Agenda packet — San Luis Obispo City Council, April 4, 2023 (part 5 of 10)

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 construction mitigation measures to reduce diesel idling and fugitive dust. Due to the project’s proximity to surrounding residential areas, standard measures for reducing DPM and fugitive dust are required and have been included as Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2. Therefore, potential air quality impacts associated with project construction would be less than significant with mitigation.

Operational Impacts
Implementation of the project would result in the development and occupation a new 4,941-sf single-family residence and an 825-sf ADU. Long-term emissions were also calculated using the CalEEMod computer program. Emissions modeling assumptions after the residence is inhabited are summarized in Attachment 2. Table 3 summarizes the estimated post-construction emissions.

Table 3. Operational Emissions Summary
Criteria Pollutant Highest Daily/Annual
Emissions
SLOAPCD Screening
Threshold Exceeds Threshold?
Daily Operational Emissions – Summer Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.39 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide 0.93 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 0.03 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.17 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Daily Operational Emissions – Winter Conditions
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.4 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Carbon Monoxide 0.96 lbs/day 550 lbs/day No
Diesel Particulate Matter 0.03 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.17 lbs/day 25 lbs/day No
Annual Operational Emissions – Year 2023
Reactive Organic Gases +
Nitrogen Oxide 0.07 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Fugitive Dust (PM10) 0.03 tons/year 25 tons/year No
Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0); SLOAPCD 2012
As shown in Table 3, emissions of criteria air pollutants would not exceed SLOAPCD’s recommended thresholds of significance; therefore, impacts from criteria pollutants during project occupation would be less than significant. c) The project site is a flag lot in a residential area and is directly adjacent to residential development in all directions.

Construction activities, such as excavation, grading, vegetation removal, staging, and building construction, would result in temporary construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust that may affect surrounding sensitive receptors.

Based on the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, construction activities within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors require standard dust and DPM reduction measures. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 and AQ-2 have been identified to reduce exposure of sensitive receptors to adverse construction vehicle emissions and fugitive dust; therefore, impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Construction of the proposed project would generate odors associated with construction smoke, dust, and equipment exhaust and fumes. Proposed construction activities would not differ significantly from those resulting from any other type of construction projects. Any effects would be temporary and limited to the construction phase of the proposed project; therefore, impacts related to the potential for odors would be less than significant.

Page 572 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 The only on-site structure is a shed. Because there is not the potential for ACM in the existing shed given its age, there is no potential for the release of these materials when the shed is moved or demolished. The SLOAPCD NOA Map indicates the project site is located within an area identified as having potential for NOA to be present. The project would include approximately 2,582 cy of total earthwork, removal of trees, and construction of the proposed development. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105), the Applicant is required to provide geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. Based on required compliance with identified mitigation, NESHAP Subpart M, and CARB ATCM Section 93105, potential impacts associated with other emissions would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the Applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:

1. The following idling restrictions shall be implemented for equipment:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors if feasible; b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors shall not be permitted; c. Use of alternative fueled equipment shall be used whenever possible; and d. Signs that specify the no idling requirements shall be posted and enforced at the construction site.

2. 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:
a. 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 b. 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 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.

Signs must be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind drivers of the 5-minute idling limit. The specific requirements and exceptions in the regulation can be reviewed at the following website:
www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/truck-idling/2485.pdf.

AQ-2 During all construction and ground-disturbing activities, the Applicant shall implement the following particulate matter control measures and detail each measure on the project grading and building plans:

1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.

2. Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from exceeding the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD) limit of 20% opacity for no greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph) and cessation of grading activities during periods of winds over 25 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water is to be used in all construction and dustcontrol work.

3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.

Page 573 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

4. 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.

5. Exposed grounds that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than 1 month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast-germinating, non-invasive, grass seed and watered until vegetation is established.

6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.

7. 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.

8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.

9. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114.

10. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads.

11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.

12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.

13. 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 SLOAPCD 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 SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any site preparation, grading, or earthwork.

14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher.

If NOA is determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;

2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and

3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.

Conclusion
Standard mitigation measures have been identified above to address potential project impacts associated with sensitive receptors’ exposure to air pollutants and potential impacts associated with NOA. Upon implementation of the identified mitigation measures, residual impacts associated with air quality would be less than significant.

Page 574 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
1, 2,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 62 53,
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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service?
1, 2,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 62 53,
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
1, 2, 7,
16, 53,
62 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with
established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
2, 7,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 53
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
2, 15,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 62 53,
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?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 2
Evaluation
This evaluation is based on the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040- 2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (David Wolff Environmental 2021a; Attachment 3). The BRA prepared for the project includes the results of a “desktop-level” background review and a reconnaissance-level survey of the project site. “Desktop-level” background review (hereinafter referred to as “background review”) included a review of Google Earth imagery, review of soil types near the project site using the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey, and a query of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for special-status species occurrences and natural communities in the vicinity of the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The reconnaissance-level survey of the project site was conducted on April 22, 2021, which is within the blooming period for most sensitive plant species (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The reconnaissance-level survey was conducted to determine the potential for special-status plant and animal species and sensitive natural communities to occur within the project site based on data collected during the background review. In addition, the Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA was prepared in November 2021 to supplement the original report (David Wolff Environmental 2021b; Attachment 4). Results of the addendum are based on an additional field reconnaissance survey on October 28, 2021, and additional background review.

Page 575 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Regional Setting
The city of San Luis Obispo is generally surrounded by open space, rangeland used for grazing, and other agricultural uses that support a variety of natural habitats and plant communities. The city’s many creeks provide sheltered corridors that allow local wildlife to move between habitats and open space areas. The City’s COSE identifies various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and species of special concern, preserving existing wildlife corridors, protecting significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks.

Existing Biological Resources Setting
The project site consists of a mostly undeveloped flag lot in the northwestern portion of the city. Existing development within the project site is limited to a gated driveway and shed structure. Background level review of the project site was conducted by reviewing available information from aerial imagery of the project area, the Natural Resources Conservation Service soil survey, results of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for the San Luis Obispo USGS quadrangle map, and a query of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Surface Water and Wetlands Mapper (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The USFWS NWI Surface Water and Wetlands Mapper identifies a creek on the project site (mapped as Twin Ridge Creek by the City in the Parcel Viewer). Twin Ridge Creek is a tributary to Old Garden Creek, runs in a north to south direction in the central portion of the project site and bisects the site. The presence of the on-site creek was confirmed during a field reconnaissance survey conducted for the BRA (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW because it conveys water and would also be subject to the Porter-Cologne Act, which is regulated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek supports arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis) thicket, coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum), and planted sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Arroyo willow thicket is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW and the creek’s riparian corridor is a designated wildlife corridor in the City’s COSE. The NWI also identifies an unnamed drainage along the unpaved driveway; however, based on the field reconnaissance survey, the driveway does not support any connecting waters and is not a drainage feature (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).

In addition to the riparian community on-site, the project site also supports non-native annual grassland with a few native forbs and wildflowers (David Wolff Environmental 2021a).

Wetlands and Jurisdictional Waters
According to the BRA, there is an ephemeral creek that runs north to south in the central portion of the project site and conveys flows from Bishop Peak. The creek begins at a culvert located in woody riparian vegetation in the northern portion of the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Based on the City’s Parcel Viewer, the on-site creek is identified as Twin Ridge Creek (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek is an ephemeral creek, and the bottom supports narrow braided low-flow channels along the flow path (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a, David Wolff Environmental 2021a).

The remnant open creek channel and riparian corridor may represent jurisdictional waters of the U.S./State pursuant to the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404, California Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Program (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The creek continues through the site toward Westmont Avenue approximately 0.3 mile to the southeast, where it is underground and runs parallel to Westmont Avenue until it returns to an open channel to the south of Westmont Avenue. Twin Ridge Creek ultimately provides connection to other creeks within the city, including Old Garden Creek, Stenner Creek, and San Luis Obispo Creek (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a). In addition, there is a smaller culvert that drains to the northern portion of the site and connects to the on-site creek. The smaller culvert is an open swale with creeping spikerush (Eleocharis macrostachya), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and iris-leaved rush (Juncus xiphioides). • The small culvert leads to the main drainageway which flows below and from the large culvert (David Wolff Environmental 2021a).

Special-Status Species
In the course of background review conducted for this Study 58 special-status plant and animal species and two natural communities that have the potential to occur within the project area were identified. Based on site conditions observed during the reconnaissance survey in April 2021, the following special-status plant and animal species have the potential to occur within the project area.

Page 576 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Special-Status Plant Species
In the course of background review conducted for this Study 34 special-status plant species that have to the potential to occur within the project region were identified. A field survey was conducted during the appropriate blooming period for most special-status plant species. Of the 34 special-status plant species identified as having the potential to occur, only one special-status species was observed on-site and is described below (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Based on project soil types and habitat conditions observed during the April 22, 2021, field survey, the other 33 special-status plant species having the potential to occur within the project region during background review conducted for this Study are not expected to occur on-site. In addition, none of the other 33 special-status plant species were observed during the botanical surveys that were conducted at the project site, which were appropriately timed to ensure the best potential of observance if the species existed at the site (David Wolff Environmental 2021b). x San Luis Obispo (Cambria) morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis): This species is a California Rare Plant Ranking 4.B (watch list). At the time the City’s COSE was adopted in 2006, Cambria morning glory was a California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1.B. This species is presently no longer a Rare List 1.B plant according to the most recent CNPS ranking system. This species was placed on the CNPS Rank 4.2 list in approximately 2011. Therefore, any impacts to this species are considered less than significant and do not warrant mitigation. Cambria morning glory was observed on-site within the non-native annual grassland on the downward slope toward the riparian area.

Special-Status Animal Species
Previously recorded occurrences of 24 special-status animal species were identified within the project region in the course of background review of the CNDDB. Table 4 identifies these 24 special-status animal species and the likelihood of occurrence for individual species within the project site based on the occurrences recorded within the region in the CNDDB.

Table 4. Special-Status Animal Species Recorded by the CNDDB Common
Name
Scientific
Name
Federal
Status
State
Status Potential to Occur
lesser slender
salamander
Batrachoseps
minor
None SSC Low potential in riparian area because of high water sheet flows.
foothill
yellowlegged frog
Rana boylii None Endangered This species is not anticipated to occur within the project site because there is not suitable habitat.

California
red-legged
frog (CRLF)
Rana
draytonii
Threatened Species of
Special
Concern
(SSC)
This species is not anticipated to occur within the
project site. The project site lacks suitable aquatic
breeding and non-breeding habitat. Twin Ridge
Creek is an intermittent drainage that does not
retain water for adequate breeding habitat.

The BRA Addendum field survey conducted on
October 28, 2021 followed an approximately 1.4-
inch rainfall event several days earlier. There was
only evidence of flows from the rain event within
the narrow, braided channels with no sheet flow
across the floodplain. It appeared there was just
enough flows even from the short but substantial
rain event to push accumulated leaf litter beyond
the limits of the braided narrow low-flow channels.

No standing or pooled water remained from the
obvious rain event flows on the project site
supporting the BRA findings that the site lacks the
required aquatic habitat for the California redlegged frog (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).

Page 577 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 For these reasons, CRLF is not expected to forage
or migrate through the project site.
coast range
newt
Taricha
torosa
None SSC This species is not anticipated to occur within the project site because there is not suitable habitat for
this species.

Cooper’s
hawk
Accipiter
cooperii
None Watch List Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian habitat.
white-tailed
kite
Elanus
leucurus
None Fully
Protected
Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian
habitat.
tricolored
blackbird
Agelaius
tricolor
None Threatened No suitable wetland habitat.
yellowbreasted chat Icteria virens None SSC Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian habitat.
loggerhead
shrike
Lanius
ludovicianus
None SSC Low potential in remnant small patch of riparian habitat.
burrowing
owl
Athene
cunicularia
None None No sufficient grassland habitat with enough
squirrel burrows.
vernal pool
fairy shrimp
Branchinecta
lynchi
Threatened None No suitable vernal pool habitat.

Steelhead
trout
Oncorhynchu
s mykiss
irideus
Threatened None No suitable perennial aquatic habitat.

Crotch
bumble bee
Bombus
crotchii
None None No suitable wildflower rich grassland habitat. monarch
winter roosts
Danaus
plexippus
Candidate None No suitable roost sites.

Monterey
dusky-footed
woodrat
Neotoma
macrotis
luciana
None SSC Low potential in riparian habitat.

No woodrat nests observed.

Western
mastiff bat
Eumops
perotis
californicus
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.

American
badger
Taxidea
taxus
None SSC No potential burrows observed.
pallid bat Antrozous
pallidus
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.

Page 578 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Townsend’s
big-eared bat
Corynorhinus
townsendii
None SSC No suitable roost habitat.

Yuma myotis Myotis
yumanensis
None None No suitable roost habitat.
northern
California
legless lizard
Anniella
pulchra
None SSC No suitable sandy soils or shrub cover on-site.

Western
pond turtle
Emys
marmorata
None SSC No suitable perennial aquatic habitat.

Two-striped
garter snake
Thamnophis
hammondii
None SSC No suitable aquatic habitat.
coast horned
lizard
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
None SSC No suitable sandy soils or shrub cover on-site. a) Special-Status Plant Species
The project site consists of riparian and non-native grassland habitat types. Based on the field survey conducted for the project on April 22, 2021 during the seasonal blooming season, there is only one CRPR 4.2 (limited distribution) species plant species, Cambria morning glory, identified at the project site. All other sensitive plant species are not expected to occur at the project site due to existing soil conditions and site disturbance. No other special status plant species were observed during the appropriately time April 22, 2021 rare plant survey.

During the rare plant survey of April 22, 2021, Cambria morning glory was observed sparsely on the western side of Twin Ridge Creek with more frequent occurrences on the eastern grassland flat (David Wolff Environmental 2021b).

Cambria morning glory is a species of limited distribution but has current distribution from San Luis Obispo County to northwestern Santa Barbara County, with historic herbaria records as far north as Sonoma County. Recent observations in the record have found it throughout coastal and inland San Luis Obispo County, reducing the significance of its occurrence and local rarity at any one location. It is important to note that although Cambria morning glory was listed as a CRPR 1B plant when the COSE was adopted in 2006, this species is presently no longer a CRPR 1.B plant according to the most recent CNPS ranking system. This species was placed on the CNPS Rank

4.2 list in approximately 2011 after the Final EIR was drafted and certified. (David Wolff Environmental 2021b). Due to the wide range of occurrences locally within the city, impacts to Cambria morning glory would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not necessary (David Wolff Environmental 2021b). Therefore, impacts related to special-status plant species would be less than significant.

Special-Status Animal Species
Based on the urban setting of the project site and limited diversity of grassland plant species, special-status grassland animal species are not anticipated to occur within the project site (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek does not provide habitat for riparian species due to the lack of understory shrub and natural debris (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Therefore, as identified in Table 4, special-status grassland and riparian species are not anticipated to occur based on existing habitat conditions.

Migratory birds may nest within the riparian vegetation associated with the on-site creek. There were no active nests observed within the project site during field surveys; however, the riparian habitat on-site supports arroyo willows, coast live oak, and other riparian trees that may provide suitable nesting habitat for migratory birds that may pass through the project site. The project would require removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees; therefore, removal of any trees could result in temporary nesting bird habitat loss. Other riparian trees would be protected through the provision of a Creek Setback depicted in plans. Following construction activities, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees, four California bay laurel one-gallon trees, four California sycamore one-gallon trees, and 20 willow sprig trees throughout the creek

Page 579 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 channel, which would avoid long-term nesting bird habitat loss. Mitigation Measure BIO-1 has been included to reduce potential impacts to nesting migratory birds and associated nesting habitat during construction activities.

As previously identified in Table 4, other special-status animal species are not anticipated to occur based on a lack of suitable habitat. Therefore, potential impacts related to special-status animal species would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project would result in approximately 35,000 square feet (0.8 acre) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill. The project would be required to prepare a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) with best management practices (BMPs) pursuant to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) and City requirements. In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require the implementation of short- and long-term erosion control measures on-site and would also require disturbed soils along the creek corridor to be restored. Implementation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan would avoid and/or minimize potential erosive or polluted runoff that could adversely affect the riparian habitat and associated arroyo willow thicket and other riparian trees. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has been included to avoid and/or reduce potential impacts related to polluted runoff from construction vehicle and equipment use on-site. Therefore, with implementation of the erosion and sedimentation control plan and Mitigation Measure BIO-4, potential impacts to sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with mitigation.

A portion of Twin Ridge Creek flows in a north to south direction through the central portion of the project site and bisects the property. This portion of Twin Ridge Creek supports arroyo willow thicket, which is considered a sensitive natural community by the CDFW. In addition to arroyo willow thicket, the riparian corridor of the on-site creek supports coast live oak trees, big leaf maple trees, and planted sycamore trees (David Wolff Environmental 2021a).

The project would require removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees and other vegetation for implementation of the proposed bridge crossing. Other riparian trees and vegetation would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist and depicted in plans.

The project would require tree removal and work within the riparian habitat on-site to accommodate the span bridge and associated footings and supports. In addition, utilities serving the ADU would need to cross the on-site portion of Twin Ridge Creek. The project’s development plans include two potential approaches for the necessary extension of utilities to the ADU: 1) trenching/undergrounding the utilities below the creek, or 2) including the utilities in the bridge span, either hanging from the bridge or within the bridge decking/enclosure. Because both possibilities are shown on the project plans, this environmental assessment assumes that the project proposal could include the trenching/undergrounding of the utilities below the creek as this approach would be the most environmentally impactful. As a result of the work in the riparian area and the potential for disturbance of regulatory waters resulting from the creek crossing of the utilities, which could include trenching below the creek, the project would be required to be authorized by the agencies with jurisdiction pursuant to Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act and the California Fish and Game Code.

