Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem #4 - SBDV-1211-2017 & EID-1303-2017 (3063 Rockview)PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT: Review of a common interest vesting tentative tract map No. 3113 to create eight (8) residential lots, a use permit to allow development on a site with a special considerations overlay and a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3063 Rockview BY: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner Phone: 781-7475 e-mail: rcohen@slocity.org FILE NUMBER: SBDV-1211-2017 & FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director EID-1303-2017 RECOMMENDATION: Adopt a resolution recommending the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) No. 3113, a use permit to allow development on a site with a special considerations overlay and adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review (see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution). SITE DATA Applicant Teixiera Capital Partners III LLC Representative Heidi Gibson, Studio 2G Architects Zoning R-2-S (Medium Density Residential, Special Considerations) & C/OS (Conservation / Open Space) General Plan Medium Density Residential/Open Space Site Area 45,366 square feet (1.04 acres) Environmental Status Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) SUMMARY The applicant is proposing common interest Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTM) No. 3113 for an eight- parcel single-family residential project located within the Medium Density Residential zone with a Special Considerations Overlay (R-2-S) and the Conservation Open Space (C/OS) zone located at 3063 Rockview Place. The Architectural Review Commission approved the final design on June 18, 2018. The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on the proposed Use Permit to allow development of a site with Special Considerations (S-overlay), the Common Interest Meeting Date: July 11, 2018 Item Number: 4 Packet Page 107 SBDV-1211-2017/ VTM No. 3113 Page 2 Subdivision, and Initial Study of Environmental Review. 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Planning Commission’s role is to review the project in terms of its consistency with the General Plan, Zoning, and Subdivisions Regulations, and make a recommendation to the Council on approval of the subdivision, use permit, and environmental review. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION 2.1 Site Information/Setting The project site currently contains three residential structures and a detached garage. The site is located in an urbanized area of the City and is adjacent to multi-family zoned residential structures and Conservation / Open Space land. The special considerations overlay identifies that projects on this site should evaluate any substandard street width, drainage concerns and slope. 2.2 Project Description The applicant is proposing an eight-parcel common interest subdivision for a multi-family residential project located within the Medium Density Residential zone with a Special Considerations Overlay (R- 2-S) and the Conservation Open Space (C/OS) zone located at 3063 Rockview Place called the Rockview Moderns (Attachment 3, Architectural Plans). The project includes the following: 1. An eight-lot common interest subdivision, 2. The construction of 6 detached, and 2 attached (total 8) 2-bedroom, residential units (approximately 1,200 square feet each), 3. A street yard setback reduction to 11 feet, where a 20-foot setback is required, to allow for a trellis/patio structure, 4. A fence height exception of approximately 2.5 feet, where normally a 4.36-foot-tall fence is allowed, and 5. Frontage improvements along Rockview Place including curb, gutter and sidewalk upgrades. The structures on each lot will be two-stories with a maximum height of approximately 24 feet and provide two enclosed parking spaces for each unit and three guest spaces on the site. The project is extensively landscaped and provides a 1,230 square foot common picnic area that all the residents may access. The parcels will be accessed from Rockview Place by a common driveway. The project is Site Size 45,366 square feet (1.04 acres) Present Use & Development Three Residential units and Open Space Topography 15% slope Access Rockview Place Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Multi-family properties zoned R-2-S. South: Multi-family development zoned R-2-S. East: Developed multi-family properties zoned R-2-S. West: Conservation / Open Space Packet Page 108 SBDV-1211-2017/ VTM No. 3113 Page 3 proposing to meet its affordable housing requirements by paying the in-lieu fee (5% of the total project valuation).1 2.3 Project Statistics Statistics Item Proposed 1 Ordinance Standard 2 Street Yards 11 feet3 20 feet Other Yards 5-9 feet 5-9 feet Max. Height of Structure(s) 24 feet 35 feet Density 8 density units 8 density units Building Coverage (footprint) ~32% 50% Parking Spaces (for residents) 8 spaces (2 per unit) 8 spaces (2 per unit) Parking Spaces (for guests) 3 spaces 1 space Private Open Space 910 – 1125 sf per unit Common Open Space 1230 sf 1200 sf Notes: 1. Applicant’s project plans 2. City Zoning Regulations 3. ARC approved a street yard reduction to 11 feet 3.0 BACKGROUND On June 18, 2018 the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) provided an architectural review of the eight (8) two-story residential units with a request for a fence height exception and a front yard setback exception as part of the proposed common-interest subdivision (Attachment 3, Architectural Plans). The ARC determined that the project was consistent with the Community Design Guidelines and development standards and approved the architectural design, the eleven-foot street yard setback exception to allow the installation of a trellis feature within the front yard, and a. 2.5-foot fence height exception within the front yard (Attachment 5, ARC Resolution). 4.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS The project analysis summarized below focuses on the project’s consistency with the City’s General Plan Policies, Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations. 4.1 General Plan Consistency The site is designated as “Medium Density Residential” and “Open Space” on the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) map and the site currently has three residential units. The General Plan anticipated compact residential development within the medium density residential portion of the site. The proposed subdivision is consistent with numerous General Plan policies. The policies are listed below in bold print and staff’s analysis follows in italics. 1 General Plan Housing Element Appendix N: Inclusionary Housing Requirement Packet Page 109 SBDV-1211-2017/ VTM No. 3113 Page 4 1. General Plan LUE Policy 2.3.7 (Natural Features) states: “Residential developments should preserve and incorporate as amenities natural site features, such as land forms, views, creeks, wetlands, wildlife habitats, and plants”. Staff Analysis: The project is an infill development that has been designed to be built into the hillside reducing the overall profile and height of the structures on the hillside. Additionally, the project is an “acceptable” design according to Figure 8 of the COSE because the project, as proposed, adequately respects existing constraints and includes easements that preserve the open space portion of the site. 2. General Plan LUE Policy 2.2.6 (Neighborhood Pattern) states: “All residential development should be integrated with existing neighborhoods. Where physical features make this impossible, the new development should create new neighborhoods.” Staff Analysis: This section of Rockview Place has been developed with a mixture of single family homes and small condominium and common-interest subdivisions, including either small-lot detached or attached units. Consistent with other similar developments, units fronting Rockview Place have features that address the street and at the same time address one another at the interior of the site. The consistent architectural style, color palate and landscaping provide a cohesive visual setting and integrate into the neighborhood. 3. General Plan HE Policy 6.10 states: “To help meet the Quantified Objectives, the City will support residential infill development and promote higher residential density where appropriate.” Staff Analysis: Along with this policy, the City has a Major City Goal to encourage construction of additional housing. The project maximizes the density allowed on the site and adds a net increase of 5 units to the City’s residential unit total. 4. General Plan COS Policy 8.3.1 (Open space within the urban area) states: “The City will preserve the areas listed in Goal 8.2.2, and will encourage individuals, organizations, and other agencies to do likewise. The City will designate these areas as Open Space or Agriculture in the General Plan.” Staff Analysis: The proposed project proposes to develop the R-2 portion of the site and place the Conservation / Open Space portion of the site within a conservation easement. This is consistent with Goal 8.2.2 (K)2 of the Conservation and Open Space Element because it preserves a portion of the hillside that is contiguous with the South Hills Open space area. 2 General Plan COS 8.2.2 (K) GOAL: Open space within the urban area. Within the urban area, the City will secure and maintain a diverse network of open land encompassing particularl y valuable natural and agricultural resources, connected with the landscape around the urban area. Particularly valuable resources are: K. Hills, ridgelines and the Morros. Packet Page 110 SBDV-1211-2017/ VTM No. 3113 Page 5 4.2 Consistency with Subdivision Regulations The applicant is requesting a common interest subdivision that includes easements for shared driveways, yards, and visitor parking spaces. As proposed, the map is consistent with the subdivision regulations and includes the minimum 150 square feet per residential unit of common open space for a total of 1,230 square feet3 (see Attachment 3, Project Plans, Sheet AC1.0). The VTM does not show this area under an easement and staff is recommending Condition of Approval No. 2 which requires the applicant to include this area under easement in the Final Map submittal. The project will also include a private open space easement for the portion of the property that is zoned C/OS (see Attachment 1, Draft Resolution - Condition of Approval No. 3). 4.3 Special Consideration Overlay The Special Consideration Overlay (S-overlay) was added to identify that a project on this site would need to evaluate any substandard street width, drainage concerns, and slope. The project proposes to dedicate approximately 300 square feet for sidewalk, street trees and street improvements along Rockview to be completed with the project. The slope and drainage of the site have been addressed as part of the project design in conjunction with the soils report and stormwater control plan that show the proposed project is consistent with the City standards. 5.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The proposed project has been analyzed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) based on an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) prepared and circulated from June 9, 2018 through July 2, 2018, which analyzes the proposed project (refer to Attachment 4 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration). No comments were provided during the 20-day public comment period. The applicant has agreed to all mitigation measures proposed specific to this project. The IS/MND shall constitute the complete environmental determination for the project. 6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Staff comments provided during review of the proposed project are incorporated into the presented evaluation and conditions of approval. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES 7.1 Recommend the City Council deny Vesting Tentative Tract Map #3113 and the use permit for a site with a special considerations overlay. Staff does not recommend this alternative, because the project complies with the City’s Subdivision Regulations and Zoning Regulations and would help meet the City’s housing objectives. The Planning Commission would be required to development findings to support this recommendation. 3 Subdivision Regulations Section 16.17.030. Property improvement standards for common interest subdivisions. A. Common Open Space. There shall be provided in each project of five or more units a minimum of one hundred square feet of qualifying open space per unit for projects in the R-3 or R-4 zones and one hundred fifty square feet for projects in the R-2 zone. To qualify, open space shall have a minimum dimension in every direction of ten feet for open space provided at ground level or six feet for open space provided on a balcony or elevated deck, and must be located outside the stree t yard required by zoning regulations. Common open space need not be located with each unit. Packet Page 111 SBDV-1211-2017/ VTM No. 3113 Page 6 7.2 Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. 8.0 ATTACHMENTS 1. Draft Resolution 2. Vesting Tentative Map 3113 3. Architectural Project Plans 4. Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (This document and attachments are available online at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents- online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-1957) 5. ARC Resolution – June 18, 2018 Packet Page 112 R ______ RESOLUTION NO. PC-XXXX-18 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA, RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPT A COMMON INTEREST VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3113 TO CREATE EIGHT (8) RESIDENTIAL LOTS, A USE PERMIT TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT ON A SITE WITH A SPECIAL CONSIDERATIONS OVERLAY, AND A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (SBDV- 1211-2017/EID-1303-2017) WHEREAS, the Architectural Review Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on June 18, 2018 in the Council Hearing Room of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering ARCH-1209-2017, an architectural review of eight residential units; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing on July 11, 2018 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, for the purpose of considering SBDV-1211-2017, a vesting tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 1.04-acre site into 8 lots; WHEREAS, the Planning Commission considered an Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS-MND) analyzing the proposed vesting tentative tract map; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Counccil adopt the following CEQA findings in support of the project: a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council on March 2, 2010, and this action incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as detailed herein. b) A supplemental initial study has been prepared for the project, which addresses potential environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR for the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. The Community Development Director has recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts, and ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 113 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 2 recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. c) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenc ed FEIR and IS/MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project and the mitigation monitoring program: Air Quality AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php. AQ-1 Monitoring Plan: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. AQ-2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules- regulations/asbestos.php. AQ-2 Monitoring Plan: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 114 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 3 not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non- potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 115 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 4 AQ-3 Monitoring Plan: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements and shall contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. AQ-4 Monitoring Plan: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 116 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 5 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 posted and enforced at the site. 3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from the site, but 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-5 Monitoring Plan: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control techniques are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Cultural and Tribal Resources CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan shall include survey results that outline where monitoring is required on the site and note when a Native American monitor is required. The plan shall provide protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff education requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. CR-1 Monitoring Plan: Building/grading plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the monitoring plan prepared by a City qualified Registered Professional Archeologist to be implemented during construction. The monitoring plan shall specify methods and procedures for identifying those deposits during construction; standards for assessing the significance and integrity of any deposits so identified; and methods and procedures for mitigating impacts on significant deposits. The plan also shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor may be required. SECTION 2. