Obispo.
As part of the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan and Railroad Safety Trail, the project
includes the construction of 1,700 -foot Class I and Class lV trail from Taft St. to Pepper St,
which will serve both pedestrians and two-way direction traffic for bicyclists. The existing
Class lV trail currently ends on California Boulevard at Taft St. The proposed project
consists of a 12-foot wide shared use path with 2-foot paved shoulders.
The following are APCD comments that are pertinent to this project.
GENERAL COMMENTS
As a commenting agency in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process
for a project, the APCD assesses air pollution impacts from both the construction and
operational phases of a project, with separate significant thresholds for each. Please
address the action items contained in this letter that are highlighted by bold and
underlined text. ln addition to the mitigation measures listed on page 14 of the lnitial
Study, SLOAPCD staff recommend the following mitigation measures be added to the
project.
Hvdrocarbon Contaminated Soil
Should hydrocarbon contaminated soil be encountered during construction
activities. the APCD must be notified as soon as possible and no later than 48 hours
after affected material is discovered to determine if an APCD Permit will be
required. !n addition. the fo!lowing measures shall be implemented immediately
after contaminated soi! is discovered:
r 805.781 .5912 r 805.781 .1002 w slocleanair.org 3433 Roberto Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-90
lnitiol Study / Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion for Roilrood Sot'en/ Troil Project
April 26, 2017
Poge 2 of 3
. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not actively involved
in soil addition or removal;
. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packeduncontaminated soil or
other TPH -non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp. No headspace shall be allowed
where vapors cou ld accumulate;o Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind or water. No
openings in the covers are permitted;
. The air qualiV impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with removing the
contaminated soil must be evaluated and mitigated if total emissions exceed the APCD'S
construction phase thresholds;
. During soil excavation. odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a public
nuisance; and,
o Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil.
The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the APCD
Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912,
Dust Language for Drought Conditions- ln addition to the measures included for fugitive dust
control on page 1 3-14 of the initial study, APCD recommends including the following:
Since water use is a concern due to drought conditions. the contractor or builder shall
implement the use ofan APCD-approved dust suppressant(s) to reduce the amount of
water used for fugitive dust control. For a list of suppressants. see Section 4.3 of the
CEOA Air Quality Handbook that can be accessed at the following website:
slocleanair.org/business/landuseceqa.php.
Truck Routinp
Proposed truck routes should be evaluated and selected to ensure routing patterns have the least
impact to residential dwellings and other sensitive receptors, such as schools, parks, day care
centers, nursing homes, and hospitals. lf the project has significant truck trips where hauling/truck
trips are routine activity and operate in close proximity to sensitive receptors, toxic risk needs to be
eva luated.
Demolition/Asbestos
Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding
proper handling, abatement, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos
containing materials could be encountered during the demolition or remodeling of existing
structures or the disturbance, demolition, or relocation of above or below ground utility
pipes/pipelines (e.9., transite pipes or insulation on pipes).
lf this project will include any of these activities, then it may be subject to various regulatory
iurisdictions. including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61. Subpart M - asbestos NESHAPI.
These requirements include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 1 0 business
days of activitles commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a certified asbestos
consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-91
lnitiol Study / Mitigoted Negotive Declorotion lor Roilrood Solety Trdil Project
April 26, 2017
Poge j of 3
Please contact the APCD Engineering & Compliance Division at (805) 781-5912 or go to
slocleanair.orglrules-regulations/asbestos.php for further information. To obtain a Notification of
Demolition and Renovation form go to the "Other Forms" section of
slocleanair.orgllibrary/download-forms.php.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. lf you have any questions or
comments, feel free to contact me at (805) 781-4667 .