As part of the regulatory/permitting processes, the Applicant will be required to demonstrate to the affected agencies that the proposed project has been designed and will be implemented in a manner that avoids and minimizes impacts to the extent practicable. Impacts to jurisdictional features would be mitigated through implementation of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (or revegetation plan), which will be reviewed and approved by the affected agencies.

To appropriately address the impacts to the riparian habitat and creek that will be required for implementation of the span bridge, the Applicant has developed a revegetation plan, which is presented in the addendum to the BRA. The revegetation plan shows the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees likely needing removal for the bridge construction and states that vegetation removal will be kept to the minimum necessary for bridge clearance.

As well, the revegetation plan assumes existing drainage patterns will not be altered and that disturbance would only occur for the bridge footings. To minimize disturbance of the riparian area and potential impacts to the creek, BIO-2 has been included to require the placement of utilities above the creek as part of the creek span, rather than trenching below the creek.

Page 580 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 The Applicant’s proposed compensatory riparian mitigation will provide supplemental irrigation for three years, and will be maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80% survival success criteria after two years without supplemental irrigation. (David Wolff Environmental 2021b; Attachment 4).

Mitigation Measure BIO-3 incorporates the Applicant’s proposed conceptual revegetation plan and is provided to ensure that the impacts associated with bridge construction are addressed. This measure is independent of permitting agency requirements; however, implementation of the mitigation described in both Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3 is consistent with what is anticipated to be required by the permitting agencies. With implementation of the identified mitigation, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) The portion of Twin Ridge Creek located within the project site and associated riparian corridor may meet the criteria for jurisdictional waters of the U.S. or the State (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). The project would require tree removal and work within the riparian corridor for construction of the proposed bridge and associated footings and supports; as such, the project would be required by law to obtain permits and/or authorizations pursuant to Section 404/401 of the Clean Water Act, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act and California Fish and Game Code Section 1600 Lake and Streambed Program. While additional measures are expected as part of the permitting process with the affected agencies, Mitigation Measure BIO-2 and BIO-3 have been provided to ensure that the impacts to the riparian habitat and creek are addressed through the minimization of impacts to the riparian habitat through the placement of utility crossings within or attached to the bridge crossing and implementation of a revegetation plan prepared by the Applicant. In addition, the project would require 0.8 acre of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill, and the use of construction vehicles and equipment that could result in indirect impacts, such as erosive or polluted runoff. The project would be required to prepare and implement an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require implementation of short- and long-term erosion control measures on-site. Mitigation Measure BIO-4 has also been included to avoid and/or reduce potential impacts related to polluted runoff from construction vehicle and equipment use on-site. Therefore, with implementation of the erosion and sedimentation control plan and Mitigation Measures BIO-2 and BIO-3, potential impacts to Twin Ridge Creek within the project site would be less than significant with mitigation.
d) Based on the City’s COSE, the project area is within an area that is generally mapped as having the potential to serve as a wildlife corridor. Twin Ridge Creek flows in a north to south direction through the central portion of the project site. The creek continues south through a developed residential area until it is undergrounded at Westmont Avenue.

The creek then returns to an open channel to the south of Westmont Avenue and ultimately provides connectivity to other creeks, including Old Garden Creek, Stenner Creek, and San Luis Obispo Creek. The portion of Twin Ridge Creek that flows through the project area supports ephemeral flows of water and the riparian creek corridor supports sparse understory shrub and natural debris (David Wolff Environmental 2021a). Twin Ridge Creek flows onto the property through an underground culvert under Patricia Drive and again along Westmont Avenue. The lack of a consistent open channel impedes larger wildlife, such as deer, from effectively using the creek as a movement corridor; however, deer and other wildlife (wild turkey, quail) that have become adapted to the urban environment have been seen within the site and vicinity. In addition, due to its ephemeral nature and lack of an open channel, Twin Ridge Creek does not provide connectivity for migratory fish species. Therefore, the project site is not anticipated to support any migratory fish species and implementation of the project would not result in disturbance of migratory fish.

Suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds is present within the riparian trees and vegetation associated with Twin Ridge Creek. The project would require tree removal and work within the riparian corridor for construction of the new span bridge and associated footings and supports over Twin Ridge Creek. The project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees, four California bay laurel one-gallon trees, four California sycamore one-gallon trees, and 20 willow sprig trees throughout the creek channel, which would avoid permanent habitat loss for nesting migratory birds. Further, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would require nesting bird surveys prior to any ground-disturbing activity, including tree removal, to ensure there are no migratory bird species nesting on-site that could be directly affected by implementation of the project. If nesting migratory birds are present on-site during project implementation, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 requires avoidance of individuals through identified nest buffers.

Therefore, upon implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, potential impacts to nesting birds would be less than significant with mitigation.

Page 581 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 e) The riparian corridor associated with the on-site creek within the project site supports arroyo willow thicket, coast live oak trees, big leaf maple trees, and planted sycamore trees. The project would require the removal of 17 coast live oak saplings and 20 to 30 arroyo willow stems from approximately four trees within the riparian corridor for construction of the new bridge crossing over the portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site. Following construction activities, the project includes the replanting of 20 coast live oak one-gallon trees (10 one each side of the corridor), four California bay laurel one-gallon trees (two on each side of the corridor), four California sycamore one-gallon (two on each side of the corridor), and 20 willow sprig trees (throughout the creek channel), which is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code (12.24.090), which requires the replanting of removed trees on-site at a minimum 1:1 ratio.

Replanted trees would be irrigated for three years and maintained and monitored for five years to meet an 80% survival success. Other riparian trees would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist and depicted in plans. Therefore, the project would not conflict with a local plan or ordinance for tree preservation.

The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protecting listed species and Species of Special Concern (SSC), preserving existing wildlife corridors, protecting significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks. The project site provides suitable habitat for nesting migratory birds within the riparian corridor on-site.

The project would require tree removal and other work within the riparian corridor for construction of the new bridge and associated footings and supports to cross over the portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site. The creek and other riparian trees and vegetation would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist and depicted in plans. In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sedimentation control plan, which would further reduce potential impacts to Twin Ridge Creek and the associated riparian corridor.

Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would avoid and/or minimize potential impacts related to biological resources protected by the City’s COSE and other local policies and ordinances. Therefore, the potential impacts associated with conflicts with local policies would be less than significant with mitigation. f) The project is not located within an area under an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted plan, and no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
BIO-1 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 15), prior to any ground-disturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1 week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species.

No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate buffer is determined in coordination with the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

BIO-2 All utility extensions required to cross the creek, which are necessary to serve the ADU (excluding the sewer lateral serving the ADU and connecting to the sewer line along the rear of the property), shall be placed within or attached to the bridge span. No trenching across the creek shall occur for the extension of utilities to the ADU.

Page 582 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 29 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 the construction of the bridge structure. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated area of the riparian corridor for three years, and maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80% survival success criteria after two years without supplemental irrigation. Monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with the revegetation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the affected resource agencies and the City annually. Permits and/or authorizations from the regulatory agencies (CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USACE), or documentation from the respective agency that the permit/authorization is required, shall be submitted to the City prior to any grading and/or construction activities within the on-site riparian area.

BIO-4 All equipment and vehicles shall be checked and maintained daily to prevent spills of fuel, oil, and other hazardous materials. A designated staging area shall be established for vehicle/equipment parking and storage of fuel, lubricants, and solvents a minimum of 30-feet outside of the riparian area on-site. All fueling and maintenance activities shall take place in the designated staging area.

Conclusion
The project site supports biological resources, including San Luis Obispo morning glory, nesting migratory birds, and a portion of Twin Ridge Creek and associated riparian corridor. Potential impacts to biological resources would be avoided through project design and mitigated through implementation of requirements identified in Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4. The creek and other riparian trees and vegetation would be protected and/or restored through provision of a Creek Setback determined by the City Biologist, replanting requirements, and the mitigation identified above. With implementation of mitigation to reduce impacts to biological resources, the project would not conflict with local plans or policies for protection of biological resources with implementation of the identified mitigation measures. Therefore, potential impacts to biological resources would be less than significant with mitigation.

5. CULTURAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to §15064.5?
1, 5,
17, 18,
54 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5?
2, 17,
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 54 18,
c) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
2, 17,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 54 18,
Evaluation
This evaluation is based, in part, on the Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California by Central Coast Archaeological Research Consultants (CCARC) for this project (CCARC 2021). The Cultural Resources Survey includes the results of the background review conducted for this Study and an archaeological survey of the subject property. Background review consisted of a records search at the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) at the University of California, Santa Barbara. The records search encompassed the project site and a 0.25-mile radius of the site. Based on the records search, five cultural resource studies and two archaeological sites were recorded within a 0.25-mile radius of the site. In addition, there was one cultural resources survey recorded within the project site. Based on a review of previously documented findings, no cultural resources have been reported within the footprint of the project (CCARC 2021). An intensive field survey was conducted on May 18, 2021, at the project site. There were no prehistoric materials or historic cultural resources observed within the project site during the field survey (CCARC 2021).

Page 583 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 30 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Pre-Historic Setting
Archaeological evidence demonstrates that Native American groups (including the Chumash) have occupied the Central Coast for at least 10,000 years. The city of San Luis Obispo is located within the area historically occupied by the Obispeño Chumash, the northernmost of the Chumash people of California. The Obispeño Chumash occupied much of San Luis Obispo County, and the earliest evidence of human occupation in the region comes from archaeological sites along the coast.

The project site is not located within or adjacent to a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE.

Historic Setting
The City’s COSE establishes various goals and policies to balance cultural and historical resource preservation with other community goals. These policies include, but are not limited to, the following:
x Identification, preservation, and rehabilitation of significant historic and architectural resources; x Prevention of demolition of historically or architecturally significant buildings unless doing so is necessary to remove a threat to health and safety;
x Consistency in the design of new buildings in historical districts to reflect the form, spacing, and materials of nearby historic structures; and
x Identification and protection of neighborhoods or districts having historical character due to the collective effect of Contributing or Master List historic properties.

The project site is not located within the Historic Preservation (H) Overlay Zone, nor does it contain any built structures that may be considered potentially eligible historic resources. a) The project site is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a shed structure that would be removed as part of the project. Based on the Cultural Resources Survey Report, the records search and the field survey did not identify any new historic or other cultural resources within the project site, including the shed structure (CCARC 2021). Therefore, the project site does not contain buildings or structures that may be classified as potentially eligible historic resources.

In addition, there are no identified historic buildings within the immediate vicinity the project. Therefore, the project would not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource pursuant to Section 15064.5 and potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) No archaeological resources are known to occur within the project site. Mitigation Measure CR-1 is provided to address inadvertent discovery during project construction to ensure potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.
c) No human remains are known to occur within proposed development areas, and the project site is not located near a Burial Sensitivity Area identified in Figure 1 of the City’s COSE. The project would be required to comply with California Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5, which requires that no further disturbance of the site or any nearby area reasonably suspected to overlie adjacent human remains shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to PRC Section 5097.98. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the coroner shall notify the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours.

Therefore, based on required compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts related to disturbance of human remains would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
CR-1 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground-disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a City-qualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate

Page 584 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 31 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in consistent with California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Section 15064.5 by a qualified archaeologist.

If the resource is determined significant, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant. The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 for inadvertent discovery, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on cultural resources.

6. ENERGY
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, during project construction or operation?
1, 17,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 21 19,
b) Conflict with or obstruct a state or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency?
1, 17,
19, 20,
21 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
Pacific Gas & Electric Company (PG&E) has historically been the primary electricity provider for the City. In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE and, beginning in January 2020, 3CE has become an alternative electricity provider within the city. 3CE is striving to provide 100% carbon-free electricity to city of San Luis Obispo customers by 2030.

The California Building Code (CBC) contains standards that regulate the method of use, properties, performance, or types of materials used in the construction, alteration, improvement, repair, or rehabilitation of a building or other improvement to real property. The CBC includes mandatory green building standards for residential and nonresidential structures, the most recent version of which are referred to as the 2019 Building Energy Efficiency Standards. These standards focus on four key areas: smart residential photovoltaic systems, updated thermal envelope standards (preventing heat transfer from the interior to the exterior and vice versa), residential and nonresidential ventilation requirements, and non-residential lighting requirements.

The City’s COSE establishes goals and policies to achieve energy conservation and increase use of cleaner, renewable, and locally controlled energy sources. These goals include increasing the use of sustainable energy sources and reducing reliance on non-sustainable energy sources to the extent possible and encouraging the provision for and protection of solar access.

Policies identified to achieve these goals include, but are not limited to, use of best available practices in energy conservation, procurement, use, and production; energy-efficiency improvements; pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly facility design; and fostering alternative transportation modes. a) During construction, fossil fuels, electricity, and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment.

The energy consumed during construction would be temporary in nature and would be typical of other similar construction activities in the city. Federal and State regulations in place require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles

Page 585 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 32 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 and prohibit wasteful activities; therefore, potential impacts associated with construction energy use would be less than significant.

The introduction and occupation of a new residence and ADU at the project site would result in a slight increase in consumption of energy resources associated with vehicle trips, electricity, and natural gas usage by project occupants.

The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards.

The project would result in mixed-fuel buildings and would be required to be in full compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code. Compliance with existing building codes would ensure the project would not result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources, and would not result in a significant environmental impact; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC including applicable green building standards.

The project would be consistent with energy goals and policies in the COSE associated with use of best available practices in energy conservation and encouraging energy-efficient building design as required by the City’s Energy Reach Code. Therefore, the project would not result in a conflict with or obstruction of a State or local plan for renewable energy or energy efficiency, and impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
Implementation of the project would result in a slight increase in energy usage. However, the project has been designed in full compliance with applicable energy efficiency standards and would not conflict with State or local plans for renewable energy or energy efficiency. No potentially significant impacts related to energy would occur, and mitigation measures are not required.

7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Directly or indirectly cause potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning
Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
22, 23,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 26
ii. Strong seismic ground shaking? 22, 23 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
iii. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 23, 24, ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 25
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 26 25, ?Landslides .iv
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 25 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and
potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse?
23, 24,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 25

Page 586 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 33 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2013), creating substantial direct or indirect risks to life or property?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 25
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?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 1
f) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 27 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element identifies active, potentially active, and inactive mapped and inferred faults with the potential to affect the city in the event of rupture. The Los Osos Fault, adjacent to the western side of the city of San Luis Obispo, is identified under the State of California Alquist-Priolo Fault Hazards Act and is classified as active. The West Huasna, Oceanic, and Edna Faults are considered potentially active and present a moderate fault rupture hazard to developments near them. The San Andreas Fault and offshore Hosgri Fault, which present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo, have a high probability of producing a major earthquake within an average lifespan.

The highest risk from ground shaking is found on deep soils that were deposited by water, are geologically recent, and have many pore spaces among the soil grains. These soils are typically found in valleys. Faults capable of producing strong ground-shaking motion in San Luis Obispo include the Los Osos, Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada, Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas Faults. Engineering standards and building codes set minimum design and construction methods for structures to resist seismic shaking. Based on the DOC Fault Activity Map and the City’s Safety Element Earthquake Faults – Local Area map, the project site is not located within or in the immediate vicinity of an active fault zone.

Seismic-Related Ground Failure
Settlement is defined as the condition in which a portion of the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more than the rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles, often with groundwater rising in the process. Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles because of ground shaking. Soils with high risk for liquefaction are typically sandy and in creek floodplains or close to lakes. In extreme cases of liquefaction, structures can tilt, break apart, or sink into the ground. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the strength and duration of an earthquake. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low liquefaction potential.

Slope Instability and Landsides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in other forms. Causes include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes. Improper grading and manmade drainage can be contributing factors. Much of the development in San Luis Obispo is in valleys, where there is low potential for slope instability. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located near an area with high and moderate landslide potential (Bishop Peak); however, the project site is within an area with low landslide potential.

Subsidence
Land subsidence is a gradual settling or sudden sinking of the Earth’s surface due to subsurface movement of earth materials.

Primary causes are groundwater withdrawal, in which water is removed from pore space as the water table drops, causing the ground surface to settle; tectonic subsidence, where the ground surface is warped or dropped lower due to geologic factors such as faulting or folding; and earthquake-induced shaking that causes sediment liquefaction, which in turn can lead to ground-surface subsidence. Based on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Areas of Land Subsidence in California Map, the project site is not located in an area of known subsidence.

Page 587 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 34 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Soil Limiting Factors
The project site is underlain by the Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes. This well-drained soil has a very high runoff class and a depth to restrictive feature of more than 45 to 58 inches to paralithic bedrock. The typical profile for this soil unit is clay and weathered bedrock. Since the soil consists of clay, there is potential for expansion. a.i) Fault rupture refers to the displacement of ground surface along a fault trace that typically occurs during earthquakes of a magnitude 5 or higher. Based on Figure 3 (Earthquake Faults – Local Area) of the City’s Safety Element and the DOC Fault Activity Map of California, no known fault lines are mapped on or within 0.5 mile of the project site.