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City Council adopt the following findings in support of the project: a) As conditioned, the design of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints and will incrementally add to the City’s residential housing inventory. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 117 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 6 b) The site is physically suited for the type of development allowed in the medium-high density (R-2-SP) and conservation /open space (C/OS) zone. c) The tentative map, as conditioned, will comply with all environmental mitigation measures prescribed herein, and therefore is consistent with the California Environmental Quality Act and the Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS- MND). d) The design of the vesting tentative tract map and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems or substantial environmental damage since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with the City’s Development Standards, Mitigation Measures, and Conditions of Approval. e) The project insures safe, orderly development along Rockview Place because the project complies with the City’s housing goals and the City’s General Plan for maintaining compact urban form. Findings for Special Considerations f) Necessary public improvements are being secured through the permitting of the proposed project, including frontage improvements and street trees. g) Site drainage has been designed consistent with the stormwater control plan post construction requirements. h) The proposed project conforms to the Zoning Regulations requirement with the approval of the use permit because the special considerations overlay that pertains to substandard street width, slope, and drainage concerns site are addressed as part of the project design. SECTION 3. Action. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend the City Council approve application SBDV-1211-2017 (VTM No. 3113), a vesting tentative tract map to create up to eight (8) residential lots, subject to the following conditions: Planning Division – Community Development Department 1. The project shall comply with the mitigation measures outlined in the Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. The subdivider shall include the common open space area within an easement as a part of the Final Vesting Tract Map to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and the Public Works Director. ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 118 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 7 Natural Resources Division - Administration Department 3. The subdivider shall dedicate a Private Open Space Easement encumbering the open space area shown on the Vesting Tentative Tract Map to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager and in a form approved by the City Attorney. Engineering Division – Public Works/Community Development Department 4. The subdivision shall be recorded with a final map. The map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the City’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards. A separate application, checklist, and final map review fee shall be paid at the time of final map processing. 5. Park in-lieu fees shall be paid for each new dwelling unit prior to map recordation. The fees shall be based on the fee resolution in effect at the time of map recordation. Credit for the removal of any lawful unit will be applied to the final fee. 6. Building demolitions and utility abandonments shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City prior to map recordation. Utility abandonments related to the required subdivision improvements may be deferred if covered with the subdivision agreement and app ropriate surety. 7. Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, common areas, and the maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 8. The required dedications for street purposes (curb, gutter, and sidewalk) and for the public pedestrian easement for the ADA sidewalk extension at the driveway approach shall be based on the approved subdivision improvement plans and shall be shown and noted on the final map. 9. The street improvement plans shall detail any transition from the new integral curb, gutter, and sidewalk back to the adjoining sections of 4’ sidewalk where a transition is practical. The northerly transition shall consider and provide a minimum 4’ clearance around the existing utility pole to remain in accordance with ADA and City Engineering Standards. 10. The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide street tree easement and public utility easement (P.U.E.) across the frontage of each lot bordering Rockview Place. 11. Separate utilities, including water, sewer, gas, electricity, telephone, and cable TV shall be served to each lot/parcel to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and serving utility companies. A private common sewer main may be proposed to the satisfaction of the Building ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 119 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 8 Official, Utilities Engineer, and Public Works Director. Wire utilities to new residences/structures shall be underground. 12. Unless otherwise required by the Fire Department for an on-site fire hydrant or NFPA 13-R fire sprinkler system, the project should be designed with residential NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler systems served through the individual domestic meters. The common 4” fire service lateral and double-check assembly shown on the tentative plans should be removed. 13. A separate subdivision improvement plan submittal is not required. The building plan submittal may be used to show all required public and private subdivision improvements. Improvements located within the public right-of-way will require a separate encroachment permit and associated inspection fees based on the fee schedule in effect at the time of permit issuance. A separate subdivision improvement plan review fee and subdivision map check fee will be required for the review of subdivision improvements and map in accordance with the most current fee resolution. 14. These lots shall be considered a common plan of development in relation to the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board for redeveloped sites. The building plan submittal shall show compliance with the Post Construction Stormwater Requirements. The replaced sidewalk shall be considered in the compliance documentation and improvement plan design. The runoff from the sidewalk shall be treated for water quality in accordance with the PCR's. 15. An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post construction stormwater improvements. The manual shall be provided at the time of building permit application and shall be accepted by the City prior to building permit issuance. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. Indemnification 16. Pursuant to Government Code § 66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and /or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and /or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. Upon motion of _________________, seconded by _______________________, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 120 Resolution No. _____ (2018 Series) Page 9 ABSTAIN: RECUSED: The foregoing resolution was adopted this 11th day of July 2018. ____________________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission ATTACHMENT 1 Packet Page 121 Project:Revisions:Proj. Engr.:Proj. Mngr.:Date:A&V Job No.:Scale:PER PLANABCDEFGHIABCDEFGHI1234567C:\Egnyte\Shared\Sun\All Jobs\2017 All Jobs\17110 - Rockview Moderns (Civil) - VHI\02_Working Drawings\Preliminary or Construction\02_ONSITE\TENTATIVE MAP.dwg, C-1.1 VESTING TENTATIVE MAP, May 03, 2018 9:24pm, ZachPlan Prepared By:The use of these plans and specifications shall berestricted to the original site for which they wereprepared and publication thereof is expressly limited tosuch use. Reproduction or publication by any method, inwhole or in part, is prohibited. Title to these plans andspecifications remain with Ashley & Vance Engineering,Inc. without prejudice. Visual contact with these plansand specifications shall constitute prima facie evidenceof the acceptance of these restrictions.Ashley&VanceG, Cwww.ashleyvance.comC I V I L S T R U C T U R A L113 W. Chestnut StreetBellingham, WA 98225(360) 746-8020 (805) 545-0010Phone Ext.:Phone Ext.:THE ROCKVIEW MODERNS3063 ROCKVIEW PLACESAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ZRBKBB05.03.201817110VESTING TENTATIVEMAPC-1.11.2.3.4.5.226119020 20 40HORIZONTAL SCALE: FEETNLOT 5LOT 4LOT 6LOT 7LOT 8LOT 3LOT 2LOT 1ROCKVIEW PLACETHE ROCKVIEWMODERNS -VESTING TENTATIVEMAPPROPOSED 10.50' ACCESSAND UTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED 10.50' ACCESSAND UTILITY EASEMENTVICINITY MAPPROJECT SITENPROPOSED 5.25'ACCESS EASEMENTFOR THE BENEFIT OFLOT 7PROPOSED 5.25'ACCESS EASEMENTFOR THE BENEFIT OFLOT 6PROPOSED 5.25'ACCESS EASEMENTFOR THE BENEFIT OFLOT 2PROPOSED 5.25'ACCESS EASEMENTFOR THE BENEFIT OFLOT 3CLIENT:TEIXEIRA CAPITAL PARTNERS III LLC755 SANTA ROSA, SUITE 300SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401ARCHITECT:STUDIO 2G ARCHITECTS, LLP1540 MARSH STREET, SUITE 230SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401GEOTECHNICAL: GEOSOLUTIONS, INC.PATRICK MCNEILL220 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401SURVEYOR:JON McKELLAR2605 SOUTH MILLER STSUITE 107SANTA MARIA, CA 93455805.680.1895APN: 004-584-004ZONING:R-2-STRACT NUMBER: 3113LEGAL DESCRIPTION:THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OFSAN LUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:LOT 29 AND 30 OF THE YOAKUM POULTRY UNITS, IN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, COUNTY OF SANLUIS OBISPO, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ACCORDING TO MAP RECORDED MARCH 11, 1927 IN BOOK 3,PAGE 89 OF MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.EXISTING SURVEY INFORMATION FROM PLAN PREPARED BY JON McKELLAR DATEDMAY 2017.BASIS OF BEARINGS: BASIS OF BEARINGS IS THE CENTERLINE OF ROCKVIEWPLACE.BENCHMARK: THE LOCAL BENCHMARK IS THE MONUMENT LOCATED IN THE TOP OFTHE WESTERLY CURB NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKVIEW PLACE ANDSWEENEY, (BM #345)ELEVATION 243.41', NAVD 88NOTE:1. SURVEY INFORMATION IN THIS PLAN SET IS NOT A BOUNDARY SURVEY.PROPERTY LINES, SETBACKS, AND EASEMENT INFORMATION SHOWN IS FORREFERENCE ONLY.2. CONFIRM BENCHMARK DATA AND CONDITION WITH PROJECT SURVEYOR PRIORTO USE. THE SURVEYOR MUST PROVIDE THE ENGINEER WITH THE SURVEYCONTROL NOTES, CONTROL COORDINATES, AND SURVEY NOTES.SURVEY MONUMENT PROTECTION:PROTECT AND PRESERVE, IN PLACE, ALL SURVEY MONUMENTS AND BENCHMARKS.DO NOT DISTURB, MOVE, OR RELOCATE MONUMENTS OR BENCHMARKS WITHOUTTHE PRIOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE AGENCY HAVING JURISDICTION OVERTHE MONUMENT OR BENCHMARK. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONTRACT WITH ALICENSED SURVEYOR FOR MONUMENTS REQUIRING DISTURBANCE OR REMOVAL,AND THE SURVEYOR SHALL RESET THE MONUMENTS OR PROVIDE PERMANENTWITNESS MONUMENTS AND FILE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WITH THEAUTHORITY HAVING JURISDICTION, PURSUANT TO ALL APPLICABLE BUSINESS ANDPROFESSIONAL CODES.SURVEY NOTESPROJECT INFORMATION004-584-005004-584-016004-584-015004-584-014004-584-013004-584-012PROPOSED SIDEWALKDEDICATIONPROPOSED ACCESS ANDUTILITY EASEMENTPROPOSED OPENSPACE EASEMENTPROPOSED OPENSPACE EASEMENTEASEMENT INFORMATION PER PRELIMINARY TITLE REPORT BY:FIDELITY NATIONAL TITLE COMPANY,2222 S. BROADWAY, SUITE G,SANTA MARIA, CA 93454EFFECTIVE JULY 11, 2017. TITLE NO. FSLC-531700246DWL.EASEMENTS:EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTAL THERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:GRANTED TO:THE PACIFIC TELEPHONE & TELEGRAPH COMPANYPURPOSE:PUBLIC UTILITIES AND INCIDENTAL PURPOSESRECORDING DATE:APRIL 10, 1920RECORDING NO.:BOOK 137 OF DEEDS, PAGE 63LIMITATIONS ON THE USE, BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LAND, OF THE EASEMENT AREA AS SET FORTH IN THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT SHOWN HEREINABOVE. REFERENCE IS HEREBY MADE TO SAID DOCUMENT FOR FULL PARTICULARS.EASEMENT(S) FOR THE PURPOSE(S) SHOWN BELOW AND RIGHTS INCIDENTALTHERETO, AS GRANTED IN A DOCUMENT:GRANTED TO:COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPOPURPOSE;PUBLIC HIGHWAYRECORDING DATE:NOVEMBER 9, 1933RECORDING NO.:4674 IN BOOK 144 OF OFFICIAL RECORDS PAGE 84AFFECTS:NORTHEDY 10 FEETLIMITATIONS ON THE USE, BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LAND, OF THE EASEMENT AREAAS SET FORTH IN THE EASEMENT DOCUMENT SHOWN HEREINABOVE. REFERENCE ISHEREBY MADE TO SAID DOCUMENT FOR FULL PARTICULARS.EASEMENT INFORMATIONPROPOSED 2.00'SIDEWALKDEDICATIONSETBACK LINES, TYP.ATTACHMENT 2Packet Page 122 ARCHITECTSTUDIO 2G ARCHITECTS, LLPARCHITECT: HEIDI GIBSON1541 MARSH ST SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:805.594.0771OWNER / CLIENTCONTACT: KEVIN TEIXIERA755 SANTA ROSA STREET, STE 300SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P: 805.698.3520PROJECT TEAMSYMBOL LEGENDSheet NumberSection Cut Reference Indicates Direction Of ViewA7.0-AExit SignRefer to Life Safetly Plans and'E' sheets for locations and requirements.A7.0-ASheet NumberInterior Elevation Reference NumberIndicates Direction Of ViewEXITDoor ID - Refer To Sheet A3.0#Window ID - Refer To Sheet A3.1AROCKVIEW MODERNSVICINITY MAPSCALE: NTSPROJECT INFOSITE SUMMARYPROJECT DESCRIPTIONAPN:004-584-004ZONE:R-2CONSTRUCTION TYPE:ADDRESS: 3063 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 STRUCTURAL AND CIVIL ENGINEERASHLEY & VANCE ENGINEERINGENGINEER:1413 MONTEREY STSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:805.545-0010BUILDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONAt the time of final inspection, a manual, compact disc, web-based reference or other media acceptable to the enforcing agency, which includes all of the following shall be placed in the building:1. Directions to the owner or occupant that the manual shall remain with the building throughout the life cycle of the structure.2. Operation and maintenance instructions for the following:A. Equipment and appliances, including water-saving devices and systems, HVAC systems, water-heating systems and other major applicances and equipment.B. Roof and yard drainage, including gutters and downspoutsC. Space conditioning systems, including condensers and air filtersD. Landscape irrigation systems.E. Water reuse systems3. Information from local utility, water and waste recovery providers on methods to further reduce resource consumption, including recycle programs and locations.4. Public transportation and/or carpool options available in the area.5. Educational material on the positive impacts of an interior relative humidity between 30-60% and what methods an occupant may use to maintain the relative humidity level in that range.6. Information about water-conserving landscape and irrigation design and controllers which conserve water7. Instructions for maintaining gutters and downspouts and the importance of diverting water at least 5'0" away from the foundation8. Information on required routine maintenance measures, including, but not limited to, caulking, painting, grading around the building....etc.9. Information about state solar energy and incentive programs available.10. A copy of all special inspection verifications required by the enforcing agency or this code.AGENCIES & UTILITIESCITY BUILDINGCOUNTY GOVERNMENT CTR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.781.5600CITY PLANNINGCOUNTY GOVERNMENT CTR.