Sincerely,
t'f ol,. - Gv*,.L
Melissa Guise
Air Quality Specialist
NIAG/ihs
cc: Dora Drexler, Enforcement Division
h:\plankeqa\project_review\4000V1000\4003-1 \4003'1.docx
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-92
860 Pacific St, Suite 105 | San Luis Obispo, CA | 93401
Mike Bennett
Bike SLO County
860 Pacific St. Suite 105
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dan Van Beveren, Senior Civil Engineer
City of San Luis Obispo, Public Works
919 Palm St.
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
dvanbeveren@slocity.org
April 27, 2017
Re: Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for the proposed Railroad Safety Trail
Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street (ER# 91375)
Dear Mr. Van Beveren,
Bike SLO County appreciates the opportunity to comment on the Draft Initial Study/Mitigated
Negative Declaration for the proposed Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper
Street. This project includes the construction of a 1,700-foot-long Class I and Class
IV trail from Taft Street to Pepper Street for pedestrians and people on bicycles.
We concur that the mitigated negative declaration is appropriate because with mitigations, the
proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment. The project conforms to
the City’s General Plan Circulation Element to prioritize pedestrian and bicycle use in residential
corridors and neighborhoods, and will help the City achieve its 20 percent trips-by-bike goal.
When completed, the Railroad Safety Trail will provide a safer and more direct north-south
corridor between Cal Poly, downtown San Luis Obispo and the Amtrak station. We also support
the decrease in the number of northbound travel lanes on California Boulevard from two to one
to accommodate the trail because it will slow traffic.
Bike SLO County is supported by more than 4,800 individuals throughout the region who believe
safer complete roads for biking, walking and driving are essential to communitywide well-being.
Sincerely,
Mike Bennett
LtCol USMC Ret.
Executive Director
Bike SLO County
BIKE SLO COUNTY bikeslocounty.org
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-93
1
Scott, Shawna
From:Scott, Shawna
Sent:Tuesday, May 02, 2017 11:44 AM
To:Scott, Shawna
Subject:FW: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
From: Streder, Melissa@DOT [mailto:melissa.streder@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 10:50 AM
To: Van Beveren, Daniel <dvanbeveren@slocity.org>
Cc: Kraemer, Ron R@DOT <ron.kraemer@dot.ca.gov>; Margiolas Jr, Kostas G@DOT <kostas.margiolas@dot.ca.gov>;
Mar, Tammy Y@DOT <tammy.mar@dot.ca.gov>; Fukushima, Adam <AFukushima@slocity.org>
Subject: RE: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
Hi Dan,
It appears that the findings identified in the traffic analysis accepted by Caltrans were not emphasized in the IS/MND
checklist. So to ensure that there is no confusion down the road, the 175‐200 feet right turn lane will be required before
or concurrently with the Railroad Safety Trail project as a condition of the Caltrans encroachment permit.
Best Regards,
Melissa Streder
Associate Transportation Planner
California Department of Transportation
(805) 549‐3800
(Mon‐Thurs)
From: Van Beveren, Daniel [mailto:dvanbeveren@slocity.org]
Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 8:41 AM
To: Streder, Melissa@DOT <melissa.streder@dot.ca.gov>
Cc: Scott, Shawna <sscott@slocity.org>
Subject: FW: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
Thank you Melissa.
Best to you,
Dan
From: Streder, Melissa@DOT [mailto:melissa.streder@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Tuesday, May 2, 2017 8:40 AM
To: Van Beveren, Daniel <dvanbeveren@slocity.org>
Cc: G@DOT <kostas.margiolas@dot.ca.gov>; Adam Fukushima <adam_fukushima@dot.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
Hello Dan,
Thank you for providing the 2016 traffic analysis and clarifying previous coordination of the Study to Caltrans staff as
part of the NEPA process. This analysis has been reviewed and accepted by Caltrans. We have no further comments
regarding the IS/MND for the project.
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-94
2
Best Regards,
Melissa Streder
Associate Transportation Planner
California Department of Transportation
(805) 549‐3800
(Mon‐Thurs)
From: Van Beveren, Daniel [mailto:dvanbeveren@slocity.org]
Sent: Monday, May 01, 2017 2:56 PM
To: Streder, Melissa@DOT <melissa.streder@dot.ca.gov>
Cc: Fukushima, Adam <AFukushima@slocity.org>; Utter, Cindy A@DOT <cindy.utter@dot.ca.gov>; Mengsteab,
Hana@DOT <hana.mengsteab@dot.ca.gov>
Subject: RE: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
Hi Melissa – Thank you for your feedback on the IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Taft to Pepper project,
and for the support from Caltrans on this important project.