Therefore, the rupture of a known earthquake fault directly under or adjacent to the project site is not anticipated to occur and potential impacts related to substantial adverse effects involving rupture of a known earthquake fault would be less than significant.
a.ii) The city is in a seismically active region and there is potential for the project to experience seismic ground shaking at some point(s) during the life of the project. The proposed development would be required to be designed in full compliance with seismic design criteria established in CBC Section 1613 and City-adopted engineering standards and practices to adequately withstand and minimize the risk associated with the level of seismic ground shaking expected to occur in the project region; therefore, impacts associated with strong seismic ground shaking would be less than significant.
a.iii) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low liquefaction potential; therefore, development of the project within this area is not anticipated to result in adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure. Proposed development would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in CBC Section 1613 to reduce risk associated with seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, impacts related to substantial adverse effects due to seismic-related ground failure would be less than significant.
a.iv) Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area of low landslide potential. The project site has a gentle downward slope toward the on-site creek; however, the site and surrounding areas are predominantly flat, which further reduces the risk for a landslide to occur.

In addition, the proposed development would be required to be designed in compliance with standard seismic design criteria established in the CBC and City-adopted engineering standards and practices to reduce risk associated with seismic-related ground failure; therefore, the project would not result in significant adverse effects associated with landslides, and impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is characterized by a predominantly flat topography with a gentle downward slope toward the on-site creek and is mostly undeveloped with the exception of a shed structure and gated driveway on the property. The proposed project includes 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill that could result in increased soil erosion during proposed project activities. The project would be required to prepare and implement a SWPPP with construction BMPs for erosion control, including, but not limited to, silt fencing, straw wattles, and berms. Addition of standard construction BMPs would minimize the amount of erosive runoff from the site during ground-disturbing activities. The project would also be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in their Post-Construction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. Physical improvement of the project site would also be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the city’s watershed. Based on the proximity of the project to the on-site creek, increased erosion may result in increased erosive runoff into the waterway. The project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The erosion and sediment control plan would require restoration of soils along the creek corridor to avoid long-term impacts related to erosion and sedimentation. Following project completion, the project site would be developed with a single-family residence, an ADU, hardscapes, and landscaping, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, based on required compliance with existing requirements, potential impacts related to increased erosion would be less than significant.

Page 588 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 35 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 c) Landslides typically occur in areas with steep slopes or in areas containing escarpments. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located on relatively flat land within an area with low landslide potential. Based on the City’s Safety Element and USGS data, the project site is not located in an area of historical or current land subsidence. Based on the Ground Shaking and Landslide Hazards Map in the City’s Safety Element, the project site is located within an area with low liquefaction potential. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required upon review of the building permit to address the nature of the subsurface soils in response to liquefaction potential, in accordance with the CBC Chapter 18. Any issues identified in the report will be addressed through standard site construction techniques, as required by the CBC. The project would also be required to comply with CBC Section 1613 for seismic requirements to address potential seismic-related ground failure, including lateral spread and liquefaction. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts related to location on a geologic unit or soil unit that is unstable would be less than significant. d) Based on the Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County and Web Soil Survey, the project site is entirely underlain by Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes. Typically, soils that consist of clay or clay materials have a higher shrink-swell potential than soils without clay or clay materials. The soil profile of Diablo and Cibo clays, 9 to 15 percent slopes, consists of clay and would be considered to have a high shrink-swell potential. The volume changes that soils undergo in this cyclical pattern can stress and damage slabs and foundations. A soils report prepared by a qualified engineer is required, per CBC Chapter 18 and Policy 4.7 of the City’s Safety Element, upon review of the building permit to evaluate the proposed development activities and provide specific recommendations to adequately protect future proposed development against soil stability hazards, including expansive soils. Typical precautionary measures would likely include premoistening of the underlying soil in conjunction with placement of non-expansive material beneath slabs, and a deepened and more heavily reinforced foundation. Therefore, based on compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts associated with expansive soils would be less than significant. e) The proposed project includes a new connection to the City’s sewer system. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater treatment systems are proposed on-site; therefore, no impacts would occur. f) The project site is underlain by the Franciscan Assemblage, which is comprised of previously sheared, slightly metamorphosed marine sedimentary and mafic volcanic rocks. Based on the lack of previously recorded vertebrate fossils and previous destruction of the parent material during subduction and metamorphosis, the Franciscan Assemblage has been determined to have a low paleontological sensitivity. Therefore, ground disturbance activities are not anticipated to uncover or otherwise disturb any known or unknown paleontological resources; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
Based on the location of the project site and underlying geologic and soil properties, and compliance with existing regulations including the CBC, potential impacts related to seismic and other ground failure and damage to paleontological resources would be less than significant. However, earthwork related to project construction has the potential to result in erosive runoff; however, adverse effects would be avoided or minimized through compliance with existing regulations.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 589 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 36 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

8. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment?
1, 11,
20, 55,
64 ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
11, 19,
20, 52,
55, 64
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆
Evaluation
Greenhouse gases (GHGs) are any gases that absorb infrared radiation in the atmosphere and are different from the criteria pollutants discussed in Section 3, Air Quality. The primary GHGs that are emitted into the atmosphere because of human activities are CO2, methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), and fluorinated gases. In 2012 the City’s Climate Action Plan for Community Recovery was adopted. The plan identified measures and implementation strategies to achieve the City’s GHG reduction target of 1990 emission levels by 2020. In 2020 the City prepared the updated 2020 Climate Action Plan (CAP), which outlines a strategy for achieving carbon neutrality by 2035, adopts sector specific goals, and provides foundational actions to establish a trajectory towards achieving those goals.

In 2018 the City prepared a community-wide inventory of GHG emissions for the 2016 calendar year. In 2016 San Luis Obispo’s total GHG emissions were estimated to be 339,290 metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalence (MTCO2e). As in 2005, transportation was the largest contributor to the city’s total GHG emissions, with an estimated 212,980 MTCO2e or 63% of the city’s total emissions. Commercial and Industrial energy was the second largest sector with GHG emissions of 44,270 MTCO2e or 13% of the city’s total emissions. The sectors of residential energy and solid waste account for the remaining 26% of the city’s total 2016 GHG emissions. Due to lagging data availability, 2016 is the most recent year for complete GHG inventory data. Statewide legislation, rules, and regulations have been adopted to reduce GHG emissions from significant sources. Senate Bill (SB) 32 and Executive Order (EO) S-3-05 extended the State’s GHG reduction goals and required the CARB to regulate sources of GHGs to meet a State goal of reducing GHG emissions to 1990 levels by 2020, 40% below 1990 levels by 2030, and 80% below 1990 levels by 2050. Other Statewide policies adopted to reduce GHG emissions include Assembly Bill (AB) 32, SB 375, SB 97, Clean Car Standards, Low Carbon Fuel Standard, Renewable Portfolio Standard, California Building Codes, and the California Solar Initiative.

Appendix C of the 2020 CAP includes thresholds and guidance for the preparation of GHG emissions analysis under CEQA for projects within the city. To support progress toward the City’s long‐term aspirational carbon neutrality goal, plans and projects within the city that undergo CEQA review will need to demonstrate consistency with targets in the CAP, a Qualified GHG Emissions Reduction Plan, consistent with CEQA Guidelines Section 15183.5. According to the adopted SLOAPCD guidance, if a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, such as the City’s 2020 CAP, the project would not result in a significant impact.

In October 2018, the City Council committed to joining 3CE, an existing community choice energy program that serves Santa Cruz, San Benito, and Monterey Counties and provides 100% carbon-free electricity with a rate savings relative to PG&E. Additionally, at its meeting on September 3, 2019, the City Council adopted the Clean Energy Choice Program for New Buildings. Unlike other cities that are banning natural gas entirely, the proposed Clean Energy Choice Program encourages clean, efficient, and cost-effective all-electric new buildings through incentives, local amendments to the California Energy Code, and implementation of the Carbon Offset Program. New projects wishing to use natural gas will be required to build more efficient and higher performing buildings and offset natural gas use by performing retrofits on existing buildings or by paying an in-lieu fee that will be used for the same purpose. When paired with cost-comparable modern electric appliances and carbon-free electricity from 3CE, all-electric new buildings are operationally GHG emissions-free and cost effective and help achieve the community’s climate action goals.

Page 590 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 37 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 a) As discussed previously, the proposed project would be consistent with the land use density and projected growth of the City’s R-1 land use designation. As such, the project is expected to be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for development of the City’s 2020 CAP.

During construction, fossil fuels and natural gas would be used by construction vehicles and equipment. The project would be required to comply with federal and State regulations in place that require fuel-efficient equipment and vehicles and prohibit wasteful activities, such as diesel idling. Construction GHG emissions were calculated using the CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, computer program, included as Attachment 2. The project would result in approximately 32.34 MTCO2e/year of construction-related GHG-emissions without mitigation, over the 24-month construction period. To be conservative, amortized construction generated GHG emissions were included in annual post-construction GHG emissions estimates, included in Table 5 below. Based on required compliance with existing regulations and Mitigation Measure AQ-1, which identifies idling restrictions, construction of the project would generate less than the estimated 32.34 MTCO2e/year of GHG emissions.

Implementation of the project would result in the occupation of a new 4,941-sf single-family residence, a detached 825-sf ADU, and other residential amenities. The main sources of post-construction emissions include limited vehicle trips to and from the project site and energy use. The project would be designed in full compliance with the CBC, including applicable green building standards. Operational GHG emissions were estimated for this project using the CalEEMod, version 2020.4.0, computer program, included as Attachment 2. As shown in Table 5 below, the project would result in approximately 31.99 MTCO2e/year of GHG emissions without mitigation. Amortized GHG emissions, when averaged over an assumed 25-year life of a project, would total approximately 12.66 MTCO2e/year.

Table 5. Operational GHG Emissions
Source Total MTCO2e
Construction Emissions
Total Construction Emissions 316.44 MTCO2e/year
Amortized Construction Emissions (Over 25 Years) 12.66 MTCO2e/year Operational Emissions
Annual Operational Emissions 31.99 MTCO2e/year
Total Operational Emissions with Amortized Construction Emissions 44.65 MTCO2e/year Service Population (Residents) 61
MTCO2e / Service Population 7.44 MTCO2e/year
2020 CAP Threshold (per resident) 0.7/resident (4.2 MTCO2e/year) Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e) 40.45 MTCO2e/year Reduction Required to Meet CAP Threshold (MTCO2e/Service Population) 6.74 MTCO2e/year
Source: CalEEMod 2021 (v. 2020.4.0)

1. Population assumption based on three persons per proposed unit As discussed in threshold (b) below, the project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Checklist, including requirements for clean energy systems, green buildings, a connected community, a circular economy, and natural solutions. The project would use energy provided by 3CE and would be fully compliant with applicable CBC requirements for development of green buildings and the City’s Energy Reach Code. There are several transit stops within one mile of the project site, and the nearest is located approximately 0.4 mile south of the site along Patricia Drive, near Highland Drive. There is a commercial center located approximately 1.2 miles southeast of the project site and includes a grocery store, a convenience store, restaurants, and other services. In addition, there are several bicycle lanes located within the project vicinity, including a Class III bicycle lane along Patricia Drive (south of Highland Drive) and a Class II bicycle lane along Foothill Boulevard. Based on consistency with the City’s GHG Checklist and accessibility to nearby transit stops, bicycle lanes, and commercial centers, the project would be consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Page 591 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 38 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 b) The San Luis Obispo Council of Governments (SLOCOG) was assigned a GHG-reduction target of 11% from transportation sources by 2035. SLOCOG adopted the 2019 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Community Strategies (RTP/SCS) in June 2019, which includes the region’s SCS and meets the requirements of SB 375.

In September 2018, the City Council directed City staff to develop a climate action plan with a reduction target of carbon neutrality by 2035. A carbon neutrality by 2035 target would require achieving a far greater reduction than the SB 32 requirements by 2030, as identified in the State’s 2017 Scoping Plan. On July 20, 2020, SLOCOG issued a letter which determined that the City’s CAP was consistent with the GHG reduction noted in the SCS for meeting the State’s 2030 GHG-reduction target. As a result, determination of consistency with the City’s CAP would ensure consistency with the GHG-reduction targets identified in the RTP/SCS.

The City’s 2020 CAP identifies six pillars, each of which includes long-term goals, measures, and foundational actions for reducing GHG emissions throughout the city. The pillars are as follows:

1. Leading by Example: Create a Municipal Action Plan by 2020 and achieve carbon neutral government operations by 2030.

2. Clean Energy Systems: Achieve 100% carbon-free electricity by 2020.

3. Green Buildings: Generate no net new building emissions from on‐site energy use by 2020 and achieve a 50% reduction in existing building on‐site emissions (after accounting for 3CE) by 2030.

4. Connected Community: Achieve the General Plan mode split objective by 2030 and have 40% VMT by electric vehicles by 2030.

5. Circular Economy: Achieve 75% diversion of landfilled organic waste by 2025 and 90% by 2035.

6. Natural Solutions: Increase carbon sequestration on the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt and Urban Forest through compost application-based carbon farming activities and tree planting to be ongoing through 2035.

Projects that are consistent with the demographic forecasts and land use assumptions used in the 2020 CAP can use the City’s CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist to demonstrate consistency with the 2020 CAP’s GHG emissions reduction strategy. The demographic forecasts and land use assumptions of the CAP are based on the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element. If a plan or project is consistent with the existing 2014 General Plan land use and zoning designations of the project site, then the project would be considered consistent with the demographic forecasts and the land uses assumptions of the Climate Action Plan. The project is consistent with the City’s land use and zoning designation and would be consistent with the demographic and land use assumptions used for the development of the 2020 CAP.

The proposed project would not result in an increase in employment or population estimates that would conflict with those used for development of the City’s CAP or SLOCOG’s RTP/SCS.

Based on the City’s VMT Thresholds of Significance for Land Use Projects, a residential project generates 14.25 VMT per capita. The City’s Screening Criteria for Land Use Projects Exempt from VMT analysis states that small development projects (project anticipated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips) may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact. In addition, as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo Residential VMT Screening Map, the project site is located in a residential area that generates less than 85% of average VMT. Therefore, because the project would generate less than 110 trips per day, and is located within an area that generates less than 85% of average VMT (14.25 VMT per capita), VMT impacts would be less than significant.

The City has prepared a CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist for plans and projects to ensure that they are consistent with the pillars of the CAP. As identified below in Table 6, the project would be consistent with the CEQA GHG Emissions Analysis Compliance Checklist. Therefore, potential impacts associated with a conflict with a plan or policy adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions would be less than significant.

Table 6. Project Consistency with the City’s Climate Action Plan

Page 592 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 39 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Climate Action Plan Measures Project Consistency
Clean Energy Systems
Does the Project include an operational commitment
to participate in Central Coast Community Energy?
Consistent. The project would use energy from 3CE.

Green Buildings
Does the Project exclusively include “All-electric
buildings”? For this checklist, the following
definitions and exemptions apply:

All-electric building. A new building that has no
natural gas plumbing installed within the building and
that uses electricity as the source of energy for all
space heating, water heating, cooking appliances, and
clothes drying appliances. An All-Electric Building
may be plumbed for the use of natural gas as fuel for
appliances in a commercial kitchen.

Specific exemptions to the requirements for allelectric buildings include:

Commercial kitchens
a. The extension of natural gas infrastructure into
an industrial building for the purpose of
supporting manufacturing processes (i.e., not
including space conditioning).
b. Accessory Dwelling Units that are attached to
an existing single-family home. Essential
Service Buildings including, but not limited to,
public facilities, hospitals, medical centers and
emergency operations centers.
c. Temporary buildings.
d. Gas line connections used exclusively for
emergency generators.
e. Any buildings or building components exempt
from the California Energy Code.
f. Residential subdivisions in process of
permitting or constructing initial public
improvements for any phase of a final map
recorded prior to January 1, 2020, unless
compliance is required by an existing
Development Agreement.

If the proposed project falls into an above exemption
category, what measures are applicants taking to
reduce onsite fossil fuel consumption to the maximum
extent feasible? If not applicable (N/A), explain why
this action is not relevant.

Consistent. The project would include a mixed-fuel
building. As proposed, the project would document
compliance with the City’s Energy Reach Code on
final construction plans to be approved by the City.

Refer to Attachment 1.

Connected Community
Does the Project comply with requirements in the
City’s Municipal Code with no exceptions, including
bicycle parking, bikeway design, and EV charging
stations?
Consistent. The project would include two parking
spaces, which is consistent with the requirements in
the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the type of
development, the project would not be required to
provide bicycle parking or EV stations.

Page 593 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 40 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Is the estimated Project-generated Vehicle Miles
Traveled (VMT) within the City’s adopted thresholds,
as confirmed by the City’s Transportation Division?
Consistent. Based on proposed development of a
single-family residence and an ADU, the project
would not result in VMT exceeding significance
thresholds. If “No,” does the Project/Plan include VMT
mitigation strategies and/or a Transportation Demand
Management (TDM) Plan approved by the City’s
Transportation Division?
Does the Project demonstrate consistency with the
City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan?
Consistent. Based on the type of development, the
project would not be required to provide bicycle
parking or bicycle facilities in compliance with the
City’s Municipal Code. However, the project includes
adequate bicycle storage for residents of the proposed
residence.

Circular Economy
Will the Project subscribe all units and/or buildings to organic waste pick up and provide the appropriate onsite enclosures consistent with the provisions of the City of San Luis Obispo Development Standards for
Solid Waste Services? Please provide a letter from
San Luis Garbage company verifying that the project
complies with their standards and requirements for
organic waste pick up.