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401805.781.5600CITY LAW ENFORCEMENT1585 KANSAS AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805.781.4550PG & E4325 HIGUERA STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805.546.5247CDF / SLO COUNTY FIRE635 N. SANTA ROSA ST.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805.543.4248SBC / AT&TSERVICE CENTER1.800.310.2355 (RESIDENTIAL)1.800.750.2355 (BUSINESS)THE GAS COMPANYBUILDER SERVICES750 INDUSTRIAL WAYSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 934011.818.700.3693CITY HEALTH2191 JOHNSON AVE.SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA805.781.5500UNDERGROUND SERVICES1.800.642.2444PROJECT REQUIREMENTSThis project shall comply with the 2016 California Building Code (CBC) and/or the California Residential Code (CRC).Codes: All construction shall conform to the following codes: 2016 California Building Code Vol. 1 & 2 (2015 IBC) 2016 California Residential Code (2015 IRC) 2016 California Electrical Code (2014 NEC) 2016 California Mechanical Code (2015 UMC) 2016 California Plumbing Code (2015 UPC) 2016 California Energy Code 2016 California Fire Code (2015 IFC) 2016 Green Building Standards Code (CALGreen Code) San Luis Obispo County Buildling and Construction Ordinance Title 19 San Luis Obispo County Coastal Zone Land Use Ordinance Title 23 San Luis Obispo County Fire Code Ordinance Title 16 San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance Title 22NFPA National Fire Codes, all other codes and ordinances adopted by the agencies having jurisdiction over this project.All Amendments to the CA Codes adopted by the County of San Luis Obispo, and all other codes, regulations, and approvals established by the County of San Luis Obispo. this project is primarily governed by the CA Residential Code; only engineered structural components are subject to the CBC.All work located within the public right of way or within the jurisdiction of the County Utilities and Public Works Departments shall comply with the most current edition of the engineering standards and standards specifications.SOILS REPORTThe geotechnical engineering report prepared by Geo Solutions, Inc for Rockview Moderns subdivision at 3063 Rockview Place San Luis Obispo CA 93401PERMITS & SPECIAL INSPECTIONS:Structural Special Inspections: Refer to Structural Sheet Green Point Rated Checklist Verification provided by Central Coast Energy Compliance.STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCEThis project has been designed in accordance with and meets the City of San Luis Obispo Adopted code and ordinance requirements including, but not limited to the California State Accessibility Standards and I/We will be responsible for all clarifications deemed necessary during the construction phases.SignatureDateCLIMATE ZONE:SITE*ELECTRIAL ENGINEERTHOMA ENGINEERINGENGINEER: JAMES DEAN3562 EMPLEO STE CSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:805.543.3850SOILSGEOSOLUTIONS, INCENGINEER: PATRICK B MCNEILL220 HIGH STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTPLIEN AIRELANDSCAPE ARCHITECT: KEVEN SMALL2615 SKYWAY DRIVE STE BSANTA MARIA CA 93455P:805.349.9695§§MECHANICAL/PLUMBING ENGINEERBRUMMEL MYRIC & ASSOCIATESARCHITECT: BEN BABB100 CROSS STREETSAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:805.544.42693063 ROCKVIEW PLACE, SAN LUIS OBISPO CA 93401ENERGY COMPLIANCECCEC ENGINEER: MICHELLE DUNN1675 GRANACHE WAYTEMPLETON CA 93465P:805.434.3844BOTANICAL SURVEYTERRA VERDE ENVIRONMENTALBOTANIST: BROOK LANGLE3765 SOUTH HIGUERA ST STE 102SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401P:805.896.5479Type VZone 5AREASPROPERTY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SIDEWALK 301 SQ FT. DENSITYHILLSIDE SUBDIVISION §16.18.130OPEN SPACE EASEMENT §18.18.130AATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 123 25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"25"X51"2AC22AC23AC23AC24AC24AC21AC21AC22AC22AC2ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 124 ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 125 Overall Max. Roof Ht.+26'-0"Roof Height+22'-0"F.F.246.10'Overall Max. Roof Ht.+26'-0"Roof Height+22'-0"F.F.246.10'Overall Max. Building Height+35'-0" Above Natural GradeN.G.245.50'Overall Max. Allowable Roof Ht.+22'-0"Max. Eave Ht.+22'-0"222222ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 126 ATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 127 25"X51"25"X51"TVATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 128 25"X51"25"X51"TVATTACHMENT 3Packet Page 129 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For EID-1303-2017/ARCH-1209-2017/SBDV-1211-2017 1. Project Title: Rockview Moderns 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner rcohen@slocity.org (805) 781-7574 4. Project Location: 3063 Rockview Place, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 APN: 004-584-004 5. Project Representative Name and Address: Heidi Gibson Studio 2G Architects, LLP 1540 Marsh street, suite 230 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Medium-Density Residential and Conservation Open Space 7. Zoning: Medium-Density Residential (R-2-S) zone with the Special Consideration Overlay and Conservation Open Space ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 130 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 2 Project location Figure 1: Regional Location Figure 2: Project Location ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 131 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 3 8. Description of the Project: The applicant is proposing an eight-parcel common interest subdivision for a single-family residential project located within the Medium Density Residential zone with a special considerations overlay (R-2-S) and the Conservation Open Space (C/OS) zone located at 3063 Rockview Place, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (APN: 004-584-004). The residential project will be constructed on the R-2-S portion of the site and C/OS portion of the site will be placed under a preservation easement (see Figure 3). The project includes the following: 1. An eight-lot common interest subdivision, 2. The construction of 6 detached, and 2 attached (total 8) two-bedroom residential units (approximately 1,200 square feet each), 3. A street yard setback reduction to 11 feet, where normally a 20-foot setback is required, to allow a trellis/patio structure, 4. A fence height exception of approximately 6.5 feet, where normally a 4.36-foot-tall fence is allowed, and 5. Frontage improvements along Rockview Place including curb, gutter and sidewalk upgrades (Attachment 1, Project Plans). The structures on each lot will be two-stories with a maximum height of approximately 24 feet and provide two enclosed parking spaces for each unit and three guest spaces on the site. The parcels will be accessed from Rockview Place by a common driveway. The project will be R-2-S C/OS Figure 3: Zoning of the site ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 132 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 4 conditioned to include an easement or restrictive covenant for the portion of the property that is zoned Conservation Open Space (C/OS). 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site encompasses one lot; 3063 Rockview Place (~43,995 square feet). The project site is located on the west side of Rockview Place. The project site area that is being considered for development has an approximate average cross slope of 15% and is developed with four structures (three single-family residences and a detached garage). The C/OS portion of the site has an approximate average cross slope of 26%. The parcel is located in the Medium-Density Residential zone with the Special Considerations Overlay (R-2-S) and the Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) zone. The site is surrounded by R-2-S zoning with single & multi-family residences and open space. Adjacent land uses and zoning are provided in the table below: Zoning Land Use North R-2-S Single-family residences West C/OS South Hills Open Space South R-2-S Multi-Family Development East R-2-S Multi-Family Residence 10. Project Entitlements Requested: Architectural Review: Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approval is required for the site layout and structure designs. The ARC will also take action on the requested setback reductions. Tentative Tract Map: Tentative Tract Map approval will be required for the proposed eight lot common interest subdivision. The vesting tentative tract map will require Planning Commission review and City Council approval. The Council will also take action on allowing development of a site with Special Considerations. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. 12. Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources code section 21080.3.1? If so, has consultation begun? Native American Tribes have been notified about the project and two tribes requested additional information be provided but they did not specifically request a consultation. A discussion on their requests is included in Section 17: TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES of the initial study. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 133 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 5 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 and Housing Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation & Traffic X Cultural Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology/Soils Noise Tribal Cultural Resources Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This init ial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 134 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, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and x agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have 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 ENVIRONMENT AL 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. Date For: Michael Codron Tyler Corey, Principal Planner Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 6 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 135 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 7 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 i mpact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR i s required. 4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross- referenced). 5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal sta ndards, 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. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever format is selected. 9. 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 Packet Page 136 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2017 8 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,2,5 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? 1,2, 17 X c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1,14, 17 X d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely effect day or nighttime views in the area? 1,18, 32 X Evaluation The City is located eight miles from the Pacific Ocean and lies at the convergence of two main drainages: The Los Osos Valley which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley which drains to the south-southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via the San Luis Obispo Creek. The topography of the city and its surroundings is generally defined by several low hills and ridges such as Bishop Peak and Cerro San Luis. These peaks are also known as Morros and provide scenic focal points for much of the City. The Santa Lucia Mountains and Irish Hills are the visual limits of the area and are considered the scenic backdrop for much of the City. The surrounding hills have created a hard, urban edge where development has remained in the lower elevations. The project site is within a residential neighborhood west of Broad Street that exhibits a more suburban character. The street pattern is irregular due to the neighborhood’s location at the base of South Hills. The neighborhood enjoys the benefits of mature street trees and the unique visual backdrop provided by South Hills. a) The proposed project is in an urbanized section of the City on an elevated site that has topography that slopes from the west down to the east. Although the project site is adjacent to the open space area of South Hills, the project site is surrounded by other medium-density (R-2) single-family and multi-family residential development to the north, south, and east. The project site is surrounded by urban uses and is not located in the area of a scenic vista. Less than a significant impact. b), c) The proposed project will not damage or alter any scenic resources that are visible from a local or state scenic highway. The project site does not contain any historic buildings (see discussion in Section 5 – Cultural Resources below). Visual resources in the vicinity of the site include views of the South Hills (open space). The applicant proposes development of single-family residences with maximum peak heights of approximately 24 feet that are well below the maximum allowed of 35-feet for the zone. The proposed project is consistent with the scale of neighboring development and will not obstruct views of the South Hills. Additionally, the project will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC) for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines, specifically, guidelines for hillside development. Less than significant impact. d) The project is located in an already urbanized area with light sources from neighboring residential uses, and light from vehicular circulation along neighboring streets. The proposed project will not create a new source of substantial l ight or glare or affect nighttime views in the area because it will be required to conform to the Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.23) and General Plan Policies 9.2.1 and 9.2.3 which sets operational standards and requirement s for lighting installations, including requiring all light sources to be shielded and downward facing. The project applicant would also be required to provide an overall lighting plan that demonstrates that the project complies with the requirements of Ci ty of San Luis Obispo Ordinance No. 17.18.030, which prohibits lighting or illuminated devices that would create glare which results in a hazard or nuisance on other properties (City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code). This plan is required to be reviewed by the ARC prior to issuance of building permits. Adhering to these existing regulations and ordinances, as well as the City’s Community Design Guidelines, would ensure that exterior lighting and finish is designed to minimize impacts on neighboring properties and other light and glare sensitive uses. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 137 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 9 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? 19 X b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? 12 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 or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? 19 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. The site has not been actively farmed and is not zoned for agricultural use. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in conversion of suc h agricultural resources to nonagricultural use. b) The project site is not located on active farmland, nor is it under a Williamson Act contract. The project sit e is designated for residential uses in the General Plan. The project site is surrounded by developed properties and public streets. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. c) Redevelopment of the site will not contribute to conversion of active farmland. No impacts to existing on site or off site agricultural resources are anticipated with development of the project site. Conclusion: No impact. 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? 