As you stated, the issue of the potential for traffic impacts to the SHS was discussed in the meeting on March
17, 2016 (one of many factors which resulted in the non-issuance of the encroachment permit for that earlier
project). Now with this “new and improved” project having already gone through the NEPA approval process, a
traffic study was requested and provided to Caltrans as part of that NEPA process.
That Traffic Study was specific to the potential for impacts to the 101 ramps and the NHS mainline, and can be
found as an attachment to this email.
Let me know if you need additional information on the issue.
Regards,
Dan
Daniel Van Beveren
Senior Civil Engineer
Public Works
Engineering
919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218
E dvanbeveren@slocity.org
T 805.783.7715
slocity.org
From: Streder, Melissa@DOT [mailto:melissa.streder@dot.ca.gov]
Sent: Friday, April 28, 2017 4:03 PM
To: Van Beveren, Daniel <dvanbeveren@slocity.org>
Cc: Fukushima, Adam <AFukushima@slocity.org>; Utter, Cindy A@DOT <cindy.utter@dot.ca.gov>; Mengsteab,
Hana@DOT <hana.mengsteab@dot.ca.gov>
Subject: Caltrans Comments on IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-95
3
Hello Dan,
Thank you for the opportunity to review the IS/MND for the Railroad Safety Trail Project, Taft Street to Pepper Street.
Caltrans supports the overall concept of a multiuse trail that would enhance bicycle and pedestrian connectivity across
US 101. This concept is consistent with the Department’s Complete Streets policy and mission statement.
As indicated in our March 17, 2016 meeting with City staff, Caltrans has concerns about the potential impact of the
project on the US 101 northbound off‐ramp onto California Boulevard. The current project proposes closing one of the
two northbound lanes on California Boulevard just north of the US 101 ramps. This is likely to cause queuing onto the
northbound off‐ramp. The IS/MND for this project indicates the project include a dedicated right turn lane on the off‐
ramp. This could increase capacity at the intersection and allow for right turning vehicles not to get trapped behind the
left turning vehicles. This may be an appropriate mitigation solution, but a traffic analysis is needed to validate that this
proposal sufficiently mitigates impacts to US 101 ramps and the US 101 mainline. Caltrans request that a traffic analysis
be completed at the US 101/California Boulevard interchange in order to disclose all impacts to the SHS.
Thank you again for the opportunity to review this project. Please feel welcome to contact me if you have any questions
regarding the comments provided.
Best Regards,
Melissa Streder
Associate Transportation Planner
California Department of Transportation
(805) 549‐3800
(Mon‐Thurs)
ATTACHMENT 4
ARC1-96
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Queue analysis of NB 101 Off‐Ramp at California
As requested by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), this memorandum
describes potential traffic impacts to the HWY 101 Northbound off-ramp due to the
improvements to the California Bridge over HWY 101 associated with the proposed Railroad
Safety Trail project.
INTRODUCTION
The Railroad Safety Trail project proposes to eliminate the #2 outbound NB California travel
lane from the HWY 101 NB & Taft Street intersections. This analysis evaluates the queuing
impacts of that proposal.
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Existing Conditions
California is a three-lane street with one southbound through lane and two northbound through
lanes with bike lanes in each direction. The road widens at the HWY 101 NB ramp to allow
for a southbound left turn lane. The HWY 101 off-ramp, while having a stop control at the
intersection with California, has a dedicated lane to vehicles turning right to merge into
northbound traffic on California.
Traffic volumes were gathered by the City for peak hour turning movements at the
California/HWY 101 Ramp intersection (2/23/16). An analysis of this intersection with these
volumes under existing conditions was conducted using Synchro/Sim-Traffic 9 to determine
queue lengths for the HWY 101 off-ramp right and left turn lanes. With the existing volumes
and conditions the 95th percentile queue lengths for the right and left lane turn pockets in the
AM peak hour are 124’ and 109’, respectively, while the right and left lane turn pocket queue
lengths in the PM peak hour are 54’ and 122’, respectively. The results of the existing
conditions analysis are provided in the table below:
AM Existing PM Existing
SB Left
turn lane
SB Right
turn lane
SB Left
turn lane
SB Right
turn lane
95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 109 124 122 54
Public Works
Memorandum
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-97
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
An analysis of this intersection with existing volumes, under project conditions, and assuming
no right turn pocket was also conducted to determine queue lengths for the HWY 101 off-ramp.