Consistent. Proposed development includes a solid
waste enclosure as well as green and recycled material
bins, which is consistent with the City’s solid waste
standards. The proposed project would be provided
solid waste services by the City, with pick-up once a
week.

Natural Solutions
Does the Project comply with Municipal Code
requirements for trees?
Consistent. The project would require removal of
riparian trees, which would require compensation per
Section 12.24.090 (Tree Removal) of the City’s
Municipal Code. In addition, the project would
include trees and vegetation throughout the proposed
development.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not necessary.

Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the City’s GHG Checklist, including requirements for clean energy systems, green buildings, a connected community, a circular economy, and natural solutions. The project site is located near a commercial center, several transit stops, and bicycle lanes. Based on consistency with the City’s GHG Checklist, the project would be consistent with the City’s 2020 CAP; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

9. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 1

Page 594 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 41 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 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?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 1
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 1
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code
Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment?
28, 29,
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 30
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 or excessive noise for people residing or working in the project area?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 31
f) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 23
g) Expose people or structures, either directly or indirectly, to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 51 23,
Evaluation
The Hazardous Waste and Substances Site (“Cortese”) List is a planning document used by the State, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements related to the disclosure of information about the location of hazardous materials release sites. California Government Code Section 65962.5 requires the California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) to develop, at least annually, an updated Cortese List. Various State and local government agencies are required to track and document hazardous material release information for the Cortese List. The California Department of Toxic Substance Control (DTSC) EnviroStor database tracks DTSC cleanup, permitting, enforcement, and investigation efforts at hazardous waste facilities and sites with known contamination, such as federal superfund sites, State response sites, voluntary cleanup sites, school cleanup sites, school investigation sites, and military evaluation sites. The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) GeoTracker database contains records for sites that impact, or have the potential to impact, water in California, such as Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites, Department of Defense sites, and Cleanup Program Sites. The remaining data regarding facilities or sites identified as meeting the Cortese List requirements can be located on the CalEPA website: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/.

Based on a review of the DTSC EnviroStor and SWRCB GeoTracker databases, the project site is not an active hazardous site, nor has it previously been recorded as a hazardous site. In addition, there are no active hazardous sites in the vicinity of the project site.
a) Construction of the proposed project would require the use of commonly used hazardous substances (e.g., fuel, gasoline, cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.). Construction contractors would be required to comply with applicable federal and State environmental and workplace safety laws for the handling of hazardous materials, including the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) Process Safety Management Standard (California Code of Regulations [CCR] 29.1910.119), which includes requirements for preventing and minimizing the consequences of accidental release of hazardous materials. Any commonly used hazardous substances used during occupation of the residence (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials. Therefore, potential impacts associated with the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous substances would be less than significant. b) The project site is mostly undeveloped. The only exception is a shed located on-site, which would be removed as part of the project. As described in Section 3, Air Quality, the project site is within an area identified as having a potential

Page 595 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 42 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 for NOA to occur. Pursuant to SLOAPCD requirements and the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, the Applicant is required to provide a geologic evaluation prior to any construction activities and comply with existing regulations regarding NOA, if present. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site.

After construction and occupation, the project would not require the handling or use of hazardous materials or volatile substances that would result in a significant risk of accidental release. Any commonly used hazardous substances used after construction (e.g., cleaners, solvents, oils, paints, etc.) would be transported, stored, and used according to regulatory requirements and existing procedures for the handling of hazardous materials.

Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. c) The nearest school is Old Mission Pre-School, located approximately 0.35 mile south of the project site; therefore, the project would not result in the use of hazardous materials within 0.25 mile of a school and no impacts would occur.
d) Based on a search of the DTSC EnviroStor database, SWRCB GeoTracker database, and CalEPA Cortese List website, there are no previously identified hazardous materials sites within or adjacent to the project site. Proposed ground disturbance would not result in the release of any known hazardous materials; therefore, no impacts would occur.
e) San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport is the nearest airport to the project site, located approximately 5.25 miles south of the project site. The project is outside of the Airport Influence Area and any Safety Zone designations established under the airport’s Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, the project would not be located within 2 miles of an airport or under the jurisdiction of an ALUP, and no impacts would occur. f) Project construction is not anticipated to result in temporary traffic controls along Patricia Drive and no full road closures would be necessary. Project implementation would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact on any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. Therefore, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to the potential for impairment of implementation of emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans.
g) The project site is located within a developed area of the city in a low fire hazard severity zone (FHSZ) designated by the City’s COSE. Bishop Peak is located approximately 750 feet to the west of the project site and is designated as an extreme, high, and moderate FHSZ by the City’s COSE. The project site is mostly undeveloped but has been regularly maintained to reduce fire risk. New buildings would be required to comply with all applicable fire safety rules and regulations, including the California Fire Code and PRC. For these reasons, the project would result in less than significant impacts related to exposure to wildland fire.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3.

Conclusion
The project does not propose the long-term routine transport, use, handling, or disposal of hazardous substances. The project is not located within 0.25 mile of a school or within the Airport Influence Area or ALUP safety zone designation. Mitigation Measure AQ-3 has been identified to require the Applicant to complete a geologic evaluation and follow all applicable protocol and procedures if NOA is determined to be present on-site. Project implementation would not subject people or structures to substantial risks associated with wildland fires and would not impair implementation of or interfere with any adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Potential impacts associated with hazards and hazardous materials would be less than significant with mitigation.

Page 596 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 43 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

10. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements or otherwise substantially degrade surface or ground water quality?
1, 2, 7,
☐ ܆ ܈ ☐ 62 53,
b) Substantially decrease groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that the project may impede sustainable groundwater management of the
basin?
1, 33,
☐ ܈ ☐ ☐ 34
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river or through the addition of impervious surfaces, in a manner which would:
i. Result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site; 1, 36, ☐ ܈ ܆ ☐ 63 53,
ii. Substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or offsite;
1, 36,
53, 62,
63 ☐ ܈ ܆ ☐
iii. 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; or
1, 36,
53, 62,
63 ☐ ܈ ܆ ☐
iv. Impede or redirect flood flows? 1, 23,
32, 59,
63 ܆ ܈ ܆ ☐
d) In flood hazard, tsunami, or seiche zones, risk release of pollutants due to project inundation?
1, 2,
23, 32,
35 ܈ ܆ ܆ ☐
e) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan? 1, 2,
܆ ܈ ☐ ☐ 36 33,
Evaluation
The project site is located within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed. The San Luis Obispo Creek watershed is an approximately 53,271-acre coastal basin in southern San Luis Obispo County. It rises to an elevation of about 2,500 feet above sea level in the Santa Lucia Range. San Luis Obispo Creek flows to the Pacific Ocean just west of Avila Beach and has six major tributary basins: Stenner Creek, Prefumo Creek, Laguna Lake, East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, Davenport Creek, and See Canyon. The project site supports a portion of Twin Ridge Creek that flows in a north to south direction and bisects the central portion of the project area. The portion of Twin Ridge Creek on-site begins at a culvert in the northern portion of the project site and ultimately provides connection to other creeks within the city (City of San Luis Obispo 2021a; David Wolff Environmental 2021a).

The City participates in the State General Permit NPDES permit program governing stormwater. Thus, the City is required to implement the Central Coast RWQCB’s adopted Post-Construction Stormwater Management requirements through the development review process. The primary objective of these post-construction requirements is to ensure that the permittee is reducing pollutant discharges to the maximum extent practicable and preventing stormwater discharges from causing or contributing to a violation of receiving water quality standards in all applicable development projects that require approvals and/or permits issued.

Page 597 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 44 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 The 100-year flood zone identifies areas that would be subject to inundation in a 100-year storm event, or a storm with a 1% chance of occurring in any given year. According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map 06079C1066G, effective date November 16, 2012, the eastern portion of the project site is located within Zone X, an area with limited potential for annual flooding.

In 2015 the State legislature approved the Sustainable Groundwater Management Act (SGMA), which requires governments and water agencies of high- and medium-priority basins to halt overdraft and bring groundwater basins into balanced levels of pumping and recharge. Under the SGMA, these basins should reach sustainability within 20 years of implementing their sustainability plans. The project would be serviced by the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources— Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation)—with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source.
a) The project site is relatively flat with a gentle slope downward toward the portion of Twin Ridge Creek that is onsite. The project would require the use of construction equipment that would increase the potential for polluted runoff during construction activities. The proposed project also includes 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance, including 1,932 cy of cut and 650 cy of fill that could result in increased soil erosion during ground-disturbing activities. Project improvements would be located in close proximity to the on-site creek; therefore, increased erosive and/or polluted runoff may result in indirect water quality impacts.

Based on the amount of proposed ground disturbance, consistent with the Municipal Code and as part of the building permit process, the project would require a SWPPP with BMPs including, but not limited to, erosion and pollution control measures such as silt fencing, straw wattles, berms, and vehicle maintenance and storage. Implementation of standard construction BMPs would reduce the potential for polluted runoff during equipment and vehicle use and would minimize the amount of erosive runoff from the site during ground-disturbing activities. In addition, Mitigation Measure BIO-4 would require vehicle storage and refueling to occur outside of the creek area to avoid accidental fuel spills. The project would be required to comply with the Central Coast RWQCB requirements set forth in their PostConstruction Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast region.

Proposed physical improvement of the project site would also be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterway Management Plan. This plan was adopted for the purpose of ensuring water quality and proper drainage within the city’s watershed. As part of these requirements, the City has been mandated to establish a set of minimum designated BMPs and Pollution Prevention Methods (PPMs). BMPs are steps taken to minimize or control the amount of pollutants and runoff. PPMs are strategies to eliminate the use of polluting materials and/or exposure of potential pollutants to rainwater or other sources of runoff. Additionally, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan for short- and long-term erosion control in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements. The project site would be developed with a single-family residence, an ADU, hardscapes, and landscaping, precluding the potential for substantial long-term erosion or loss of topsoil. Therefore, based on required compliance with existing requirements and implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-4, potential impacts related to violation of water quality standards would be less than significant with mitigation. b) Implementation of the project would result in 12,540 sf of new impervious surfaces, including a single-family residence, an ADU, and other hardscapes. This would result in an approximate 20% increase in impervious surface areas, leaving 80% of the project parcel undeveloped. To further allow for groundwater infiltration on-site, the project would maintain the on-site creek and associated corridor, construct driveways with permeable pavers, and reduce driveway width where feasible. While the construction of the residence and ADU would introduce additional impervious surfaces to the project site, this development would result in less than 20% coverage of the project site.

Because the project would retain most of the site as pervious, the project is not anticipated to disrupt groundwater recharge on-site, and impacts would be less than significant. c.i-iii) Project construction consists of 0.8 acre (35,000 square feet) of ground disturbance that could result in temporary impacts to drainage patterns in the area through erosive runoff. The project would be required to develop and implement a Water Pollution Control Plan to protect stormwater runoff, including measures to prevent soil erosion.

In addition, the project would be required to prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with the City’s stormwater requirements to reduce the potential for short- and long-term erosion from implementation of the project. Following project construction, the project site would be developed with new residential units, hardscapes, or otherwise landscaped areas, precluding the potential for substantial erosion or loss of topsoil. The project would

Page 598 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 45 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 require work within the on-site creek for installation of the span bridge but would not disrupt the creek’s ability to convey surface water or other flows. Based on the Preliminary Hydrology Study prepared by Chacon Associates, LLC (Attachment 5) for the project, the proposed bridge would be required to be a minimum of 2.5 feet above the creek bottom to allow for potential 100-year flood flows.

Implementation of the project would result in new impervious surfaces that have potential to increase polluted or other surface runoff. However, the project would maintain the majority of the site as pervious (approximately 80%) and would further reduce impervious surface area by mostly maintaining the on-site creek and associated corridor, constructing driveways with permeable pavers, and reducing driveway width where feasible as required by the City’s post-construction stormwater requirements. Compliance with existing regulations would minimize potential impacts to drainages during project construction; therefore, project impacts would be less than significant. c.iv) According to FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map 06079C1066G, effective date November 16, 2012, project site is located within Zone X, area of minimal flood hazard. Implementation of the project would result in minor alterations to the on-site creek for construction of the span bridge and associated footings and supports. However, minor alterations would not impede or redirect flood flows because the project site is not located within a flood hazard zone.

Therefore, potential impacts associated with impeding or redirection of flood flows would be less than significant. d) Based on the San Luis Obispo County Tsunami Inundation Maps, the project site is not located in an area with potential for inundation by a tsunami. The project site is not located within close proximity to a standing body of water with the potential for a seiche to occur. Therefore, there would be no impacts associated with potential inundation due to tsunami or seiche.
e) Per the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Water and Wastewater Element, Policy A2.2.1, the City has four primary water supply sources—Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation); groundwater serves as a fifth supplemental source. The project includes stormwater treatment and storage facilities and would not conflict with the City’s Waterways Management Plan or other water quality control plans. The project would be supplied water by the City of San Luis Obispo, which has ample water supply based on diversification of its water resources. Water supply analysis is further discussed in Section 19, Utilities and Service Systems. In addition, the project site would maintain approximately 80% of the site’s pervious surfaces and would install other measures to allow for groundwater recharge at the site. In addition, the project would not conflict with the SGMA because the City has moved away from using groundwater as a primary water supply source, which is consistent with the San Luis Valley Groundwater Sustainability Plan. Therefore, the project would not conflict with the SGMA, Central Coast Basin Plan, or other local or regional plans or policies intended to manage water quality or groundwater supplies; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Conclusion
Through project design, standard BMPs, PPMs, and City Engineering Standards, the project would not substantially impede or redirect flood flows, alter existing drainage patterns, degrade surface water quality, decrease groundwater supplies, or conflict with or obstruct implementation of a water quality control plan or sustainable groundwater management plan.

The project would retain the preconstruction infiltration rates and volume currently occurring on the unimproved project site. Therefore, through compliance with existing regulations and implementation of identified mitigation measures, impacts related to hydrology and water quality would be less than significant.

Page 599 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 46 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

11. LAND USE AND PLANNING
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? N/A ܆ ܆ ܆ ܈ b) Cause a significant environmental impact due to a conflict with any land use plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 5 2, 1,

Page 600 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 47 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Evaluation
The project site is located on a single, mostly undeveloped flag lot within the R-1-PD zone in the northwestern portion of the city. The flag lot was created as part of the Tract 1192 subdivision, which was approved by the City in 1985. The project site is accessible by a private, gated driveway off of Patricia Drive. The project site is generally surrounded by one- and two-story single-family residential uses. Land uses surrounding the project site are as follows:
x North: single-family residential development
x South: single-family residential development
x East: single-family residential development
x West: single-family development between Patricia Drive and the portion of the site proposed for development; to the west of Patricia Drive, Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop Trailhead a) The project would result in the development of a 4,941-sf single-family residence and detached 825-sf ADU within the R-1-PD zone. The project would be surrounded by other single-family residential land uses and would not physically divide an established community. The project would be consistent with the existing level of development in the project vicinity and would not create, close, or impede any existing public or private roads, or create any other barriers to movement or accessibility within the community. Therefore, the project would not physically divide an established community and no impacts would occur.
b) The project is consistent with existing surrounding development and proposes a compatible land use. The project would be consistent with the property’s R-1 land use designation and the guidelines and policies for development within the R-1-PD zoning designation. The COSE includes various goals and policies to maintain, enhance, and protect natural communities within the City’s planning area. These policies include, but are not limited to, protection of listed species and SSC, preservation of existing wildlife corridors, protection of significant trees, and maintaining development setbacks from creeks. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would ensure potential impacts to the on-site creek and associated riparian corridor and special-status plant and animal species resulting from construction activities would be avoided and/or minimized and the project would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and impacts. Therefore, the project would not conflict with policies or regulations adopted to avoid or mitigate environmental effects and impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4.

Conclusion
The proposed project would not physically divide an established community and would be consistent with surrounding land uses. Implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 would ensure potential impacts to biological resources would not result in a conflict with local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources and potential impacts would be less than significant.

12. MINERAL RESOURCES
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 2

Page 601 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 48 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 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?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 2
Evaluation
Based on the City’s COSE, mineral extraction is prohibited within City limits. a,b) No known mineral resources are present within the project site and future extraction of mineral resources is very unlikely due to the urbanized nature of the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
No impacts to mineral resources were identified; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

13. NOISE
Would the project result in:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the vicinity of the project in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
5, 37,
38, 39,
58, 61
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆
b) Generation of excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels?
38, 39,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 40
c) For a project located within the vicinity of a private airstrip or 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?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 31
Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element establishes standards for maximum acceptable noise levels associated with stationary and transportation sources. Noise created by new transportation noise sources is required to be mitigated to not exceed the maximum acceptable noise levels identified in Table 7.

Outdoor activity areas are not defined in the City’s Noise Element but are defined in the City of San Luis Obispo, Noise Guidebook, Measurement & Mitigation Techniques. The guidebook states that outdoor activity areas are “patios, decks, balconies, outdoor eating areas, swimming pool areas, yards of dwellings, and other areas commonly used for outdoor activities and recreation.”
The City’s Noise Element also identifies Policy 1.4 regarding noise created by new transportation sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects. Policy 1.4 states noise from these sources shall be mitigated to not exceed the levels specified in Table 7 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-sensitive land uses.