20,21 X b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 20,21 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 qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 20,21 X d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 20,21, 32 X e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 32 X Evaluation Air quality in the San Luis Obispo region of the County is characteristically different than other regions of the County (i.e., ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 138 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 10 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 non-attainment for the one‐hour California Ambient Air Quality Standards (CAAQS) for ozone and the CAAQS for respirable particulate matter (PM10). The County is designated attainment for national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS). Measurements of ambient air quality from the monitoring station at 3220 South Higuera Street are representative of local air quality conditions. a) The San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002. The 2001 CAP is a comprehensive planning document intended to provide guidance to the SLOAPCD and other local agencies, including the City, on how to attain and maintain the state standards for ozone and PM10. 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 proposed project is consistent with the general level of development anticipated and projected in the CAP. The project is consistent with the CAP’s land use planning strategies, including locating medium density residential within an urban area proximate to an existing roadway, near transit services and shopping areas. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. b), c), d) Both the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources Board (CARB) have established ambient air quality standards for common pollutants. These ambient ai r 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 area s that do not meet these standards are classified as nonattainment areas. As mentioned above, San Luis Obispo is currently designated as nonattainment for the 1-hour and 8-hour State standards for ozone and the 24-hour State standard 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 from the proposed project was conducted using the April 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, which is provided by the APCD for the purpose of assisting lead agencies in assessing the potential air quality impacts from residential, commercial and industrial development. Under CEQA, the APCD is a responsible agency for reviewing and commenting on projects that have the potential to cause adverse impacts to air quality. Construction Significance Criteria: Temporary impacts from the project, including but not limited to excavation and construction activities, vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment and naturally occurring asbestos, have the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. Naturally occurring asbestos (NOA) has been identified by the state Air Resources Board as a toxic air contaminant. Serpentine and ultramafic rocks are very common throughout California and may contain naturally occurring asbestos. The SLO County APCD has identified that NOA may be present throughout the City of San Luis Obispo (APCD 2012 CEQA Handbook, Technical Appendix 4.4), and under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (93105) are therefore required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities. As such, impacts are considered potentially significant but mitigable. The project will include demolition of non-historic structures and grading, which has the potential to disturb asbestos that is often found in older structures as well as underground utility pipes and pipelines (i.e. transite pipes or insulation on pipes). Demolition can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). As such, the project may be subject to variou s regulatory jurisdictions, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M – asbestos NESHAP). Impacts related to the proposed demolition of existing structures on the subject site a re considered to be potentially significant but mitigable. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 139 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 11 Construction activities can generate fugitive dust, which could be a nuisance to local residents and businesses in close proximity to the proposed construction site. Because the project is within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors, impacts related to fugitive dust emissions during proposed construction activities are considered potentially significant but mitigable. Construction equipment itself can be the source of air quality emission impacts, including sensitive receptor exposure to diesel particulates and other air pollutants, and may be subject to California Air Resources Board 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. Truck trips associated with the proposed excavated site material (i.e., soils) that will be cut from the site may also be a source of emissions subject to SLO APCD permitting requirements, subject to a specifically selected truck route. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulations can be reviewed at the following web sites: https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/factsheet.pdf and https://www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf. Impacts related to vehicle and heavy equipment emissions are considered potentially significant. Operational Screening Criteria for Project Impacts: Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of condos / townhouses with less than 103 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e). The threshold for reactive organic gases (ROG) and oxides of nitrogen (NO x) would not be exceeded by the proposed project (maximum size for exemption stated at 93 dwelling units). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant. e) The project includes the development of multiple single-family units, as anticipated in the R-2 Medium Density Residential zone, and therefore would not include any potential land uses that would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. There are no uses in the area that generate objectionable odors that may significantly affect future residents, employees, or visitors. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781 -5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days o f activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php. Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 140 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 12 a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust- control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved su rface 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 Calif ornia 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 adjacen t paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwo rk or demolition. Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements and shall contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781 -5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce the sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 141 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 13 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 posted 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. 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 Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 5,28 X b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service? 5,28 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, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? 28 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 wildlife nursery sites? 28 X e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 5,10 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? 5,10 X Evaluation The urbanized area of the City of San Luis Obispo lies at the convergence of two main geologic features: Los Osos Valley, which drains westerly into Morro Bay via Los Osos Creek, and San Luis Valley, which drains to the south‐ southwest into the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach via 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 the areas outside the city limits consist of open rangeland grazed year-round, along with agricultural lands dominated by annual crop rotations and vineyards. A variety of natural habitats and associated plant communities are present within the City and support a diverse array of native plants and resident, migratory, and locally nomadic wildlife species, some of which are considered as rare, threatened, or endangered species. However, the largest concentrations of natural and native habitats are located in the larger and less developed areas outside the city limits. The following discussion, as outlined in the LUCE Update EIR, provides a general overview of the habitat type found on the project site: ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 142 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 14 Urban/Developed Habitats: Based on a project site visit and observations of the property, the site exhibits the characteristics associated with the “Urban/Developed” habitat commonly found concentrated within and adjacent to the developed portions of the City, and in discrete areas adjacent to Highway 1 and Broad Street/Highway 227. The LUCE update EIR discussed that these areas typically provide low potential to support native plant or animal species occur rences. Within the City limits, occurrences of sensitive natural habitats are present in low‐lying areas (riparian and wetland areas), and on undeveloped hills and steep slopes above the Urban Reserve or development limit lines (coastal scrub, chaparral, woodlands, and grasslands). Wildlife occurrences within urban/developed areas typically consists primarily of urban‐ adapted avian species such as house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) utilizing the abundant tree canopy and concentrated food sources, common animal species adapted to human presence such as raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and aquatic, semi‐aquatic, and terrestrial species resident in or utilizing riparian areas. a-d) The site does not support riparian or wetland areas. The project site contains areas that have been developed and a sloped portion of the site that contains grassland is zoned conservation/open space. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting (2018) visited the site and conducted a botanical survey of the site to identify any sensitive plant species on the site. The following species were determined to have a potential to occur on the site: Miles’ milkvetch (Astragalus didymocarpus var. milesianus) (California Rare Plant Rank) Club-haired mariposa lily (Calochortus clavatus var. calvatus) San Luis mariposa lily (Calochortus obispoenis) La Panza mariposa lily (Calochortus simulans) Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis subsp. episcopalis) San Luis Obispo owl’s clover (Castilleja densiflora subsp. obispoensis) Brewer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe breweri) Palmer’s spineflower (Chorizanthe palmeri) Mouse-gray dudleya (Dudleya abramsii subsp. murina) Blochman’s dudleya (Dudleya blochmaniae subsp. blochmaniae) Jone’s Layia (Layia jonesii) Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima) (California Rare) The study was conducted on April 30, 2018 during the typical fruits and/or blooming period of most of the regionally- occurring, special status species determined to have the potential to occur on site. For those species that were not in bloom it was determined that vegetative parts were visible that allowed for identification to the genus level. No special status species were identified within the survey area and no unknown or unidentifiable plants were observed on site. The site is not near any natural waterway and will therefore have no adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands. The property is surrounded by urban development on three sides and the proposed construction of the residential units and the common interest subdivision will not interfere with the movement of any wildlife species or migratory wildlife corridor. Less than a significant impact. e) The site does not contain any heritage trees or any biological resources that are protected by local policies or ordinances. The project proposal includes the removal of five trees (three fruit trees, a small ornamental tree, and a pepper tree). The proposed landscape plans that show the trees will be replaced with 12 new trees (Attachment 1, Project Plans, Sheets CLP1- 3). The City Arborist has reviewed the proposal and supports the removal of the five trees and determined that the planting of four street trees and eight on-site trees is appropriate for the project. Less than significant impact. f) The project site is not part of a local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan and therefore would have not have an impact. No impact. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 12,24, 25 X b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 12,24, 25 X c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource 12,24, X ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 143 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 15 or site or unique geologic feature? 25 d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 26 X Evaluation Pre-Historic Setting: As outlined in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years, and that Native American use of the central coast region may have begun during the late Pleistocene, as early as 9000 B.C., demonstrating that historical resources began their accumulation on the central coast during the prehistoric era. The City of San Luis Obis po 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. Many of the residential subdivisions in the Foothill and Laguna Lake area were developed between 1945 and 1970 and the city’s population increased by 53% during this time. a) The project site is not designated or listed as a historic resource and not located within a historic district. The current structures on the site are older than 50 years but are not connected to history or a personage or unusual enough to qualify as significant cultural resources. b-d) The project site is not located within a designated burial sensitivity area and the project is not considered an archaeologically sensitive site as described in the City’s Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Two local tribal representatives contacted the City in their outreach per AB 52. One representative requested that the project provide a Phase I study as a part of the Initial Study review. The other representative requested that the project be required to provide archeological monitoring during ground disturbances during construction. Based on these requests the applicant has indicated that the project will conduct archeological monitoring during ground disturbances in the unlikely event that any materials are encountered. Therefore, with the proposed mitigation the project would have a less than significant impact. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan shall include survey results that outline where monitoring is required o n the site and note when a Native American monitor is required. The plan shall provide protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff education requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in 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 4,29 X ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 144 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 16 Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 4 X III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4 X IV. Landslides or mudflows? 4 X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 29 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 landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? 4 X d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? 4,14 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? 7,33, 34 X Evaluation As discussed in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic Province. This province lies between the Central Valley of California and the Pacific Ocean and extends from Oregon to northern Santa Barbara County. The Coast Range province is structurally complex and is comprised of sub‐parallel northwest‐southeast trending faults, folds, and mountain ranges. Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and a mixture of serpentinite and greywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan Formation. Intrusive and extrusive volcanic deposits of Tertiary age and marine sedimentary deposits of the Miocene aged Monterey Formation are also found in the area. The most distinctive geomorphological feature of the San Luis Obispo area is the series of Tertiary aged volcanic plugs (remnants of volcanoes) which extend from the City of San Luis Obispo northwesterly to Morro Bay. Hollister Peak, Bishop Peak, Cerro San Luis Obispo, Islay Hill, and Morro Rock are al l 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 Alquist‐Priolo 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 samp ling, 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 Packet Page 145 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 17 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, buri ed structures may rise to the surface or materials on sloped surfaces may run downhill. Other effects of liquefact ion include lateral spread, flow failures, ground oscillations, and loss of bearing strength. Liquefaction is intrinsically linked with t he 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 human activity), 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, d) Although there are no fault lines on the project site or within close proximity, the site is located in an area of “High Seismic Hazards,” specifically Seismic Zone D, which means that future buildings constructed on the site will most likely be subjected to excessive ground shaking in the event of an earthquake. A soils engineering report by GeoSolutions (July 7, 2017) states that based on the consistency and relative density of the in-situ soils, the potential for seismic liquefaction of soils at the site is not a concern. Structures are required to be designed in compliance with seismic design criteria established in the California Building Code for Seismic Zone D and City Codes require new structures be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. The Safety Element of the General Plan indicates that the project site has a high potential for liquefaction, which is true f or most of the City. Development will be required to comply with all City Codes, including Building Codes, which require proper documentation of soil characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake. Incorporation of required California Building Code, City Codes, and development in accordance with the General Plan Safety Element will reduce impacts related to seismic hazards to less than significant levels. b) This is a previously developed infill site, located in an urbanized area of the City. The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site soils would be during initial site ground disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. The project applicant has prepared a Stormwater Control Plan (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., May 4, 2018) and a Conceptual Landscape Plan. Development in accordance with the Stormwater Control Plan will address stormwater flow across the site, ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 146 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 18 and landscaping planting will help ensure the natural retention of stormwater and help address potential erosion. Additionally, the dust reduction measures of Mitigation Measure AQ 3 will also minimize soil erosion. Therefore, erosion impacts are considered less than significant. e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater system s are not proposed and will not be used on the site. No impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 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? 13,20, 21 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. 13,20, 21 X Evaluation As outlined in the City LUCE Update EIR, prominent GHG emissions contributing to the greenhouse effect are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs), perfluorocarbons (PFCs), and sulfur hexafluoride (SF6). Anthropogenic (human‐caused) GHG emissions in excess of natural ambient concentrations are responsible for intensifying the greenhouse effect and have led to a trend of unnatural warming of the earth’s climate, known as global climate change or global warming. Global sources of GHG emissions include fossil fuel combustion in both stationary and mobile sources, fugitive emissions from landfills, wastewater treatment, agricultural sources, deforestation, high global warming potential (GWP) gases from industrial and chemical sources, and other activities. The major sources of 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), Climate Pollution Reduction Beyond 2020 Healthier Communities and a Stronger Economy (Senate Bill [SB] 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. The San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) adopted a CEQA Review Handbook, as well as guidance on GHG emission thresholds and supporting evidence, that may be applied by lead agencies within San Luis Obispo County (APCD 2012a, 2012b). The City also adopted a Climate Action Plan (CAP) that includes a GHG emissions inventory, identifies GHG emission reduction targets, and includes specific measures and implementing actions to both reduce community‐wide GHG emissions and help the city build resiliency and adapt to the effects of climate change. a, b) The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, services and employment centers. City policies recognize that compact, infill development allows for more efficient use of existing infrastructure and aids Citywide efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City’s CAP also recognizes that energy efficient design will result in significant energy savings, which result in emissions reductions. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 147 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 19 The emissions from project-related vehicle exhaust comprise the vast majority of the total project CO2 emissions. The remaining project CO2 emissions are primarily from building heating systems and increased regional power plant electricity generation due to the project’s electrical demands. Short Term Construction-Related GHG Emissions: Construction activities would generate GHG emissions through the use of on‐ and off‐road construction equipment in new development. Mitigation Measures AQ 3, AQ 4, and AQ 5 address vehicle and equipment exhaust, and include provisions for reducing those impacts to less than significant levels. Long-Term Operational GHG Emissions: Additional long-term emissions associated with the project relate to indirect source emissions, such as electricity usage. State Title 24 regulations for building energy efficiency are enforced with new construction. Table 1-1 of the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook indicates that the construction of condos / townhouses with less than 103 dwelling units would not exceed the threshold of significance for the APCD Annual Bright Line threshold (MT CO2e). Therefore, operational phase air quality impacts are considered less than significant. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 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, 9 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, 9 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? 9,10 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, it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 9,31 X e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 1,4 X 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, the adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4, 17 X h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? 4,9,17 X Evaluation As outlined in the recent City LUCE Update EIR, the analysis of hazards and hazardous material impacts relates to hazards regarding safety risks posed by airport flight patterns, impeding of adopted emergency response/evacuation plans, and wildland fires where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas; and hazardous materials or substances regarding routine ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 148 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 20 transport or disposal of substances, explosion or release of substances, and emissions or handling of substances within one‐quarter mile of an existing or planned school. The following is a brief outline of the primary identified hazards: Fire Hazards: Fires have the potential to cause significant losses to life, property, and the environment. Urban fire hazards result from the materials that make up the built environment, the size and organization of structures, and spacing of buildings. Additional factors that can accelerate fire hazards are availability of emergency access, available water volume and pressure for fire suppression, and response time for fire fighters. Fire hazard severity in rural areas, including areas on the edge between urban and rural land (commonly called the wildland interface), are highly influenced by the slope of the landscape and site vegetation and climate. This risk is somewhat amplified by the native, Mediterranean vegetation common to the rural setting in which the City is located that has evolved to rely on wildfires for its ecological sustainability. Where wildland fires may be a threat, plant fuels are often managed by replacement planting, grazing, plowing, or mechanical clearing. Hazardous Materials: Hazardous materials are defined as substances with physical and chemical properties of ignitability, corrosivity, reactivity, or toxicity which may pose a threat to human health or the environment. This includes, for example, chemical materials such as petroleum products, solvents, pesticides, herbicides, paints, metals, asbestos, and other regulated chemical materials. Additionally, hazards include known historical spills, leaks, illegal dumping, or other methods of releas e 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 varie d 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 road ways, railways or through industrial accidents. Highway 101 and a rail corridor are major transportation corridors through the San Luis Obispo area. Airport Hazards: The San Luis Obispo County Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation serv ice 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 (ALUPs) 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 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 above ground level (AGL). Because aircraft in Area S ‐2 are at greater altitude and are less densely concentrated than in other portions of the Airport Planning Area, the overall level of aviation safety risk is considered to be lower than that in Area S‐1 or the Runway Protection Zones. a) The proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable building, health, fire, and safety codes. Hazardous materials would be used in varying amounts during construction and occupancy of the project. Construction and maintenance activities would use hazardous materials such as fuels (gasoline and diesel), oils, and lubricants; paints and paint thinners; glues; cleaners (which could include solvents and corrosives in addition to soaps and detergents); and possibly pesticides and herbicides. The amount of materials used would be small, so the project would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials, as such uses would have to comply with applicable federal, state, and local regulations, including but not limited to Titles 8 and 22 of the CCR, the Uniform Fire Code, and Chapter 6.95 of the California Health and ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 149 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 21 Safety Code. With respect to operation of the project, residential units do not generate significant amounts of hazardous materials, and only a minimal amount of routine “household” chemicals would be stored on-site. These materials would not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. This impact would be considered less than significant. b) As discussed in Impacts a and c, the proposed project would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission of any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Implementation of Title 49, Parts 171–180, of the Code of Federal Regulations and stipulations in the General Plan Safety Element would reduce any impacts associated with the potential for accidental release dur ing 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 p roposed project. Where transport of these materials occurs on roads, the California Highway Patrol is the responsible agency for enforcement of regulations. The project also includes demolition of existing structures on the property including structures that are over 50 years old that could contain asbestos and lead. Asbestos, a naturally occurring fibrous material, was used as a fireproofing and insulating agent in building construction before being banned by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) i n the 1970s. Because it was widely used prior to discovery of its negative health effects, asbestos can be found in a variety of building material s and components including sprayed-on acoustic ceiling materials, thermal insulation, wall and ceiling texture, floor tiles, and pipe insulation. Asbestos is classified into two main categories: friable and non-friable. Friable asbestos can release asbestos fibers easily when disturbed and is considered Regulated Asbestos-Containing Material (RACM). Friable (easily crumbled) materials are particularly hazardous because inhalation of airborne fibers is the primary mode of asbestos entry into the bod y, which potentially causes lung cancer and asbestosis. Non-friable asbestos will release fibers less readily than RACM and is referred to as Category I or Category II, non-friable. Non-friable asbestos and encapsulated friable asbestos do not pose substantial health risks. The California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) considers asbestos- containing building materials (ACBM) to be hazardous when a sample contains more than 0.1 percent asbestos by weight; Cal/OSHA requires it to be handled by a licensed, qualified contractor. Lead can be found in paint, water pipes, plumbing solder, and in soils around buildings and structures with lead-based paint. In 1978, the federal government required the reduction of lead in house paint to less than 0.06 percent (600 parts per millio n [ppm]). However, some paints manufactured after 1978 for industrial uses or marine uses legally contain more than 0.06 percent lead. Exposure to lead can result in bioaccumulation of lead in the blood, soft tissues, and bones. Children are particularly susceptible to potential lead-related health problems because lead is easily absorbed into developing systems and organs. Prior to any building demolition, CCR Title 8 Section 5208 requires that a state-certified risk assessor conduct a risk assessment and/or paint inspection of all structures constructed prior to 1978 for the pres ence of asbestos. If such hazards are determined to exist on site, the risk assessor would prepare a site-specific hazard control plan detailing ACBM removal methods and specific instructions for providing protective clothing and gear for abatement personn el. If necessary, the project sponsor would be required to retain a state-certified ACBM removal contractor (independent of the risk assessor) to conduct the appropriate abatement measures as required by the plan. Wastes from abatement and demolition activities would be disposed of at a landfill(s) licensed to accept such waste. Once all abatement measures have been implemented, the risk assessor would conduct a clearance examination and provide written documentation to the City that testing and abatement have been completed in accordance with all federal, state, and local laws and regulations. Several regulations and guidelines pertain to abatement of and protection from exposure to lead -based paint. These include Construction Safety Order 1532.1 from Title 8 of the CCR and lead-based paint exposure guidelines provided by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). In California, lead-based paint abatement must be performed and monitored by contractors with appropriate certification from the California Department of Health Services. Compliance with existing regulations would ensure impacts related to hazardous materials exposure would be less than significant. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 150 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 22 c) The proposed project is a single-family residential development with parking and associated amenities and is approximately 0.68 miles southwest of Sinsheimer Elementary School. As discussed in Impacts a and b, the proposed project a residential use that would not result in the routine transport, use, disposal, handling, or emission o f any hazardous materials that would create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment, including at the existing school, and this impact would be considered less than significant. d) The project site is not on a parcel included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 (DTSC 2012) and, as a result, would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment. No impact. e, f) The project site is located in the vicinity of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and is located within the S-2 Safety Area of the County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The project site is subject to the City’s Airport Overlay Zone (AOZ) which allows development based on the development standard s for the zone (Table 10, Zoning Regulations). The proposed project complies with the density (12 density units per acre) and development standards for the R-2 zone. The project site is not in the vicinity of a private airstrip. Less than significant impact. g, h) The Fire Marshal has reviewed the design of the project and determined that the project would not interfere with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plans. The proposed project site is not within or adjacent to a wildland area and will not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 5,9, 15, 16,27 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 for which permits have been granted)? 5,9, 15, 16,27 X c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? 5,9, 15, 16,27 X d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? 5,9, 15, 16,27 X e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 5,9, 15, 16,27 X f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 5,9, 27 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? 5,9, 15, 16,27 X h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? 5,9, 27 X i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? 4,5,9, 27 X j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 4,9 X ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 151 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 23 Evaluation As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek Hydrologic Subarea of the Estero Bay Hydrologic Unit, an area that corresponds to the coastal draining watersheds west o f 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 Cree k, 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 Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Central Coast RWQCB), water quality in the San Luis Obispo Creek drainage system is generally considered to be good. However, the water quality fluctuates along with seasonal changes in flow rates. In summer months, when the flows decrease, and dilution is reduced, water quality decreases. According to the RWQCB Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) Project for San Luis Obispo Creek, the creek has been reported to exceed nutrient and pathogen levels. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo Valley Sub‐basin flows toward the south‐southwest, following the general gradient of surface topography. Groundwater within the San Luis Obispo area is considered suitable for agricultural water supply, municipal and domestic supply, and industrial use. a, f) The project does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or substantially degrade water quality because the project is required to comply with the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requirements set forth in their Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. The project includes a Stormwater Control Plan (SWCP) (Ashley and Vance Engineering, Inc., May 4, 2018). The plan states that the project will result in over 5,000 square feet of impervious surface and will be subject to SWCP Performance Requirements 1 and 2 as follows: 1) Site Design and Runoff Reduction and 2) Water Quality Treatment. To meet these requirements the project includes the following design features: 1) direct roof runoff to vegetated planters in areas that are near paved surfaces, and to vegetated swales in areas that are further away, 2) installation of permeable surfacing wherever appropriate for walkways, driveways, and parking areas to reduce runoff, and 3) implementation of infiltration pits and bioinfiltration swales. b) The project will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not deplete groundwater resources. No impact. c, d, e) Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The Waterways Management Plan and Low Impact Development (LID) stormwater treatment requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not significantly exceed pre-development run-off. In addition, the project is required to comply with the City’s engineering standards, water pollution control plan requirements, Post Construction Stormwater Requirements, and adopted building and grading codes for water quantity/quality analysis. Less than significant impact. g, h) The project site is located at the base of the South Hills and is not within the boundaries of an area subject to inundation from flood waters in a 100-year storm per the Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map. The project will not impede or re-direct the flow of any waters. No impact. j) The proposed development is outside the zone of impacts from seiche or tsunami, and the existing upslope projects do not generate significant storm water runoff such to create a potential for inundation by mudflow. The Soils Engineer ing Report prepared by GeoSolutions, Inc. (July 7, 2017) has not identified upslope or on-site slope instability. No impact. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 152 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 24 Conclusion: Less than significant impact 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? 1, 9,11 X b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1,9, 10 X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plans? 5,9, 10 X Evaluation a) The proposed infill development project is consistent with the development anticipated for the project site under the site’s General Plan and zoning designation, since the site is designated for medium density residential land uses and is designed to fit among existing multi-family and single family residential development surrounding it and will not physically divide an established community. Less than significant impact. b) The proposed project will not conflict with applicable land use plans, policies, or regulations for the purpose of avoidin g or mitigating an environmental effect. The project is proposed to be consistent with City regulations and development stan dards, with the exception of a request for a reduced front yard setback to allow a trellis structure in the front yard, as depicted within Attachment 1, Project Plans, Sheets AC1.0 -1.1. The project is required to be reviewed by the ARC to review the front yard setback for consistency with the Community Design Guidelines. Less than significant impact. c) As discussed in subsection 4, Biological Resources, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat conservation plan, natural community conservation plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan. No impact. Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact. 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? 5,9 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? 5,9 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 projec t site is not designated by the general plan, specific plan, or other land use plans as a locally important mineral recovery site. No impact. Conclusion: No Impact. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 3,9, 10,11 X b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 3,9, 10,11 X ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 153 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 25 c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3,9, 10,11 X d) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 3,9, 10,11 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? 1,3,9, 10,11 X 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? 3, 9,10 X Evaluation As analyzed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, a number of noise ‐sensitive land uses are present within the City, including various types of residential, schools, hospitals and care facilities, parks and recreation areas, hotels and transient lodgin g, and place of worship and libraries. Based on ambient noise level measurements throughout the City, major sources of noise include traffic noise on major roadways, passing trains, and aircraft overflights. a) Residences are designated as noise sensitive by the Noise Element. The Noise Element indicates that noise levels of up to 60 dB are acceptable for outdoor activity areas and noise levels of up to 45 dB are acceptable for indoor areas. Exterior noi se levels will be less than 60 dB when attenuation afforded by building features and elevation is taken into account. The project location has not been identified as an area subject to noise sources above the City’s thresholds. In addition, interior nois e levels of less than 45 dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Impacts associ ated with exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noi se ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies, would be less than significant. b) Long-term operational activities associated with the proposed project would be from residential uses, which would not involve the use of any equipment or processes that would result in potentially significant levels of ground vibration. Increa ses in groundborne vibration levels attributable to the proposed project would be primarily associated with short -term construction-related activities. Construction activities would likely require the use of various types of heavy equipment, such as forklifts, concrete mixers, and haul trucks. Because construction activities are restricted to the days, hours, and sound levels allowed by City ordinance (Chapter 9.12 of the Municipal Code), impacts associated with groundborne vibration and noise would be less than significant. c) As discussed above, long-term operation of the project involves residential use, which is consistent with existing uses in the project vicinity. Residential uses would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Operation of the project would be consistent with the existing uses in the vicinity of the project site and would not result in substantial changes to the existing noise environment. Other noise sensitive uses in the vicinity include other neighboring residential developments. These uses will be partially shielded from noise generated by residential uses by distance (over 50 feet from the single-family units to the south of the site) and by the structures themselves. The proposed project would therefore have a less than significant impact related to producing a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project. e, f) The project is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The project site is located approximately 1.5 miles from the end of San Luis Obispo Airport Runway 29 and outside of the 50 dB contour identified in Figure 1 of the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Table 1 of the General Plan Noise Element states that the maximum noise exposure for outside residential activities is 60 dB. Interior noise levels of less than 45 dB will be achievable with standard building materials and construction techniques. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant Impact. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 154 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 26 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? 2,6,9 X b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,6,9 X c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 6,9 X Evaluation a) The project site is designated for multi-family residential development under the General Plan and is zoned R-2 (medium density residential). The proposed project includes development consistent with the anticipated land use and residential density of the site. New employment generated by the proposed project would not be considered substantial. Considering the project area is currently developed, and the proposed project would utilize existing infrastructure at the subject location, the project woul d not induce additional growth that would be considered significant. The proposed project would not involve any other components that would induce further growth not already anticipated under the General Plan. Impacts are considered less than significant. b, c) The project proposes to demolish three residential structures and construct eight new residences, a net increase of five additional units. Removal of the residential structures would not be considered a substantial loss of housing, nor displace substantial numbers of people, since new housing is proposed as part of the project description. Impacts are considered less than significant. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government 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? 9,12 X b) Police protection? 9,12 X c) Schools? 9,12 X d) Parks? 12 X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 2,9,12 X f) Other public facilities? 12 X Evaluation a), b), d), e), f) As an infill site, adequate public services (fire, police, roads and other transportation infrastructure, and ot her public facilities) are available to serve the project. Future development must comply with applicable City codes and State regulations and building permits will be issued to ensure consistency with these requirements. Less than significant impact. c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction and are deemed by State law to be adequate mitigation for all school facility requirements. Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigat ed by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Less than significant impact. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 155 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 27 Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. RECREATION. Would the project: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 35 X b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 35 X Evaluation a), b) The project will add incrementally to the demand for parks and other recreational facilities. However, given the size of the project (eight new residences) and expected number of residents, no significant recreational impacts are expected to occur with development of the site. Park Land In-Lieu fees will be required to be paid to the City to help finance additional park space, maintenance or equipment in the vicinity, per existing City policy. Should the map not be recorded and the project developed as for-rent units on one parcel, the City also collects a Dwelling Unit Construction tax that goes to a Park Improvement Fund with building permits for multi-family projects. Collection of these fees helps offset the impacts of new projects on the City’s recreational facilities. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? 2,9, 10,22 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, 4,9 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? 9,10 X d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? 2,9, 22,32 X e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 4,9 X g) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 2,9 X Evaluation a), b) The project does not conflict with any applicable circulation system plans and does not add to demand on the circulation system or conflict with any congestion management programs or any other agency’s plans for congestion management. The project will add vehicular trips to local and a rea streets which lead out of the neighborhood to uncontrolled intersections. The existing streets have sufficient unused capacity to accommodate the added vehicular traffic without ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 156 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 28 reducing existing levels of service. The proposed project would not result in a significant impact with regard to increased vehicular trips and does not conflict with performance standards provided in City adopted plans or policies. The project will also contribute to overall transportation infrastructure by participating in the Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program. Less than significant impact. c) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns and does not conflict with any safety plans of the Airp ort Land Use Plan. No impact. d) The project has been designed to meet City Engineering Standards and will not result in safety risks. The project will include curb, gutter, and sidewalk per City Engineering Standards, which will improve pedestrian and vehicle safety along Rockview Drive. No impact. e) The project has been reviewed by the City Fire Marshal to ensure adequate emergency access has been provided. No impact. f) The project is consistent with policies supporting alternative transportation due to the site’s location within the City’s urban center, and its proximity to transit stops, shopping, parks and services. No impact. g) The project will not result in any changes to air traffic patterns, nor does it conflict with any safety plans of the Airport Land Use Plan. No impact. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is: a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or 12,23 X b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American tribe. 23,24 X Evaluation On February 22, 2018, local Native American tribal groups were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental Impact was being completed for the proposed project at 3063 Rockview Place and invited to provide consultation on the proposed project. No tribal representatives requested a formal consultation; however, one representative requested a Phase I archaeological survey be completed for the site and if the results were positive for cultural resources that all ground disturbing activities for the project be monitored by a qualified archaeologist. Another representative requested that an archeological monitoring plan be incorporated as mitigation for the project. Based on these requests the applicant has indicated that the project will conduct archeological monitoring during ground disturbances in the unlikely event that any materials are encountered (see Section 5: Cultural Resources for further discussion and Mitigation Measure CR-1). a) The project site does not contain any structures that are listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources or local register as defined in Public Resources Section 5020.1(k). No impact. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 157 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 29 b) The site does not contain any known resources considered significant by any California Native American tribe. As discussed in Section 5: Cultural Resources, Mitigation Measure CR-1 requires an archeological monitoring plan to be in place prior to any ground disturbances in the unlikely event that any materials are encountered. Therefore, with the proposed mitigation the project would have a less than significant impact. Conclusion: With incorporation of the required mitigation measure (Section 5: MM CR-1) impacts are considered less than significant. 18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 7,9, 16 X b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment, waste water treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? 7,9, 16,27, 33,34 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? 7,9, 16,27 X d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded water resources needed? 7,9, 16 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 commitment? 5,7,9, 16, 33,34 X f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? 5, 8, 9 X g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 5, 8, 9 X Evaluation Water: As discussed in the City’s LUCE Update EIR, the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department provides potable and recycled water to the community and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City is the sole water provider within the city limits and most of the City’s water is supplied from multiple surface water source s. However, the City also uses groundwater to supplement surface water supplies and recycled water is used to supplement irrigation demand. With the update of the City’s Water and Wastewater Element in 2018, the City Council reaffirmed the policy for a multi‐source water supply. Consistent with the multi‐source water supply concept, the City obtains water from five sources: • Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake) and Whale Rock Reservoir: Combined Safe Annual Yield 4,910 AF/year • Nacimiento Reservoir: 5,482 AF/year dependable yield/ contractual limit • Recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF): 238 AF/year Wastewater: The wastewater system for the City includes facilities for wastewater collection and treatment. The City’s collection system serves residential, commercial, and industrial customers. Sewer service is provided only to properties within the city limits, with the exception of a few residential properties located just outside of the city limits, Cal Poly San Lui s Obispo, and the County of San Luis Obispo Airport. There are approximately 12,000 service connections. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) processes wastewater in accordance with the standards set by the State’s RWQCB. The WRRF removes solids, reduces the amount of nutrients, and eliminates bacteria in the treated ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 158 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 30 wastewater, which is then discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek. The WRRF is designed for an average dry weather flow capacity of 5.4 million gallons per day (MGD) and a peak wet weather flow capacity of 19 MGD. In 2017, annual average flows to the WRRF were approximately 3.30 MGD. Solid Waste: The City’s Utilities Department is responsible for administering an exclusive franchise agreement with San Luis Garbage Company to collect and dispose solid waste generated by residential, commercial, and industrial customers in San Luis Obispo. This agreement also includes curbside recycling, and green waste service. There are three solid waste disposal facilities within San Luis Obispo County. Most solid waste collected in the city is disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill. Cold Canyon Landfill is currently (2016) permitted to receive up to 1,650 tons of solid waste per day, with an estimated remaining capacity of 14,500,000 cubic yards (60.1 perce nt remaining capacity). In 2015, the Cold Canyon Landfill operator estimated the landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2040. a, b, c, e) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on City infrastructure, including water, wastewater and storm water facilities. Development of the site is required to be served by City sewer and water service, which both have adequate capacity to serve the use. Existing storm water facilities are present in the vicinity of the project site , and it is not anticipated the proposed project will result in the need for new facilities or expansion of existing facilities whi ch could have significant environmental effects. The developer will be required to construct private sewer facilities to convey wastewater to the nearest public sewer. The on-site sewer facilities will be required to be constructed according to the standards in the Uniform Plumbing Code and City standards. Impact fees are collected at the time building permits are issued to pay for capacity at the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF). The fees are set at a level intended to offset the potential impacts of each new residential unit in the project. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Less than significant impact. d) The proposed project would result in an incremental increase in demand on water supplies, as anticipated under the recent General Plan Update. As analyzed in the LUCE Update EIR, the City has sufficient water supplies for build-out of the City’s General Plan. The incremental change created by the proposed project would be less than significant. This project has been reviewed by the City’s Utilities Department and no resource/infrastructure deficiencies have been identified. Less than significant impact. f), g) The proposed project will be served by San Luis Garbage Company, which maintains standards for size and access to ensure that collection is feasible, both of which will be reviewed by the Architectural Review Commission. The location and size of trash enclosures proposed for the project have been reviewed by the City and it has been determined that the trash enclosures are sufficient in size to handle the demands of the proposed project. The Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 (AB 939) requires each city and county in California to reduce the flow of materials to landfills by 50% (from 1989 levels) by 2000. The proposed project is required to reduce the waste stream generated by development consistent with the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element policies to coordinate waste reduction and recycling efforts (COSE 5.5.3), and Development Standards for Solid Waste Services (available at http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4384 ). A solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials is a submittal requirement with the building permit application. The incremental additional waste stream generated by this project is not anticipated to create significant impacts to solid waste disposal. This impact would be considered less than significant. Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact. 19. 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 X ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 159 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 31 the major periods of California history or prehistory? The project is an infill residential development in an urba nized area of the city. Without mitigation, the project could have the potential to have adverse impacts on all of the issue areas checked in the Table on Page 3. As discussed above, potential impacts to air quality and cultural resources will be less than significant with incorporation of recommended mitigation measures. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) X The impacts of the proposed project are individually limited and not considered “cumulatively considerable.” The proposed project is consistent with the existing Land Use Element and Zoning for medium density residential development and the cumulative impacts of developing this site were analyzed as a part of the Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) E IR. 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 and incorporation of recommended mitigation measures as discussed in this Initial Study. 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, 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 and incorporation of recommended mitigation measures as discussed in this Initial Study. 20. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE) Update EIR, available for review at the City Community Development Department (919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), o r at the following web site: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the LUCE Update EIR have been added to each impact issue area discussion. Where project specific impacts and mitigation measures have been identified that are not a ddressed in the LUCE Update EIR, original analysis has been provided and mitigation has been recommended to reduce impact levels as needed. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site -specific conditions of the project. N/A 21. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 3. City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 4. City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, March 2012 5. City of SLO General Plan Conservation & Open Space Element, April 2006 ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 160 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 32 6. City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, January 2015 7. City of SLO General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, March 2018 8. City of SLO Source Reduction and Recycling Element, on file in the Utilities Department 9. City of SLO General Plan EIR 2014 for Update to the Land Use and Circulation Elements 10. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (which includes the City Zoning Regulations, Chapter 17) 11. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines, June 2010 12. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 13. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012 14. 2013 California Building Code 15. City of SLO Waterways Management Plan 16. Water Resources Status Report, July 2012, on file with in the Utilities Department 17. Site Visit 18. Staff Knowledge 19. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 20. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, April 2012 21. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001 22. Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, on file in the Community Development Department 23. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 24. City of San Luis Obispo, Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines, on file in the Community Development Department 25. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map 26. City of San Luis Obispo Burial Sensitivity Map 27. Stormwater Control Plan. Ashley & Vance Engineering, Inc. May 4, 2018 28. Focused Spring Botanical Survey. Terra Verde Environmental Consulting. May 1, 2018 29. Soils Engineering Report. GeoSolutions, Inc. July 7, 2017 30. San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan 31. Website of the California Environmental Protection Agency, Cortese List: https://calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ 32. Project Plans 33. 2012 Sanitary Sewer Flow Monitoring and Inflow/Infiltration Study 34. 2016 Wastewater Collection System Infrastructure Renewal Strategy 35. City of SLO General Plan Parks & Recreation Element, April 3, 2001 Note: All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community D evelopment Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7101. Attachments: 1.Project Plans 2.Botanical Survey 3.Soils Engineering Report 4.Stormwater Control Plan ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 161 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 33 REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Air Quality Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Prior to grading plan approval, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation should be conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Technical Appendix 4.4 of this Handbook includes a map of zones throughout SLO County where NOA has been found and geological evaluation is required prior to any grading. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php. ➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-1: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-2: Any scheduled demolition activities or disturbance, removal, or relocation of utility pipelines shall be coordinated with the APCD Enforcement Division at (805) 781-5912 to ensure compliance with NESHAP, which include, but are not limited to: 1) written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the APCD, 2) asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/rules-regulations/asbestos.php. ➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-2: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-3: During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, modify practices as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 162 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 34 a. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. b. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 m.p.h. and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 m.p.h. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dust-control work. c. All dirt stock pile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed. d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities. e. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established. f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD. g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads shall be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used. h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 m.p.h. on any unpaved surface at the construction site. i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials, are to be covered or shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible. l. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans. m. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. ➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-3: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 163 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 35 number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. Mitigation Measure AQ-4: Prior to any construction activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that all equipment and operations are compliant with California Air Resource Board and APCD permitting requirements and shall contact the APCD Engineering Division at (805) 781-5912 for specific information regarding permitting requirements. ➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-4: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor compliance with APCD requirements. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure AQ-5: To reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment used to construct the project and export soil from the site, the applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques: 1. California Diesel Idling Regulations a. On-road diesel vehicles shall comply with Section 2485 of Title 13 of the California Code of regulations. This regulation limits idling from diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles with gross vehicular weight ratings of more than 10,000 pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles: 1. Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for greater than 5 minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and, 2. Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5.0 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation. b. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(2) of the California Air Resources Board’s In-Use Off-road Diesel regulation. c. Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers and operators of the state’s 5-minute idling limit. 2. Diesel Idling Restrictions Near Sensitive Receptors (residential homes). In addition to the State required diesel idling requirements, the project applicant shall comply with these more restrictive requirements to minimize impacts to nearby sensitive receptors: a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors. b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted. c. Use of alternative fueled equipment is recommended. d. Signs that specify the no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 164 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources Rockview Moderns: SBDV-1211-2017 EID-1303-2017 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018 36 3. Soil Transport. It is estimated that 16,000 cubic yards of cut material (i.e., soils) will be cut from the site, but the final volume of soil that will be hauled off-site, together with the fleet mix, hauling route, and number of trips per day will need to be identified for the APCD. Specific standards and conditions will apply. ➢ Monitoring Plan, AQ-5: All mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor that idling control techniques are being implemented to reduce sensitive receptor emissions impact of diesel vehicles and equipment during construction. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the APCD, Community Development and Public Works Departments prior to commencement of construction. The applicant shall provide documentation of compliance with APCD requirements to City staff prior to issuance of any grading or building permits. Mitigation Measure CR-1: Preservation of Archeological Resources. A monitoring plan shall be prepared and approved by the City prior to building permit approval. The plan shall include survey results that outline where monitoring is required on the site and note when a Native American monitor is required. The plan shall provide protocols for stoppage of work and treatment of human remains, staff education requirements, and a data recovery plan to be implemented in case significant deposits are exposed. ➢ Monitoring Plan, CR-1: Building/grading plans shall show and outline all details and requirements of the monitoring plan prepared by a City qualified Registered Professional Archeologist to be implemented during construction. The monitoring plan shall specify methods and procedures for identifying those deposits during construction; standards for assessing the significance and integrity of any deposits so identified; and methods and procedures for mitigating impacts on significant deposits. The plan also shall identify the qualified professional who will conduct the monitoring and circumstances where a Native American tribal representative or qualified site monitor may be required. ATTACHMENT 4 Packet Page 165 RESOLUTION NO. ARC-1012-2018 A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW COMMISSION GRANTING FINAL ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW APPROVAL OF EIGHT (8) TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH A FENCE HEIGHT AND A FRONT YARD SETBACK EXCEPTIONS AS PART OF A COMMON-INTEREST SUBDIVISION AS REPRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND ATTACHMENTS DATED JUNE 18, 2018; 3063 ROCKVIEW PLACE (R-2-S & C/OS ZONE; ARCH 1209-2017) 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 June 18, 2018, pursuant to a proceeding instituted under ARCH-1209-2017, Teixiera Capital Partners III LLC, applicant; 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. WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; 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 final approval to the project (ARCH-1209-2017), based on the following findings: 1. The project will not be detrimental to the health, safety, or welfare of those working or residing in the vicinity since the proposed project is consistent with the intention of the site's Medium Density Residential zoning designation and will be subject to conformance with all applicable building, fire, and safety codes. 2. The project design maintains consistency with the Community Design Guidelines by providing architectural design that complements the character, height and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. 3. The project is consistent with the Community Design Guidelines because it provides a cohesive cluster of residences with articulation and a mix of finish materials that create interest and compatibility with the architecture in the neighborhood. 4. The project is consistent with the Hillside Development guidelines because the project minimizes the visibility of the project and preserves the natural character of the hillside. ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 166 Resolution No. ARC-1012-2018 3063 Rockview Place, ARCH-1209-2017 Page 2 5. As proposed, no public purpose is served by strict compliance with the City's fence height standards because the fence poses no sight distance problems. 6. The subject fence stands at a maximum height of 6.5 feet. According to the City's Zoning Regulations, this is 2.14 feet taller than would be allowed by right along the other yard property line. 7. No useful purpose would be realized by requiring full setbacks because no significant fire protection, emergency access, privacy or security impacts are anticipated. 8. The proposed eleven-foot front yard setback exception from the front property is warranted to allow a trellis feature that adds architectural interest and enjoyment of the property. SECTION 2. Action. The Architectural Review Commission (ARC) hereby grants final approval to the project with incorporation of the following conditions: Community Development Department -Planning 1. The applicant shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, the approval by the City of this project, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review ("Indemnified Claims"). The City shall promptly notify the applicant of any Indemnified Claim upon being presented with the Indemnified Claim and the City shall fully cooperate in the defense against an Indemnified Claim. 2. Final project design and construction drawings submitted for a building permit shall be in substantial compliance with the project plans approved by the ARC. A separate, full-size sheet shall be included in working drawings submitted for a building permit that lists all conditions of project approvals listed as sheet number 2. 3. Reference shall be made in the margin oflisted items as to where in plans requirements are addressed. Any change to approved design, colors, materials, landscaping, or other conditions of approval must be approved by the Director or Architectural Review Commission, as deemed appropriate. 4. Plans submitted for a building permit shall call out the colors and materials of all proposed building surfaces and other improvements. The plans shall include more variety in the color palette. Plans shall clearly note that all stucco surfaces are not a sprayed-on product and have a smooth hand-troweled or sand finish appearance to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. 5. The locations of all exterior lighting, including bollard style landscaping or path/parking lighting, shall be included in plans submitted for a building permit. All wall-mounted lighting fixtures shall be clearly called out on building elevations included as part of ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 167 Resolution No. ARC-1012-2018 3063 Rockview Place, ARCH-1209-2017 Page 3 working drawings. All wall-mounted lighting shall complement building architecture, subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. The lighting schedule for the building shall include a graphic representation of the proposed lighting fixtures and cut- sheets on the submitted building plans. 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. 6. Plans submitted for a building permit shall clearly depict the type of bicycle racks proposed, location and dimensions of all short and long-term bicycle parking. Sufficient detail shall be provided about the placement and design of bike racks to demonstrate compliance with relevant Engineering Standards and Community Design Guidelines, to the satisfaction of the Public Works and Community Development Directors. 7. Plans submitted for a building permit shall include window details indicating the type of materials for the window frames and mullions, their dimensions, and colors. Plans shall include the materials and dimensions of all lintels, sills, surrounds recesses and other related window features. Plans shall demonstrate the use of high quality materials for the windows that reflect the architectural style of the project and are compatible with the neighborhood character, to the approval of the Community Development Director. 8. Mechanical and electrical equipment shall be located internally. With submittal of working drawings, the applicant shall include sectional views of the building, which clearly show the sizes of any proposed condensers and other mechanical equipment. If any condensers or other mechanical equipment is to be placed on the roof, plans submitted for a building permit shall confirm that parapets and other roof features will adequately screen them. A line-of-sight diagram may be required to confirm that proposed screening will be adequate. This condition applies to initial construction and later improvements. 9. The location of any required backflow preventer and double-check assembly shall be shown on all site plans submitted for a building permit, including the landscaping plan. Construction plans shall also include a scaled diagram of the equipment proposed. Where possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, equipment shall be located inside the building within 20 feet of the front property line. Where this is not possible, as determined by the Utilities Director, the back-flow preventer and double-check assembly shall be located in the street yard and screened using a combination of paint color, landscaping and, if deemed appropriate by the Community Development Director, a low wall. The size and configuration of such equipment shall be subject to review and approval by the Utilities and Community Development Directors. 10. A final landscaping plan, including irrigation details and plans, shall be submitted to the Community Development Department along with working drawings. The legend for the landscaping plan shall include the sizes and species of all groundcovers, shrubs, and trees with corresponding symbols for each plant material showing their specific locations on plans. Street trees species shall comply with City standards. ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 168 Resolution No. ARC-1012-2018 3063 Rockview Place, ARCH-1209-2017 Page 4 11. Plans submitted for a building permit shall show the proposed fencing for the project with a more open guardrail design. 12. The project will be required to provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid waste material for the project. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with San Luis Garbage Company. The plan must be submitted for approval by the City's Utilities Services Manager and the Community Development Director. Community Development Department -Engineering 13. Complete frontage improvements and utility services shall be provided as a condition of development. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of submittal. The most current Standards were updated and adopted in May of 2018. 14. The building plan submittal shall show and note compliance with any pertinent subdivision conditions of approval. 15. An offer of dedication for the sidewalk widening to 6' along with a public pedestrian access easement for the ADA sidewalk extension behind the driveway approach will be required prior to building permit issuance or in conjunction with the map recordation. 16. A separate 10' PUE and Street Tree easement will be required in conjunction with the development project and/or map recordation. 1 7. All new wire utilities to serve the proposed units shall be underground from the existing overhead service. Unless otherwise approved to the satisfaction of the of the Public Works Director and Community Development Director, the undergrounding to serve the new units shall be completed with no net increase in wood utility poles. 18. Existing water and sewer services shall be shown to comply with City Engineering Standards or shall be abandoned at the main in accordance with the standards. The building and/or subdivision improvement plan submittal shall clarify whether a separate common landscape irrigation meter or sub-meter is required for this development. The City Engineering Standards limit meter manifold construction to 4 -1" meters. 19. Excavations along the property lines and adjacent to neighboring development property shall comply with any applicable sub-adjacent excavation and notification provisions of the California Building Code and prevailing State law. 20. An OSHA excavation permit will be required prior to grading and/or building permit issuance. 21. A separate demolition permit application will be required for the removal of the existing structures. The application and permit process is subject to the prescriptive requirements ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 169 Resolution No. ARC-1012-2018 3063 Rockview Place, ARCH-1209-2017 Page 5 of the demolition regulations including the required legal notices (during a period of 90 days) offering the buildings for relocation if over 50-years old. 22. A complete grading and drainage plan, final drainage report, and Post Construction Stormwater Regulation compliance documentation will be required in conjunction with the building permit plan submittal. 23. The drainage report shall include an analysis of the existing upslope watershed that is tributary to this property. The project shall show how any existing run-on will be received and conveyed to an approved outlet. The collection and conveyance of the offsite drainage shall include analysis and provisions for a safe-overflow system. 24. The final Post Construction Stormwater Regulation documentation shall show and note compliance with the harvesting, infiltration, or evapotranspiration provisions for · Performance Requirement 2 or shall justify the inability to use these BMP's before dropping down to the bio-filtration option. A treatment train including a mix of BMP's could be supported. Fire Department 25. This project appears to be comprised ofR3 occupancy single family and duplex dwellings. Fire spririklers conforming to NFPA 13D are required of the domestic meter. The building plan submittal shall remove the reference to 4" fire line. On motion by Commissioner Beller, seconded by Commissioner Withers, and on the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Beller, Withers, and Nemch NOES: Commissioners Soll and Rolph REFRAIN: ABSENT: Chair Root and Commissioner Smith The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 1 gth day of June 2018. Doug Davids 1 Secretary ArchiteCtural Review Commission ATTACHMENT 5 Packet Page 170