With the existing volumes and project conditions the 95th percentile queue length for the ramp
in the AM and PM peak hours are 299’ and 229’, respectively. The results of the project
conditions with a one-lane ramp are provided in the table below:
AM Existing + lane
removal (One Lane Ramp)
PM Existing + lane
removal (One lane Ramp)
95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 299 293
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-98
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
An analysis of this intersection with existing volumes under project conditions, including the
removal of the California northbound #2 lane, was also conducted using Synchro/Sim-Traffic 9
to determine queue lengths for the HWY 101 off-ramp right and left turn lanes. With the
existing volumes and project conditions the 95th percentile queue lengths for the right and left
lane turn pockets in the AM peak hour are 163’ and 221’, respectively, while the right and left
lane turn pocket queue lengths in the PM peak hour are 54’ and 223’, respectively. The results
of the project conditions analysis are provided in the table below:
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-99
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
AM Existing + lane
removal
PM Existing + lane
removal
SB Left
turn lane
SB Right
turn lane
SB Left
turn lane
SB Right
turn lane
95 Percentile Queue Length (ft) 221 163 223 54
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-100
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
FINDINGS
Reduction of the EB outbound California lanes from 2 to 1 will result in ramp queue lengths
Given the above analysis and the field conditions a 175’‐200’ right turn pocket will reduce
the likelihood of the HWY 101 off‐ramp backing up to vehicles exiting the mainline.
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-101
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Peak 6/8/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T L R
Maximum Queue (ft)61 23 171 146
Average Queue (ft)24 2 57 57
95th Queue (ft)52 24 109 124
Link Distance (ft)854 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)0
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 50
Storage Blk Time (%)11 5
Queuing Penalty (veh)43 7
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-102
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Peak 6/8/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB EB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T T L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 132 6 6 157 62
Average Queue (ft) 54 0 1 66 47
95th Queue (ft)99 4 9 122 54
Link Distance (ft)877 854 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)1
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 50
Storage Blk Time (%)0 14 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 35 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-103
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Peak 6/9/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft)52 6 6 285
Average Queue (ft)22 0 0 239
95th Queue (ft)49 5 5 299
Link Distance (ft)877 854 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)83
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%)
Queuing Penalty (veh)
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-104
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Peak 6/15/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB EB WB SB
Directions Served L T T LR
Maximum Queue (ft) 138 184 23 256
Average Queue (ft) 60 49 1 166
95th Queue (ft)145 361 12 293
Link Distance (ft)877 854 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)1 20
Queuing Penalty (veh)8 0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150
Storage Blk Time (%) 0 6
Queuing Penalty (veh) 0 15
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-105
Queuing and Blocking Report
AM Peak 6/8/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T L R
Maximum Queue (ft)69 6 238 150
Average Queue (ft)26 0 91 103
95th Queue (ft)55 5 221 163
Link Distance (ft)854 216
Upstream Blk Time (%)4
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 50
Storage Blk Time (%)11 42
Queuing Penalty (veh)42 61
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-106
Queuing and Blocking Report
PM Peak 6/8/2016
Master City Network SimTraffic Report
Page 1
Intersection: 222: California & Hwy 101 NB
Movement EB WB SB SB
Directions Served L T L R
Maximum Queue (ft) 135 15 232 59
Average Queue (ft) 57 1 125 49
95th Queue (ft)104 11 223 54
Link Distance (ft)854 229
Upstream Blk Time (%)4
Queuing Penalty (veh)0
Storage Bay Dist (ft) 150 50
Storage Blk Time (%)0 44 5
Queuing Penalty (veh) 1 111 4
ATTACHMENT 5
ARC1-107