Page 602 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 49 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Table 7. Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses due to Transportation Noise Sources Noise-Sensitive Use
Outdoor
Activity Areas1 Indoor Spaces
Ldn or CNEL,
in dB
Ldn or
CNEL, in dB Leq in db2 Lmax in dB3
Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 – 60 Theaters, auditoriums, music halls – – 35 60
Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 – 45 – Schools, libraries, museums – – 45 60
Neighborhood parks 65 – – –
Playgrounds 70 – – –
Notes: CNEL = Community Noise Equivalent Level; Ldn = day-night average sound level; Leq = equivalent continuous sound level; Lmax = maximum sound level.
1 If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at the property line of the receiving land use. 2 As determined for a typical worst-case hour during periods of use. 3 Lmax indoor standard applies only to railroad noise at locations south of Orcutt Road.

Source: City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element 1996 Per City Municipal Code Chapter 9.12 Noise Control, operating tools or equipment used in construction between weekday hours of 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. or any time on Sundays or holidays is prohibited, except for emergency works of public service utilities or by exception issued by the Community Development Department. The Municipal Code also states that construction activities shall be conducted in such a manner, where technically and economically feasible, that the maximum noise levels at affected properties will not exceed 75 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at single-family residential uses. Based on the City Municipal Code (9.12.050.B.7), operating any device that creates vibration that is above the vibration perception threshold of an individual at or beyond 150 feet from the source if on a public space or right-of-way is prohibited. a) During project construction, noise from construction activities may intermittently dominate the noise environment in the immediate area. The project would require the use of typical construction equipment (dozers, excavators, etc.) to prepare the land and construct the two new buildings. Typical noise levels produced by equipment commonly used in construction projects are shown in Table 8.

Table 8. Construction Equipment Noise Emission Levels
Equipment Type Typical Noise Level (dBA) 50 ft from Source Concrete Mixer, Dozer, Excavator, Jackhammer,
Man Lift, Paver, Scraper
85 Heavy Truck 84
Crane, Mobile 83
Concrete Pump 82
Backhoe, Compactor 80
Source: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2017
As shown above, construction equipment that would be used during project construction would not exceed 85 dBA and would be similar to the level of other construction activity within the city. Construction-related noise would be intermittent and temporary in nature. However, the project site is a flag lot and is directly adjacent to existing residential sensitive receptor locations located in all directions. Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 have been included to require construction noise reduction measures during all construction activities.

Page 603 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 50 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Upon completion of construction activities, the project would include the use of a heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC) system that would have the potential to contribute additional noise to the existing noise environment, as well as limited mobile noise from project-related traffic. The project would result in the occupation of a single-family residence and detached ADU, which would be consistent with the level and density of surrounding development. Due to the project’s consistency with the surrounding level of development, additional noise generated by the project’s HVAC system or other features would not result in a noticeable increase in ambient noise levels.

Relative to vehicular noise, a doubling of traffic is typically needed to produce a noise increase that is audible to the human ear. The project would result in a limited number of additional vehicle trips along Patricia Drive based on the type of proposed development. Therefore, the project does not include components that would significantly add to long-term ambient noise in the project vicinity. For these reasons, potential impacts associated with generation of a substantial temporary or permanent increase in ambient noise levels would be less than significant with mitigation. b) The project does not propose pile-driving or other high-impact activities that would generate substantial noise or groundborne vibration during construction. Use of heavy equipment would generate groundborne noise and vibration; however, noise would be temporary and intermittent and there are no unusual building conditions (i.e., historical buildings) in the project vicinity that would be substantially affected by this groundborne vibration. Further, construction activity would be required to occur between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m., which is consistent with the City’s Municipal Code. Based on the proposed construction activities, groundborne vibration is expected to be imperceptible at adjacent properties. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant. c) The project site is not located within 2 miles of an airport or within a designated Safety Zone established by the ALUP.

Therefore, the project would not result in excessive airport-related noise for project occupants and no impacts would occur.

Mitigation Measures
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following noise reduction measures shall be adhered to:

1. Stationary construction equipment that generates noise that exceeds 60 A-weighted decibels (dBA) at the project boundaries shall be shielded with the most modern noise control devices (i.e., mufflers, lagging, and/or motor enclosures).

2. Impact tools (e.g., jack hammers, pavement breakers, rock drills, etc.) used for project construction shall be hydraulically or electrically powered wherever possible to avoid noise associated with compressed air exhaust from pneumatically powered tools.

3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used.

4. All construction equipment shall have the manufacturers’ recommended noise abatement methods installed, such as mufflers, engine enclosures, and engine vibration insulators, intact and operational.

5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).

N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction measures and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The Applicant shall post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior to commencement of construction and shall maintain these signs throughout the construction phase of the project.

All construction workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where noise reduction measures are to be implemented.

Page 604 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 51 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 x Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25;
x All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factoryrecommended mufflers; x The movement of construction-related vehicles, except for passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday. No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day); and
x Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.

Conclusion
The project would not exceed City Municipal Code noise standards for residential development. However, the project would be near sensitive receptor locations. Therefore, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-3 are included to reduce potential impacts. The project would not expose project occupants to excessive airport noise. Therefore, impacts related to noise would be less than significant with mitigation.

14. POPULATION AND HOUSING
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial unplanned population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 42 41,
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing people or housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
܈ ܆ ܆ ܆ 1
Evaluation
According to the City’s General Plan 2020 Annual Report, the average growth rate between 2015 and 2019 was 0.47%.

In 2020 the city’s residential growth rate grew to 1.21%. The growth was likely caused by City-issued permits for 210 new units within specific plan areas (of the 261 total units subject to growth management limitations). Despite the growth in 2020, the city has maintained a 6-year average annual residential growth rate of 0.6% per year, in compliance with the 1% maximum average annual residential growth rate (City LUE Policy 1.11.2). San Luis Obispo contains the largest concentration of jobs in the county. During workdays, the city’s population increases to an estimated 70,000 persons.

The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element identifies various goals, policies, and programs based on an assessment of housing needs, opportunities, and constraints. The City’s overarching goals for housing include safety, affordability, conserving existing housing, accommodating for mixed-income neighborhoods, providing housing variety and tenure, planning for new housing, maintaining neighborhood quality, providing special needs housing, encouraging sustainable housing and neighborhood design, maximizing affordable housing opportunities for those who live or work in the city, and developing housing on suitable sites.
a) The proposed project is limited to the development of a single-family residence and a detached ADU, which would be consistent with the density allowed by the project site’s R-1 land use designation. Thus, the project is not anticipated to result in significant direct or indirect population growth that would be inconsistent with the City’s

Page 605 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 52 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 General Plan. Construction workers for short-term construction activities would likely be sourced from the local labor pool and such employment is not anticipated to induce population growth through the creation of new jobs.

The project would not result in substantial unplanned population growth; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
b) The project site does not include any habitable structures that would need to be removed as part of the project.

Therefore, the project would not result in the displacement of any existing or proposed housing; therefore, no impact would occur.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
The project would be consistent with the city’s projected population growth. No potentially significant impacts would occur, and mitigation measures are not required.

15. PUBLIC SERVICES
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services:

Fire protection? 1, 56 ܆ ☐ ܈☐
Police protection? 1,57 ☐ ☐ ܈☐
܆ ܈ ☐ ☐ 43 1, ?Schools
Parks? 1, 43,
☐ ܈ ☐ ☐ 44
Other public facilities? 1, 43 ☐ ☐ ܈☐
Evaluation
The project site is located within the existing service area of the City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD).

The SLOFD deploys resources and personnel from four fire stations to maintain the response time goal of 4 minutes travel time to 95% of all emergencies. The nearest SLOFD fire station to the project site is City Fire Station 2, located at 126 North Chorro Street, approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site. City Fire Station 2 provides primary response to the northern portion of the city and has an average response time of 4 minutes 3 seconds. The SLOFD consists of 12 fire captains, 15 fire engineers, 13 firefighters, 25 paramedics, and 19 emergency medical technicians. In 2020 the SLOFD responded to 5,499 incidents, which is nearly 11% lower than 2019.

The City of San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides public safety services for the city. The SLOPD has approximately 91 employees, 60 of whom are sworn police officers. The SLOPD operates out of one main police station, located at 1042 Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and US 101, approximately 1.75 miles southeast of the project site.

The project site is located within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD), and public parks and recreation trails within the city are managed and maintained by the City’s Public Works and Parks and Recreation Department.

Page 606 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 53 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 All new residential and non-residential development within the city is subject to payment of Development Impact Fees, which are administered by and paid through the City’s Community Development Department. Development Impact Fees provide funding for maintaining City emergency services, infrastructure, and facilities. For example, fire protection impact fees provide funding for projects such as the renovation of the City’s fire stations and the replacement of fire service vehicles and equipment.
a) Fire protection: The project would be served by the SLOFD; the closest station is Fire Station 2, which is located at 126 North Chorro Street, approximately 1 mile southeast of the project site, and has an emergency response time of less than 5 minutes. The project includes development of a single-family residence and detached ADU, which would be consistent with the general level of development within the R-1-PD zone and would be consistent with anticipated population growth within the city. Implementation of the project would not require the expansion or construction of new fire protection facilities. Because the proposed project would not require the expansion or construction of new fire protection facilities, environmental impacts associated with the provision of fire protection services would be less than significant.

Police protection: The project would be served by the SLOPD. The project would be consistent with the general level of development within the R-1-PD zone and would be consistent with anticipated population growth within the city. Implementation of the project would not result in the need for new or expanded police facilities. Because the proposed project would not require the expansion or construction of new police protection facilities, environmental impacts associated with the provision of police services would be less than significant.

Schools: The project would result in the development of a single-family residence and detached ADU and would not result in a significant increase in the number of school-aged children within the city. For this reason, the project would result in less than significant impacts to school facilities.

Parks: The proposed project is limited to a single-family residence and detached ADU and is not anticipated to result in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational facilities in the area. The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and zoning designation; therefore, any indirect population growth resulting from the project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. Therefore, potential project impacts on parks would be less than significant.

Other public facilities: The project would not induce unplanned population growth and would result in a negligible effect on use of other public facilities, such as roadways and public libraries. Therefore, potential project impacts on public facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
The project would not induce unplanned population growth. The project may result in a marginal cumulative increase in demand on City services and facilities, including fire protection, police protection, parks and recreational facilities, and other public facilities; however, construction of new public facilities is not anticipated to be required. The project would not result in significant impacts to public services; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

16. RECREATION
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that 1, 43,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 44

Page 607 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 54 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? 1, 43,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 44
Evaluation
Existing recreational facilities within the city include 28 parks and recreational facilities, in addition to 10 designated natural resources and open space areas and two bike trails. The City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Blueprint for the Future: 2021-2041 identifies goals and policies to help plan, develop, and maintain community parks and recreation facilities. The Parks and Recreation Blueprint has five main goals, including building communities and neighborhoods, meeting the changing needs of the community, sustainability, optimizing resources, and safety.

The Bishop Peak and Felsman Loop Trails within Open Space are located approximately 150 feet west, and Throop Park is located approximately 0.75 feet southeast of the project site. a,b) The proposed project would result in a new single-family residence and detached ADU, which would not significantly increase population in a manner that would result in a significant increase in demand on local parks and recreational facilities in the area. Construction workers are anticipated to come from the local workforce and would not result in an increase in permanent residents within the city. As the project is consistent with the City’s General Plan designation and underlying zoning, any indirect population growth resulting from the project would be consistent with the projected population growth for the city. Therefore, potential project impacts associated with accelerated deterioration of existing facilities or construction of new park facilities would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
The project would not result in unplanned population growth. Construction of new public parks or recreational facilities would not be required to serve the project. Thus, the project would not result in significant impacts to recreational facilities; therefore, mitigation measures are not required.

17. TRANSPORTATION
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with a program, plan, ordinance or policy addressing the circulation system, including transit, roadway, bicycle and pedestrian facilities?
13, 45,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 58
b) Conflict or be inconsistent with CEQA Guidelines section 15064.3, subdivision (b)?
1, 12,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 55 45,
c) Substantially increase hazards due to a geometric design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)?
1, 23,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 44
d) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1, 23,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 45

Page 608 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 55 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Evaluation
The City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element identifies current traffic levels and delays of public roadways and identifies transportation goals and policies to guide development and express the community’s preferences for current and future conditions. Goals included in the plan include, but are not limited to, maintaining accessibility and protecting the environment throughout San Luis Obispo while reducing dependence on single-occupant use of motor vehicles; reducing use of cars by supporting and promoting alternatives, such as walking, riding buses and bicycles, and carpooling; promoting the safe operation of all modes of transportation; and widening and extending streets only when there is a demonstrated need and when the projects would cause no significant, long-term environmental problems. The City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan (ATP) outlines goals and policies to promote walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation throughout the city. The ATP provides a blueprint for creating a safe, connected, and efficient citywide active transportation network. It lays out policies, funding strategies, supporting programs, infrastructure projects, and implementation priorities to improve active transportation options and access for all community members.

In 2013 SB 743 was signed into law with the intent to “more appropriately balance the needs of congestion management with Statewide goals related to infill development, promotion of public health through active transportation, and reduction of greenhouse gas emissions” and required the California Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR) to identify new metrics for identifying and mitigating transportation impacts within CEQA. As a result, in December 2018, the California Natural Resources Agency certified and adopted updates to the State CEQA Guidelines. The revisions included new requirements related to the implementation of SB 743 and identified VMT per capita, VMT per employee, and net VMT as new metrics for transportation analysis under CEQA (as detailed in Section 15064.3[b]). In June 2020, the City formally adopted the transition to VMT for the purposes of CEQA evaluation and also established local VMT thresholds of significance.

The project site would be accessed by Patricia Drive. Based on the City’s Circulation Element, the portion of Patricia Drive near the project site is a local road. The portion of Patricia Drive near the project site is used to access residential homes and the Bishop Peak trailhead.
a) The project proposes the development of a single-family residential unit and an ADU on a single flag lot within a developed, residential portion of the city. The project site would be accessed by an existing driveway from Patricia Drive. The project would result in a limited number of new vehicle trips along Patricia Drive by residents of the single-family residence and/or ADU. The project would be subject to the payment of the City’s standard Traffic Impact Fees (TIFs) for maintenance of roads and other transportation infrastructure. There are two commercial centers located approximately 1 mile south and southeast of the project site, and there are several transit stops within a mile of the project area, bike lanes, and sidewalks which may promote walking and facilitate the use of alternate modes of transportation. Therefore, with the payment of standard TIFs, project impacts associated with conflicts with any program, plan, ordinance, or policy addressing transportation facilities would be less than significant.

The 2018 OPR SB 743 Technical Advisory on Evaluating Transportation Impacts in CEQA states that absent substantial evidence indicating that a project would generate a potentially significant level of VMT, or inconsistency with an SCS or general plan, projects that generate or attract fewer than 110 trips per day generally may be assumed to cause a less-than-significant transportation impact. The City’s Screening Criteria for Land Use Projects Exempt from VMT analysis states that small development projects (project anticipated to generate less than 110 daily vehicle trips) may be assumed to cause a less than significant impact. In addition, as shown on the City of San Luis Obispo Residential VMT Screening Map, the project site is located in a residential area that generates less than 85% of average VMT. The project would generate less than 110 trips per day, which is consistent with VMT reduction strategies. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project would be accessed by an existing driveway from Patricia Drive. The driveway does not contain dangerous curves, short sight distance, or other dangerous design features. The driveway would be designed in accordance with City Public Works safety design standards, including the use of red “no parking” curb paint on either side of the driveway entrance to allow for safe turning movements and provide motorists an adequate line of sight from the driveway. The project will be reviewed by the City’s Transportation and Engineering Divisions prior to approval of any building permits. Therefore, project impacts associated with increased hazards due to a geometric design feature would be less than significant.

Page 609 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 56 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 c) The project is not anticipated to result in temporary traffic controls or road closure along Patricia Drive during construction activities. Emergency access would be maintained to the project site and surrounding areas during construction activities. The project is designed to meet State and City Fire Codes, subject to verification through review from the City Fire Marshal during the building permit process. As such, the project would provide adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts related to inadequate emergency access would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Conclusion
The project would result in a net increase in trips and VMT; however, the project would not generate trips that would exceed the City’s established thresholds for VMT. The project would be required to meet City Public Works safety design standards and would maintain adequate emergency access. Therefore, potential impacts associated with transportation would be less than significant.

18. 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, or 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: Sources Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
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)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 54 2,
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.
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 54 2,
Evaluation
Approved in 2014, AB 52 added tribal cultural resources to the categories of resources that must be evaluated under CEQA.

Tribal cultural resources are defined as either of the following:
1) Sites, features, cultural landscapes, sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either of the following:
a. Included or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR); or
b. Included in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1(k). 2) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in PRC Section 5024.1(c). In applying these criteria for the purposes of this paragraph, the lead agency shall consider the significance of the resource to a California Native American Tribe.

Recognizing that tribes have expertise regarding their tribal history and practices, AB 52 requires lead agencies to provide notice to tribes that are traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of a proposed project if they have

Page 610 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 57 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 requested notice of projects proposed within that area. If the tribe requests consultation within 30 days upon receipt of the notice, the lead agency must consult with the tribe regarding the potential for adverse impacts on tribal cultural resources because of a project. Consultation may include discussing the type of environmental review necessary, the presence and/or significance of tribal cultural resources, the level of significance of a project’s impacts on the tribal cultural resources, and available project alternatives and mitigation measures recommended by the tribe to avoid or lessen potential impacts on tribal cultural resources.

Native American Tribes were notified about the project consistent with State and City regulations under AB 52 on August 17, 2021.
a,b) As described above, consultation with Native American Tribes under AB 52 was initiated on August 17, 2021. As of November 23, 2021, responses have been received from three tribes. The first response was from the Northern Chumash Tribe on August 23, 2021 requesting the cultural report for the project, which the City provided on August 25, 2021. In addition, a response from the Northern Chumash Tribal Council was received on September 12, 2021, requesting a copy of the records search and any archaeological survey for the property, which the City provided. On August 26, 2021, the Salinan Tribe requested a copy of the archeological survey that was prepared, which the City provided on August 27, 2021. No other communications from tribal representatives have been received by the City on this project application. As described in Section 5, Cultural Resources, neither the background review conducted for this Study nor a field survey of the project area identified any known or unknown cultural or tribal resources that have been listed or been found eligible for listing in the CRHR or in a local register of historical resources as defined in PRC Section 5020.1. No significant cultural or tribal cultural resources are known to occur within the project site.

Mitigation Measure CR-1 is provided to address inadvertent discovery during project construction. With this measure, impacts related to a substantial adverse change in the significance of tribal cultural resource would be less than significant with mitigation.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1.

Conclusion
With implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-1, the project would have a less-than-significant impact on tribal cultural resources.

19. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS
Would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Require or result in the relocation or construction of new or expanded water, wastewater treatment or storm water
drainage, electric power, natural gas, or telecommunications facilities, the construction or relocation of which could cause significant environmental effects?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ 1
b) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project and reasonably foreseeable future development during
normal, dry, and multiple dry years?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 50 49,
c) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments?
46,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 48,60

Page 611 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 58 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 d) Generate solid waste in excess of State or local standards, or in excess of the capacity of local infrastructure, or otherwise impair the attainment of solid waste reduction goals?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 47
e) Comply with federal, state, and local management and reduction statutes and regulations related to solid waste? 1 ܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ Evaluation
The City’s Utilities Department is the sole water provider within the city, provides potable and recycled water to the community, and is responsible for water supply, treatment, distribution, and resource planning. The City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) treats all the wastewater from the City, Cal Poly, and the airport. The facility treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater per day. The WRRF manages and treats wastewater in accordance with standards established by the SWRCB to remove solids, reduce the amount of nutrients, and eliminate bacteria in treated wastewater. A portion of the treated water is recycled for irrigation use within the city and the remaining flow is discharged to San Luis Obispo Creek.

Water service for the project would be provided by the City’s Utilities Department and the project would be served by the City’s sewer system. The project site has existing utility infrastructure on-site, including a storm drain easement, sewer easements, a water pipeline, an electrical line, and a gas line. a) The project would require the extension of sewer lines, water lines, and electric lines that would connect to existing utility infrastructure along Patricia Drive. These components have been evaluated for their potential to result in adverse environmental effects throughout this document. Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-4, CR-1, and N-1 through N-3 would reduce potentially significant environmental impacts resulting from expansion and establishment of new utility connections associated with air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazards and hazardous materials, noise, and tribal cultural resources to a less-thansignificant level. Therefore, potential environmental impacts associated with construction of utility connections would be less than significant with mitigation.
b) The project would be provided water through the City’s water system, which has four primary water sources—Whale Rock Reservoir, Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, and recycled water (for irrigation)—with groundwater serving as a fifth supplemental source. The City’s diversification of water sources in the last several decades has allowed the City to maintain sufficient water supplies even following the driest years on record. The total water available for the City in the 2020 water year (October 1, 2019, to September 30, 2020) was 10,107 af/yr, which included 215 af/yr of recycled water. As this availability was adjusted following years of drought and updates to the City’s safe annual yield model, the availability is considered a reasonable long-term safe yield value for the purposes of this analysis. The City’s water demand for 2020 was 4,730 af/yr. The project’s estimated water demand is 0.8 af/yr, which would be provided by the City’s water supply. Short-term water use during construction is anticipated to use water from an existing 2-inch water meter at the site, which would be provided by the City’s water supply. In addition, short-term water use for revegetation within the creek area would also be provided by the City’s supply. Development of this site is consistent with the City’s long-range planning documents and, thus, has been anticipated by the City’s water supply planning. The City has adequate water supply to provide potable and other water to the proposed project.

Therefore, potential impacts related to water supply would be less than significant. c) The project would connect to the City’s wastewater system. Wastewater infrastructure would be located within the site’s existing utility easements. The project would generate approximately 255 gallons of wastewater per day and would be served by the City’s sewer system. The City’s WRRF treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater daily.

The project would result in an incremental increase in demand on the City’s WRRF and wastewater conveyance infrastructure, which would be capable of serving the proposed project. The project is consistent with the general level of growth anticipated in the City’s General Plan and would be required to pay standard development impact fees to offset the project’s incremental contribution to demand on the City’s WRRF. Therefore, impacts associated with the wastewater treatment provider’s capacity to serve the project’s wastewater needs would be less than significant. d) Based on the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), the project would generate approximately 19.6 pounds of solid waste per day (Table 9).

Page 612 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 59 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Table 9. Estimated Project Solid Waste Generation
Use Generation Rate Project
Pounds Solid Waste
Per Day
Single-Family Residence 9.8 pounds/dwelling
unit/day 2 dwelling units1 19.6
Total 19.6
1 One single-family residence and an attached ADU.

Project solid waste materials during and after construction would likely be disposed of at the Cold Canyon Landfill.

Cold Canyon Landfill has a total capacity of 23,900,000 cy and has the capacity to service 1,650 cy per day. Based on these capacities, the Cold Canyon Landfill is expected to remain operational though at least 2040 and would be capable of servicing the additional 19.6 pounds of solid waste per day generated by the project. Therefore, potential impacts related to solid waste reduction goals and capacity would be less than significant. e) The project would be required to comply with goals, policies, and programs of the City’s COSE (Section 5) and the general requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services. Based on the single-family residential requirements of the City’s Development Standards for Solid Waste Services, the project would be served by the City’s solid waste pick-up services and would be required to create storage for three standard 96-gallon waste receptacles in a location that is hidden from the public view. According to the City’s COSE, the project would be required to participate in waste-reduction and recycling efforts. Therefore, based on required compliance with the City’s COSE and solid waste requirements, the project would comply with regulations related to solid waste and potential impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-4 CR-1, and N-1 through N-3.

Conclusion
With implementation of the identified mitigation measures, the project’s potential impacts associated with utilities and service systems would be less than significant.

20. WILDFIRE
If located in or near state responsibility areas or lands classified as very high fire hazard severity zones, would the project:

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Substantially impair an adopted emergency response plan or ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 23 1, ?plan evacuation emergency
b) Due to slope, prevailing winds, and other factors, exacerbate wildfire risks, and thereby expose project occupants to, pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire?
1, 23,
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 51
c) Require the installation or maintenance of associated infrastructure (such as roads, fuel breaks, emergency water sources, power lines or other utilities) that may exacerbate fire risk or that may result in temporary or ongoing impacts to the environment?
܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 23 1,

Page 613 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 60 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 d) Expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes? ܆ ܈ ܆ ܆ 23 1,
Evaluation
Urban fire hazards result from the materials, size, and spacing of buildings, and from the materials, equipment, and activities they contain. Additional factors include access, available water volume and pressure, and response time for fire fighters.

Based on the City Local Hazard Mitigation Plan, the risk of wildland fires is greatest near the City limits where development meets rural areas of combustible vegetation. Most of the community is within 1 mile of a designated High or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (FHSZ), which indicates significant risk to wildland fire.

The City’s Safety Element identifies four policies to address the potential hazards associated with wildfire, including approving development only when adequate fire suppression services and facilities are available, classification of wildland fire hazard severity zones as prescribed by the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CAL FIRE), prohibition of new subdivisions located within “Very High” wildland fire hazard severity zones, and continuation of enhancement of fire safety and construction codes for buildings.

According to the CAL FIRE FHSZ viewer, the project site is located within a Local Responsibility Area. Based on the City’s Safety Element Maps, the project site is located within a developed portion of the City and has a low risk of wildfire. a) Implementation of the project would not result in a significant temporary or permanent impact to any adopted emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project is not anticipated to require temporary road closure or any temporary traffic controls along Patricia Drive and public ingress and egress would be maintained during implementation of the project. Breaks in utility service may be necessary during connection to the City’s infrastructure. Any breaks in utility service would be temporary and would not conflict with any emergency plans.

There is an existing access driveway that provides fire and other emergency vehicles adequate access to the project site. Therefore, the project would maintain adequate public and emergency access during project activities and would not conflict with emergency plans; therefore, impacts would be less than significant. b) The project site is in a developed area of the City and is directly adjacent to existing single-family residences in all directions. The project site consists of non-native annual grassland and riparian habitat associated with Twin Ridge Creek, which bisects the site in a north to south direction. The site is mostly undeveloped. The project would result in the development of a single-family residence and an ADU and would not substantially change the existing topography of the project site. The proposed project would be required to meet all applicable standards for fire prevention pursuant to the CBC and California Fire Code. Therefore, the project would not exacerbate wildfire risks or expose project occupants to substantial pollutant concentrations from a wildfire or the uncontrolled spread of a wildfire. Potential impacts would be less than significant. c) There are existing utility easements within the project site from the original Tract 1182 subdivision and associated development. The project would include the installation of expanded water, wastewater, stormwater, and energy extensions to be connected to existing City infrastructure. These proposed infrastructure components would occur within an urbanized area and would be required to be installed in full compliance with applicable CBC and California Fire Code regulations. Construction of this infrastructure has been evaluated throughout this environmental document and would not exacerbate fire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with exacerbation of fire risk or environmental impacts from installation of new infrastructure would be less than significant. d) The project site is generally flat and is not located near slopes or other areas subject to downstream flooding or landslides. Based on required compliance with CBC standards for structural and other design components, the project would not include any design elements that would expose people or structures to significant risks, including downslope or downstream flooding or landslides, as a result of runoff, post-fire slope instability, or drainage changes.

Therefore, impacts would be less than significant.

Mitigation Measures
Mitigation measures are not required.

Page 614 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 61 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Conclusion
The project would not expose people or structures to new or exacerbated wildfire risks and would not require the development of new or expanded infrastructure or maintenance to reduce wildfire risks. Therefore, potential impacts associated with wildfire would be less than significant and mitigation measures are not required.

21. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to substantially 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, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
1, 2,
15, 16,
18, 25
܆ ܆ ܈ ☐
The project would be in a previously developed portion of the city of San Luis Obispo and the project vicinity generally contains low habitat value for protected plant and animal species. The project site is characterized by gently sloping topography and consists of a mostly undeveloped flag lot, except for a storage shed structure and gated driveway. Vegetation at the site includes grasslands and riparian trees and vegetation. Riparian vegetation is limited to the on-site creek, which bisects the project site in a north to south direction. The creek would be protected through provision of a Creek Setback, as depicted in plans.
3 The proposed Creek Setback Exception would be subject to mandatory findings, including a finding that the location and design of the features receiving the exception will minimize impacts to scenic resources, water quality, and riparian habitat, including opportunities for wildlife habitation, rest, and movement. Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4 have been identified to reduce or avoid potential impacts to migratory birds, the on-site creek, and associated riparian habitat.

There are no known historic or prehistoric resources within the project site, and Mitigation Measures CR-1 would reduce potential inadvertent discovery of these resources to less than significant. With implementation of identified mitigation measures and standard requirements, the project would not have the potential to substantially degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, substantially reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal, or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. Potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation. 3 The creek setback depicted in plans is measured from the edge of riparian vegetation associated with the creek, established by the City Biologist during a site visit conducted in November 2020 and verified during a subsequent site visit in June 2022.

Page 615 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 62 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively
considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
܆ ܆ ܈ ܆ A/N
The project includes the development of a 4,941-sf single-family residence and an 825-sf ADU on a single lot within the R1-PD zone. The project would be consistent with growth assumed in the R-1 zone, and with approval of the Minor Development Review, the project would be consistent with the design standards of the R-1-PD zone. When project impacts are considered in combination with other reasonably foreseeable impacts, the project’s potential cumulative impacts may be significant. Mitigation measures have been identified to reduce project-related impacts to a less-than-significant level.

With the implementation of identified project-specific mitigation measures and payment of the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, the individual effects of the project would be marginal and cumulative effects of the project would not be cumulatively considerable. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Sources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly?
N/A ☐ ܈☐ ☐
The project has the potential to result in significant impacts associated with air quality that, if left unmitigated, could result in substantial adverse effects on human beings. Standard mitigation measures have been identified to reduce these potential impacts to less than significant, including, but not limited to, standard idling restrictions, dust control measures, and compliance with the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations to avoid impacts related to NOA. Additionally, standard noise reduction measures have been included as mitigation to reduce short-term construction-related noise impacts on surrounding sensitive receptor locations. With incorporation of identified projectspecific mitigation and the payment of the City’s standard Development Impact Fees, potential environmental effects of the project would not directly or indirectly result in any substantial adverse effects on human beings. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant with mitigation.

Page 616 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 63 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

22. 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.

The potential environmental effects of developing the project site with uses consistent with the R-1-PD zoning designation were previously evaluated in the Certified General Plan Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] #2013121019), which was certified by the City Council in 2014. The Certified EIR is available on the City’s website at: < https://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.

This Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) does not rely on a previously certified EIR or MND for its analysis. All the environmental analyses contained herein are independent of previous CEQA documents; no tiering from a previous CEQA document is used.
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.

As discussed above, project-specific mitigation measures have been developed for the project to address a more stringent regulatory environment and more complex analysis methodology. All project-specific mitigation measures recommended in this IS/MND are consistent with and build upon the programmatic mitigation measures identified in the Certified EIR.

23. SOURCE REFERENCES

1. RRM Design Group. 2021. 841 Patricia Drive Residence, Project Plans. April 2021. Amended June 4, 2021 and June 17, 2022

2. City of San Luis Obispo. 2006. City of San Luis Obispo Conservation & Open Space Element (COSE).

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6651

3. City of San Luis Obispo. 2010. City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines. June.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2104

4. California Scenic Highways, February 2017. Available at:
https://www.arcgis.com/home/webmap/viewer.html?useExisting=1&layers=f0259b1ad0fe4093a5604c9b838a486a

5. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, May 2019. Available at: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code.

6. California Department of Conservation. 2016. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program.

Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/DLRP/CIFF/.

7. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021a. Interactive Parcel Viewer. March.

Available at: https://experience.arcgis.com/experience/a51155e46d504bfab3b7a107c3eb6643/page/Planning

8. California Air Resources Board (CARB). 2018. Area Designation Maps / State and National. December.

Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm

9. San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). 2020. Naturally Occurring Asbestos Mapping Tool. March. Available at:
https://www.google.com/maps/d/u/0/viewer?mid=1YAKjBzVkwi1bZ4rQ1p6b2OMyvIM&ll=35.364986805363756 %2C-120.52563349999997&z=10

10. SLOACPD. 2012. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/ CEQA_Handbook_2012_v2%20%28Updated%20Map2019%29_LinkedwithMemo.pdf

Page 617 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 64 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

11. SLOACPD. 2001. 2001 San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan. December. Available at:
https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanair-org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf

12. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021b. City of San Luis Obispo Active Transportation Plan. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=29123

13. SLOACPD. 2017. Clarification Memorandum for the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District’s 2012 CEQA Air Quality Handbook. November. Available at: https://storage.googleapis.com/slocleanairorg/images/cms/upload/files/FINAL_Clarification%20Memorandum%2020172.pdf

14. CARB. 2015. Asbestos Airborne Toxic Control Measure for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations. Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/toxics/atcm/asb2atcm.htm

15. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Heritage Trees Map. Available at:
https://storymaps.arcgis.com/stories/fbc1b607a9454c66b4fc643518bfc1df

16. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2020. National Wetlands Inventory Map. Available at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/Mapper.html

17. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=5861

18. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Cultural Resource Maps.

19. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Community Choice Energy. Website. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/sustainability/community-choiceenergy

20. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan. June. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=27835

21. California Building Code, 2019. Available at: https://up.codes/viewer/california/ibc-2018

22. California Department of Conservation. 2010. Fault Activity Map of California.

Available at: https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/fam/

23. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Safety Element.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645

24. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). n.d. Areas of Land Subsidence in California.

Available at: https://ca.water.usgs.gov/land_subsidence/california-subsidence-areas.html

25. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2020 Web Soil Survey. Available at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

26. USGS. 2004. Geologic Map of the San Luis Obispo Quadrangle, San Luis Obispo County, California.

Available at: https://ngmdb.usgs.gov/Prodesc/proddesc_71738.htm

27. California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). 2003. Jefferson-Martin 230 kV Transmission Line Project, Section D.6 Geology, Soils, and Paleontology.

Available at: https://ia.cpuc.ca.gov/environment/info/aspen/jefferson_martin/feir/text/d06%20geology.pdf

28. California Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2020. Envirostor. Available at:
https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/

29. State Water Resources Control Board. 2020. Geotracker. Available at: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/

30. California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA). 2020. Cortese List Data Resources.

Available at: https://calepa.ca.gov/sitecleanup/corteselist/

31. County of San Luis Obispo. 2005. County of San Luis Obispo Airport Land Use Plan. May.

Available at: https://www.sloairport.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/ALUP_TXT.pdf

32. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Flood Preparedness Map. Available at:
http://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/Viewer/index.html?appid=e790e7eb2923499b9ddc91126d6376e0

Page 618 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 65 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

33. California Department of Water Resources. 2019. SGMA Groundwater Management.

Available at: https://water.ca.gov/Programs/Groundwater-Management/SGMA-Groundwater-Management

34. County of San Luis Obispo. 2019. San Luis Obispo Valley Groundwater Basin. Available at:
https://www.slocounty.ca.gov/Departments/Public-Works/Committees-Programs/Sustainable-GroundwaterManagement-Act-(SGMA)/San-Luis-Obispo-Valley-Groundwater-Basin.aspx

35. California Department of Conservation. 2009. Tsunami Inundation Map for Emergency Planning Port San Luis Quadrangle. Available at: https://www.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/tsunami/maps/San-Luis-Obispo

36. State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. Water Quality Control Plan for the Central Coast Basin. Available at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/centralcoast/publications_forms/publications/basin_plan/amendment/draft_resol_at tch_a_basin_plan_edits_only.pdf

37. City of San Luis Obispo. 1996. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643

38. Federal Highway Administration. 2017. Construction Noise Handbook: Construction Equipment Noise Levels and Ranges. September.

Available at: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/handbook00.cfm

39. Federal Transit Administration (FTA). 2018. Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Manual. September.

Available at: https://www.transit.dot.gov/sites/fta.dot.gov/files/docs/research-innovation/118131/transit-noise-andvibration-impact-assessment-manual-fta-report-no-0123_0.pdf

40. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction-Induced Vibration Guidance Manual. September. Available at:
https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/34120/Caltrans-2013-construction-vibration-PDF

41. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Annual Report.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/29847/637539899241100000

42. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. 2020-2028 General Plan Housing Element. November.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/30985/637667061640130000

43. City of San Luis Obispo. 2018. Community Development Department Development Impact Fees.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20198

44. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. City of San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Element. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/parks-and-recreation/parks-and-recreation-plan-andelement-update

45. City of San Luis Obispo. 2017. City of San Luis Obispo Circulation Element. October.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=20412

46. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Wastewater Treatment, City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department Webpage.

Accessed March 2020. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment

47. California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle). 2020. SWIS Facility Detail Cold Canyon Landfill, Inc.

Available at: https://www2.calrecycle.ca.gov/SolidWaste/Site/Summary/3171

48. City of San Luis Obispo. 2014. 2035 Land Use & Circulation Update Draft Program EIR. Table 4.16‐7 Proposed Land Use Element Development Wastewater Generation. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6723/635671221997970000

49. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. 2020 Water Resources Status Report. City of San Luis Obispo Water Division.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument?id=29191

50. City of San Luis Obispo. 2015. Final Potable Water Distribution System Operations Master Plan, Table 4‐2.

Existing Water Demand Factors.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/6439/636009798150130000

Page 619 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 66 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

51. City of San Luis Obispo. 2019. Community Wildfire Protection Plan.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=23872

52. CARB. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. November.

Available at: https://ww3.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf

53. David Wolff Environmental, LLC. 2021a. Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA. May 2021.

54. Central Coast Archaeological Resource Consultants. 2021. Cultural Resources Survey of the Michaels Residence Project, City of San Luis Obispo, San Luis Obispo County, California. May 2021.

55. City of San Luis Obispo. 2020. Multimodal Transportation Impact Study Guidelines. 2nd Edition. June. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/26883/637290299618070000

56. San Luis Obispo Fire Department. 2020. 2020 San Luis Obispo Fire Department Annual Report. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showpublisheddocument/28869/637441408193100000

57. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. About the Department.

Available at: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/police-department/about-the-department

58. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Traffic Counts and Speed Surveys. Available at:
https://slocity.maps.arcgis.com/apps/OnePane/basicviewer/index.html?appid=f808ee341ad743259b9f7b455cd7b69 b

59. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM).

Available at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search?AddressQuery

60. City of San Luis Obispo. 2021. Wastewater Treatment. Available at:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/utilities-department/wastewater/wastewater-treatment

61. Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). 2017. Construction Noise Handbook.

Available at: https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML1805/ML18059A141.pdf

62. David Wolff Environmental, LLC. 2021b. Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA. November 2021.

63. Chacon Associates, LLC. 2021. Preliminary Hydrology Summary – ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia). March 2021.

64. U.S. Census Bureau. 2021. Quick Facts for the City of San Luis Obispo. July 1, 2021 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/sanluisobispocitycalifornia/PST045219

Page 620 of 1373 ends

Issues, Discussion, and Supporting Information Sources
ER # EID-0547-2021
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 67 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Attachments

1. RRM Design Group, 841 Patricia Drive Residence, Project Plans (April 2021)

2. California Emission Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Report, version 2020.4.0

3. David Wolff Environmental, LLC., Biological Resources Assessment for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040- 2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (May 2021)

4. David Wolff Environmental, LLC., Biological Resources Assessment Addendum for the 841 Patricia Drive Project (ARCH-0040-2021; APN 052-520-063), City of San Luis Obispo, CA (November 2021)

5. Chacon Associates, LLC., Preliminary Hydrology Summary – ARCH-0040-2021 (841 Patricia) (March 2021)

Page 621 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 68 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
Air Quality
AQ-1 During all construction activities and use of diesel vehicles, the Applicant shall implement the following idling control techniques:

2. 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 nonCalifornia based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of said vehicles:
a. 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
b. 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 minutes at any location when within 1,000 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation.

1. Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible.

3. All dirt stockpile areas (if any) shall be sprayed daily and covered with tarps or other dust barriers as needed.

6. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using approved chemical binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.

8. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site.

Page 622 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 69 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022

11. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.

12. All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building plans.

Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior to the start of any site preparation, grading, or earthwork.

14. All off-road construction equipment shall be Tier 3 or higher.

AQ-3 Prior to initiation of site preparation/construction activities, the Applicant shall retain a registered geologist to conduct a geologic evaluation of the property including sampling and testing for naturally occurring asbestos in full compliance with California Air Resources Board (CARB) Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and SLOAPCD requirements. This geologic evaluation shall be submitted to the City Community Development Department upon completion. If the geologic evaluation determines that the project would not have the potential to disturb naturally occurring asbestos (NOA), the Applicant must file an Asbestos ATCM exemption request with the SLOAPCD. If NOA is determined to be present on-site, proposed earthwork and construction activities shall be conducted in full compliance with the various regulatory jurisdictions regarding NOA, including the CARB ATCM for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations (CARB ATCM Section 93105) and requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP) (40 Code of Federal Regulations 61, Subpart M – Asbestos). These requirements include, but are not limited to, the following:

1. Written notification, within at least 10 business days of activities commencing, to the SLOAPCD;

2. Preparation of an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Consultant; and

3. Implementation of applicable removal and disposal protocol and requirements for identified NOA.

Monitoring Program: Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion.

Biological Resources
BIO-1 If any ground disturbance will occur during the nesting bird season (February 1–September 15), prior to any grounddisturbing activity, a preconstruction nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 1 week prior to the start of activities. If nesting birds are located on or near the project site, they shall be avoided until they have successfully fledged, or the nest is no longer deemed active. A non-disturbance buffer of 50 feet will be implemented for non-listed, passerine species and a 250-foot buffer will be implemented for raptor species. No construction activities will be permitted within established nesting bird buffers until a qualified biologist has determined that the young have fledged or that proposed construction activities would not cause adverse impacts to the nest, adults, eggs, or young. If special-status avian species are identified, no work shall be conducted until an appropriate buffer is determined in coordination with the City and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).

Page 623 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 70 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 BIO-2 All utility extensions required to cross the creek, which are necessary to serve the ADU, (excluding the sewer lateral serving the ADU and connecting to the sewer line along the rear of the property), shall be placed within or attached to the bridge span. No trenching across the creek shall occur for the extension of utilities to the ADU.

BIO-3 Prior to issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall provide copies of the permits/authorizations from affected resource agencies, including a final revegetation plan that is consistent with the revegetation plan provided in the Addendum to the Biological Resources Assessment (BRA, David Wolff Environmental, November 10, 2021) for approval by the City Natural Sustainability and Natural Resources Official, Community Development Department. Plans submitted for grading and building permits shall show tree removals consistent with the November 2021 revegetation plan, including the locations and quantities of the maximum number of trees identified for removal to facilitate the bridge construction. Vegetation removal shall be kept to the minimum necessary for bridge clearance and construction of the necessary footings and supports. Initial removal of vegetation shall be monitored full-time by a qualified biologist, and weekly spot-check monitoring shall continue throughout the construction of the bridge structure. Supplemental irrigation shall be provided to the revegetated area of the riparian corridor for three years, and maintained and monitored for five years, to meet 80% survival success criteria after two years without supplemental irrigation. Monitoring reports demonstrating compliance with the revegetation plan shall be prepared and submitted to the affected resource agencies and the City annually. Permits and/or authorizations from the regulatory agencies (CDFW, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and USACE), or documentation from the respective agency that the permit/authorization is required, shall be submitted to the City prior to any grading and/or construction activities within the on-site riparian area.

Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall be submitted to the City for review and approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of a nesting migratory bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The requirement of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to the bridge span (either within or hanging from) rather than below ground shall be specified on the project plans and submitted to the City for approval and verified through regular field and final inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 shall be submitted to the City and affected agencies for approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the approved revegetation plan to the City Community Development Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by the City through annual reporting following implementation. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department.

Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.

Cultural Resources
CR-1 If cultural resources are encountered during subsurface earthwork activities, all ground-disturbing activities within a 25-foot radius of the find shall cease and the City shall be notified immediately. Work shall not continue until a Cityqualified archaeologist assesses the find and determines the need for further study. If the find includes Native American-affiliated materials, a local Native American tribal representative will be contacted to work in conjunction with the City-approved archaeologist to determine the need for further study. A standard inadvertent discovery clause shall be included in every grading and construction contract to inform contractors of this requirement. Any previously unidentified resources found during construction shall be recorded on appropriate California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms and evaluated for significance in terms of California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) criteria by a qualified archaeologist.

If the resource is determined significant under CEQA, the qualified archaeologist shall prepare and implement a research design and archaeological data recovery plan, in conjunction with locally affiliated Native American representative(s) as necessary, that will capture those categories of data for which the site is significant.

The archaeologist shall also perform appropriate technical analysis, prepare a comprehensive report, and file it with the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC), located at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and provide for the permanent curation of the recovered materials.

Page 624 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 71 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 Monitoring Program: The conditions in Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be noted on all grading and construction plans.

The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.

Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Implement Mitigation Measure AQ-3.

Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measure AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion.

Hydrology and Water Quality
Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-4.

Monitoring Program: Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.

Land Use and Planning
Implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-4
Monitoring Program: The survey requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of a nesting migratory bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The requirement of Mitigation Measure BIO-2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to the bridge span (either within or hanging from) rather than below ground shall be specified on the project plans and submitted to the City for approval and verified through regular field and final inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 shall be submitted to the City and affected agencies for approval. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the approved revegetation plan to the City Community Development Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by the City through annual reporting following implementation. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.

Noise
N-1 For the entire duration of the construction phase of the project, the following noise reduction measures shall be adhered to:

3. Where use of pneumatic tools is unavoidable, an exhaust muffler on the compressed air exhaust shall be used.

5. All construction equipment shall undergo inspection at periodic intervals to ensure proper maintenance and presence of noise control devices (e.g., mufflers, shrouding, etc.).

Page 625 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 72 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 N-2 Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction measures and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits. The City shall provide and post signs stating these restrictions at construction entry sites prior to commencement of construction and shall maintain these signs throughout the construction phase of the project.

All construction workers shall be briefed at a preconstruction meeting on construction hour limitations and how, why, and where noise reduction measures are to be implemented.

N-3 For all construction activity at the project site, additional noise attenuation techniques shall be employed as needed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such techniques shall include, but are not limited to, the following:
x Sound blankets shall be used on noise-generating equipment; x Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 65 dBA at the project boundaries shall be shielded with a barrier that meets a sound transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25;
x All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be equipped with factoryrecommended mufflers; x The movement of construction-related vehicles, except for passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be limited to the hours between 7:00 A.M. and 7:00 P.M., Monday through Saturday.

No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays (e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day); and
x Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between construction sites and affected uses.

Monitoring Program: Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise reduction measures, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.

Tribal Cultural Resources
Implement Mitigation Measures CR-1.

Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.

Utilities and Service Systems
Implement AQ-1 through AQ-3, BIO-1 through BIO-4, CR-1, and N-1 through N-3.

Monitoring Program: Mitigation Measures AQ-1 through AQ-3 shall be incorporated into project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City during regular inspections, in coordination with the SLOAPCD, as necessary. The Applicant shall submit the geologic evaluation detailed in Mitigation Measure AQ-3 to the City Community Development Department upon completion. The survey requirements of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified through submittal of a nesting migratory bird survey report to the City Community Development Department. The requirement of Mitigation Measure BIO2 that the utility extensions to the ADU be attached to the bridge span (either within or hanging from) rather than below ground shall be specified on the project plans and submitted to the City for approval and verified through regular field and final inspections. Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-3 shall be submitted to the City and affected agencies for approval.

Compliance shall be verified through submittal of the approved revegetation plan to the City Community Development Department. Revegetation compliance shall be monitored by the City through annual reporting following implementation.

Requirements of Mitigation Measure BIO-4 shall be incorporated into the project grading and building plans for review and approval by the City Community Development Department. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary. The conditions of Mitigation Measure CR-1 shall be noted on all

Page 626 of 1373 ends

Required Mitigation and Monitoring Programs
ER # EID-0055-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 73 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2022 grading and construction plans. The City shall review and approve the City-qualified archaeologist consistent with the Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines. Construction plans shall note construction hours, truck routes, and all construction noise BMPs, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City Community Development Department prior to issuance of grading/building permits. Compliance shall be verified by the City prior to the start of construction and during regular inspections, as necessary.

Page 627 of 1373 ends

3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&( $
352-(&712
56
$35,/
µ ·µ
;6+((7

7,7/(6+((7 µ ·µ ;6+((7

0,&+$(/65(6,'(1&(
352-(&7',5(&725<2:1(5&/,(17
(5,&$1'-8/,(0,&+$(/6
0,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$

&/,(175(35(6(17$7,9(
%5(77+$%$5
0,66,21675((76$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
%5(77+$%$53+21(

(0$,/
%*+$%$5#*0$,/&20
352-(&73/$11(5
2$6,6$662&,$7(6,1&
0,*8(/,72&28576$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
&$52/)/25(1&(3+21(

(;7(0$,/
&0)#2$6,6$662&&20
$5&+,7(&7
550'(6,*1*5283
6+,*8(5$675((768,7(6$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
('',(+(55(5$3+21(

(0$,/
(0+(55(5$#550'(6,*1&20
&,9,/(1*,1((5
&+$&21$662&,$7(6//&
3$/20$5$9($7$6&$'(52&$
&217$&7
.(11(7+-&+$&213(3+21(

(0$,/
.&+$&21#&+$&21$662&&20
/$1'6&$3($5&+,7(&7
)257,1,
6+,*8(5$675((76$1/8,62%,632&$
&217$&7
:(6$52/$3+21(

(0$,/
:(6#)257,1,/$1'6&$3(6&20
352-(&7'(6&5,37,217+,6352-(&7352326(6$1(:
648$5()227
6)
6,1*/()$0,/<&867205(6,'(1&(21$181'(9(/23(')/$*/27:,7+,1$&,5&$ 5(6,'(17,$/68%',9,6,21,1$'',7,217+(352-(&7,1&/8'(6$1648$5()227 6)
'(7$&+('$&&(6625<':(//,1*81,77+($5&+,7(&785$/67</(2)7+(+20(6 6 ,6&216,'(5('´&217(0325$5<&5$)760$1µ$1$0(5,&$167</(,163,5('%<7+($576$1'&5$)76029(0(17:,7+$67&(1785<7:,67&20021&+$5$&7(5,67,&62)7+(&5$)760$167</(+20(,1&/8'($&29(5(')5217325&+(;326('5$)7(57$,/629(5+$1*,1*($9(66+,1*/(522)6$1'6,',1*$1'0,;('0$7(5,$/67+528*+2877+(6758&785(5(48,6,7(3$5.,1*,63529,'(',17+(352326('&$5*$5$*(:,7+$'',7,21$/81&29(5('3$5.,1*)25*8(676$1(:648$5()227 6)
'(7$&+('$&&(6625<%8,/',1*,6352326(')256725,1**$5'(1,1*<$5'722/6216,7(6,7($0(1,7,(6$5((19,6,21('720$;,0,=(7+()81&7,21$/$1'$(67+(7,&86(2)7+(6,7( 6+((7,1'(;9,&,1,7<0$3
352-(&767$7,67,&6=21,1* 53'/2:'(16,7<5(6,'(17,$/$''5(66 3$75,&,$'5,9( 6$1/8,62%,632&$

$31 3$5&(/6,=(
$&5(6

0,1/27$5($ 6)*5266/27&29(5$*(
6)&5((.6(7%$&.$5($ 6)1(7/27$5($
5()(5726+((7$)25$5($

6)
0$;/27&29(5$*($//2:
2) 6)352326('&29(5$*(

6)
$//2:$%/()$5 256)352326(')$5 256)2&&83$1&<86(3(5&%& 580$;$//2:('+(,*+7
6725,(6)75(6,'(1&(
6725<)7$'8
0$;352326('+(,*+7
6(($5&+6(&7,2166(7%$&.6 $//2:(' 352326('
)5217 ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
6,'( ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
5($5 ·µ 6(($5&+6,7(
6)'2)%('52206 $'82)%('52206 (;&(037
)5203$5.,1*5(48,5(0(176
5(48,5('6)'3$5.,1* &29(5('63$&(663$&(6)257+(),567%('52206$1'63$&(63(5($&+$'',7,21$/%('52207$%/( 7+,63/$1+$6%('52206$1',65(48,5('72+$9(7+(0,1,08063$&(6 5(48,5('$'83$5.,1* 63$&(6
$'86'21275(48,5($'',7,21$/3$5.,1*
727$/5(48,5('3$5.,1* 63$&(63529,'('3$5.,1* 63$&(6 %,&<&/(3$5.,1*5(48,5(' 63$&(6

%,&<&/(3$5.,1*3529,'(' 63$&(6
),5(635,1./(565(4
6)'
1)3$'
$'8
1)3$'
$ 7,7/(6+((7$ (;,67,1*7232& 35(/,0,1$5<*5$',1*3/$1& 75((6859(</ 0$67(5/$1'6&$3(3/$1/ 5($5<$5'/ )5217$872&2857$ $5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1$ 6,7(%8,/',1*6(&7,216$ 6,7($5,$/0$3$ %$6(0(17/(9(/0$,15(6,'(1&($ *5281')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 6(&21')/2250$,15(6,'(1&($ 522)3/$10$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ (;7(5,25(/(9$7,2160$,15(6,'(1&($ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/60$,15(6,'(1&($ 3(563(&7,9(9,(:60$,15(6,'(1&($ )/225$1'522)3/$1$'8$ (/(9$7,216$'8$ 352326('&2/256 0$7(5,$/6$'8727$/6+((76
352-(&7$5($65(6,'(1&(&21',7,21('
*5281')/225
6)(168,7(
6)6(&21')/225

6)727$/
6)5(6,'(1&(81&21',7,21('
%$6(0(17
6)*$5$*(
6)287'225/,9,1*
6)*5((1+286(
6)&29325&+(175<
6)(168,7('(&.

6)%$/&21<
6)9(5$1'$
6)87,/,7< 67$,56
6)$'8&21',7,21('
6)$'881&21',7,21('
3$7,2
6)'(&.

6)$&&(6625<%8,/',1*
*$5'(16725$*(
6)
"
'!%#

$
$

# #
!"#
"
#
#
!"#
"

%!&$&$

&$%'!!!

*-.+%

*, )+ **)&

!$
"

!$
"

y
WƌŽũĞĐƚƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚ
ϬϭͬϭϰͬϮϭ
&203/,$1&(67$7(0(17)2506
7!7 &(5<.56.7575

"

#

&& $*!$#'$ &%""

&!&"$!
& !

!)&!"
%&$'&! %
%& &$&!
' -

% !&&&&%($&! !$%!$$$ ! * !% !& &!%'&&)&&
$&""
&! - $*!%$ &! &!&&& $*!#'$ &%- &( 9.5.64

$!
&! &! #'$ & !"
'
3 %&$'&! %

)! %&$'&! '%&&&!

!) ,

58-47-554+
$-6:;81

"

'#!$(*'
%

"

#"$!
&%

'%&"$!$ ""$!%")& &756< !$ $+!%

'%&!! %&$&&& $+ +%
& !&
$!"!%'
% !$&$& & $+ +%
& !$&& $'

!&
$+%
& !&
$!"!%'
%
%%& &!&
$+%
& !&& $% '
+&!

!) '&$%!
%=-
$
"#<
$'&!
$
"#<.9
$'&! '%

$

"

#"$!
&%

$/$&'
&!
'1
&$!&
+1$#'$ &%.

$+!
$!$!$
)'

!)
&&& &%

!"
&
'! & *%&&& !&"
%&.
&&'

$&""
&! +! %&$&!"
)&&
$*!
"&! 6 &
$&

%- $*!"
%&% $"!$&%'%&%!)&&&"$!
&% !"
)&&
!
$*!+"
'%&%&&)$#'$ &%-'
!"
%)&&"$!$ %& $%& $*! %'"&! !$& $!"!%% '
% !$&$& & $*'&
'
&!$&& $% '
'% !%%! /$&!"
%!&)$ & '$'&! %&-!" &!"*!&'

$&$&&!!"

!"*!&'

$&&!!"
%

' &"
%&%)&& $*!"
!' &&! -

%'$%% &! & $*!"
"!$&)& &
$&

%- * %'$ ! %&$'&! "& & $*!" "!$&%!'
$(% $%'&&-'

%"&! $&&!!"
&""$!("
%%

% "$!$&!&'

-'
&&! %"&! &(&%!'&
&3%$2%'&!
$&%3-:
8
!
&%&!&
!$ $*!+&! 574-4- 574-5 !'

57-46-554-=2%$1%'&!
$&%2)"
%&"$&"$!%% %&
%! & %"&! "$!%%-%&&&*1%'
3&*
$&!$%3""
&! %("-9 $*% & /0%%! $* %&(!!"! &%,& $* *% & + &! $
&$ $&!
)
&*% & -!
$
&$:

.
&$'
% ! &'$
%"
' %&

(& &'
'%%
&$&*%&%!'$! $*!$

%"& +(&$& +!!
""
%+
!&%$* ""
%-

.
&$'
*"
'!$&'%! &'$
%%'
!$""
% !$

& -
;""
%&!

($% &
! %&$'&! !).'
'
+
' $! %&$'&! !!
%'
)
' '
&! %
&$&! %! *&*"&&! !&&& &! !! &! -<&1
$+!
$!$!$
)'
%'
%1!$ %&$'&! % $#'$%'&&
%.

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 628 of 1373 ends

3$75,&,$'5,9(5(6,'(1&( $
352-(&712
56
$35,/ (;,67,1*72326,7(3/$1
(;,67,1*7232*5$3+,&6859(<6,7(3/$1 ·µ ;6+((7

µ ·µ
;6+((7

5h
'
/
0h

'

/
$#5+5 1(«$'#4+0)5
0
h

/
0h
9
/ 5h

/
5
h

'

/
5h

/

9 ,. 9
9/
9 (E) WOOD
FENCE
(E) ENTRY GATE & COLUMNS

EXISTING SHRUBS
(E) 6' WD FENCE

EDGE OF
DENSE

VEGETATION
(E) BLOCK RETAINING WALL

SEWER AND ACCESS EASEMENT
PUBLIC

DRAINAGE

EASEMENT

PUBLIC DRAINAGE EASEMENT

EDGE OF

RIPARIAN

VEGETATION

PATRICIA
DRIVE
(E) WATER METER(E) ELEC
(E) FIRE HYDRANT
(E) TOPOGRAPHY
N
YARD SETBACK 20' - 0" MIN.

YARD SETBACK 5' - 0" MIN.

YARD SETBACK
5' - 0" MIN.

YARD SETBACK 5' - 0" MIN.

BUILDABLE AREA

OUTSIDE OF

SETBACKS

BUILDABLE AREA

OUTSIDE OF

SETBACKS
(E) WATER MAIN(E) SEWER MAIN
YARD SETBACK 5' - 0" MIN.
(E) SHED TO

BE REMOVED
EASEMENT 30' - 0"
EASEMENT 15' - 0"

EASEMENT
20'
- 0"
E
A
S
E
M
E
N
T
30 '
-
0"

BUILDABLE AREA

OUTSIDE OF

SETBACKS

EDGE OF CREEK

SETBACK

EDGE OF CREEK

SETBACK
CREEK SETBACK 20' - 0"
CREEK
SETBACK 20' - 0"
CREEK SETBACK 20' - 0"
CREEK
SETBACK 20' - 0"
9,&,1,7<0$3
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 629 of 1373 ends

340
341
342
343
344
83 83

6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
335
335
335
335
340 340
340
345
345
345
345
345
350
350
350
350
332
332
333
333
334
334
336
336
337
337
337 337
337
337
338 338
338
338
339
339
339 339 339
339
341
341
341
342
342
342
342
343
343
343
344
344
344
346
346
346
346
346
347
347
347
347
348
348
348
348
349
349
349
349
351
351
351
351
352
352
352
352
353
353
353
353
7600 Morro Road
Atascadero, CA 93422
(805) 610-1714
#20-003 DATE: JUNE 4, 2021
Ch con
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 630 of 1373 ends

6

(

0 1
(

0 %$6,62)%($5,1*6
1
(

0 1
:

0 6
:

0 6

(

0 6
:

0

6 )+ 6
:0
3$75,&,$'5,9(
6 6 )+
:0
6

(
:22'
)(1&(
(;,67,1*6+58%6

(

:')(1&(

(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//
6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(17
38%/,&
'5$,1$*(
($6(0(17
38%/,&'5$,1$*(($6(0(17
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867

3$75,&,$'5,9(
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(

$

$

$

$
5(6,'(1&(

$'8
322/
*$5$*(
&29
325&+
*5((1+286(
6+$'('$5($
5(35(6(176
$//2:$%/(/,0,76
2)%8,/',1*
(19(/23(
$&&(6625<
6725$*(
75$6+&217$,1(5
/2&$7,21:
35,9$&<6&5((1
($6(0(17

$&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17

($6(0(17

($6(0(17

(
(175<*$7( &2/8016
(
:$7(50(7(5
(
(/(&

(
),5(+<'5$17

(
:$7(50$,1
(
6(:(50$,1
<$5'6(7%$&.

0,1
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//
3(5&,9,/
6,7(:$//3(5&,9,/

$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((7:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7 #5,'*(

$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#
$//2:$%/(%/'*+7)((70$;:,7+0,1)((76(7%$&.352326('%/'*+7#

$

$

$
6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867

2))6(7

2))6(7

2))6(7

$6

6)
/27$5($
6)
/27$5($
&5((.$5($12786(',1
/27&29(5$*(
&$/&

(
%/2&.5(7$,1,1*:$//6(:(5$1'$&&(66($6(0(176+$'('$5($5(35(6(176$//2:$%/(/,0,762)%8,/',1*(19(/23( $&&(66
%5,'*(
($6(0(17

6859(<('
9(*(7$7,21
/,1(
0%6/$1'
6859(<6
$8*867

2))6(7

2))6(7

$'8
3$7,2
(+'678',2,QF

:HVW0DOO6XLWH%
$WDVFDGHUR&$

S

H
HGGLH#HKGHVLJQVWXGLRFRP
0,&+$(/65(6,'(1&( 6&+(0$7,&6,7(3/$1 $6 3$75,&,$5'6$1/8,62%,632&$ B
UHY
$6

$5&+,7(&785$/6,7(3/$1
$ $6

/27&29(5$*(&$/&
$6 $6

(1/$5*('6,7((;+,%,7
758(
1257+

*5$3+,&6&$/(
758(
1257+

*5$3+,&6&$/(
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 631 of 1373 ends

ATTACHMENT 1

Page 632 of 1373 ends

TREES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
ARBUTUS UNEDO STRAWBERRY TREE MULTI-TRUNKARCTOSTAPHYLOS MANZANITA `DR. HURD` DR. HURD COMMON MANZANITA CERCIS CANADENSIS EASTERN REDBUD MULTI-TRUNKCITRUS X LIMON `IMPROVED MEYER` MEYER LEMONCITRUS X SINENSIS SWEET ORANGE FEIJOA SELLOWIANA PINEAPPLE GUAVAFICUS CARICA COMMON FIGFORTUNELLA MARGARITA `NAGAMI` KUMQUATLAGERSTROEMIA INDICA X FAURIEI `NATCHEZ` NATCHEZ CRAPE MYRTLE MULTI-TRUNKLAURUS NOBILIS `SARATOGA` SARATOGA BAY LAURELPLATANUS RACEMOSA CALIFORNIA SYCAMORE MULTI-TRUNK

SHRUBS BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
ACANTHUS MOLLIS BEAR`S BREECHALYOGYNE HUEGELII BLUE HIBISCUSARCTOSTAPHYLOS UVA-URSI `POINT REYES` POINT REYES KINNIKINNICK BACCHARIS PILULARIS `PIGEON POINT` PIGEON POINT COYOTE BRUSH

CEANOTHUS GRISEUS HORIZONTALIS CARMEL CREEPERCHONDROPETALUM TECTORUM SMALL CAPE RUSH FESTUCA RUBRA `MOLATE` MOLATE RED FESCUEHEUCHERA SANGUINEA CORAL BELLSHYDRANGEA QUERCIFOLIA OAKLEAF HYDRANGEALANTANA MONTEVIDENSIS `SPREADING WHITE` WHITE TRAILING LANTANALAVANDULA ANGUSTIFOLIA `HIDCOTE` HIDCOTE LAVENDERMUHLENBERGIA DUBIA PINE MUHLYMUHLENBERGIA RIGENS DEER GRASS

ORIGANUM VULGARE OREGANO
PHORMIUM X `SEA JADE` NEW ZEALAND FLAXRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `EVE CASE` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYRHAMNUS CALIFORNICA `MOUND SAN BRUNO` CALIFORNIA COFFEEBERRYROSE (SELECTED BY OWNER) --ROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `IRENE` TM IRENE TRAILING ROSEMARYROSMARINUS OFFICINALIS `TUSCAN BLUE` TUSCAN BLUE ROSEMARY SALVIA NEMOROSA `BUMBLEBLUE` BUMBLEBLUE PERENNIAL SALVIASALVIA OFFICINALIS GARDEN SAGESALVIA X `WAVERLY` WAVERLY SAGESANTOLINA CHAMAECYPARISSUS LAVENDER COTTONSESLERIA X `GREENLEE` GREENLEE MOOR GRASSSTACHYS BYZANTINA LAMB`S EAR

TEUCRIUM CHAMAEDRYS GERMANDERTHYMUS VULGARIS COMMON THYME WESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `MUNDI` MUNDI COAST ROSEMARYWESTRINGIA FRUTICOSA `WYNABBIE GEM` WYNABBIE GEM COAST ROSEMARY

VINES BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME

FICUS PUMILA CREEPING FIG
TRACHELOSPERMUM JASMINOIDES CHINESE STAR JASMINEVITIS X `ROGERS RED` ROGERS RED CALIFORNIA GRAPE 83 5()
:
83 337
338
339
341
342
343
344
346
347
348
349
351
352
353
336
337
338
339
341
342
343
344
340
345
350
335
340
S
FH S
WM

6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:

MASTER

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-1

PROJECT MANAGER

WES AROLA

DRAWN BY

WES AROLA
DATE

03.11.2021

MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO

LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM

PLANTING DESIGN CRITERIA

THE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COMPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREES KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVE GROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREENED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPE AREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3" OF BARK MULCH

IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIA

THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COMPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STATE WATER CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FOR THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE.A WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CONTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE

IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH HYDROZONE.

ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCOVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRIP,

ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES, SO THAT ONCE ESTABLISHED, WATER CAN BE REGULATED IN A MORE EFFICIENT MANNER.

ALL LAWN AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED WITH SUBSURFACE DRIP IRRIGATION

OR HIGH EFFICIENCY SPRAY IRRIGATION

COMPLIANCE STATEMENT

THE DESIGN WILL MEET OR EXCEED THE STATE AND LOCAL STANDARDS FOR

WATER CONSERVATION THROUGH WATER EFFICIENT LANDSCAPE
IRRIGATION DESIGN. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE MWELO
_____________________
WES AROLA - CA 5958

,Q)HHW

LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(
PATRICIA
ADU
BRIDGE
GARAGE

RESIDENCE

PRELIMINARY PLANT LIST
SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-2
SEE ENLARGEMENT SHEET L-3

LANDSCAPE SCREENING SHRUB PLANTINGS
S

MPRISED OF PLANT MATERIAL AND TREES
CLIMATE AND SOIL CONDITIONS. ABOVE
NED BY PLANTING . ALL LANDSCAPE
" OF BARK MULCH
A

MPLY WITH THE LOCAL AND STA AN TE WATER

THE WATER CONSERVATION METHOD FOR VA
ERIAL HAS A LOW TO MEDIUM WATER USE. TO

NTROLLER' WILL BE USED TO MONITOR THE LL

DAILY WATER CONSUMPTION TO THE TE
CH HYDROZONE. RO

OVER AREAS WILL BE IRRIGATED BY DRI ER P,

HAT ONCE ESTABLISHED WATER CAN BE

PLANTING DESIGN CRITERIA

THE PROPOSED PLANT LIST IS COM

KNOWN TO THRIVE IN THE LOCAL C

GROUND UTILITIES WILL BE SCREE
AREAS WILL BE COVERED IN MIN 3

IRRIGATION DESIGN CRITERIA

THE IRRIGATION DESIGN WILL COM
CONSERVATION REQUIREMENTS. T

THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE MATEA WEATHER SENSING 'SMART CON

IRRIGATION WATER AND MANAGE

MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR EAC

ALL TREES, SHRUB AND GROUNDCO

ON SEPARATE HYDROZONES SO T

PRELIMINARY WATER BUDGET CALCULATIONS
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 633 of 1373 ends

83 337
338
339
341
342
343
344
346
347
348
349
351
352
340
345
350

6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:

CORE

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-2

PROJECT MANAGER

WES AROLA

DRAWN BY

WES AROLA
DATE

01.11.2021

MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO

LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM

,Q)HHW

LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(

1 INFINITY POOL 16x38

STONE PAVING WITH NATURALIZED

EDGENATURAL LAWN

WITH SUBSURFACE IRRIGATION

STAGGERED CONCRETE STEPS

DECKING WITH RAILINGRETAINING WALL, BOARD FORM

CONCRETE OR SMOOTH STUCCO

NATURAL LAWN OR MOWED MEADOW

SPA/GYM PATIO

GROTTO STYLE SPA

PLANTING AREA, TYPPAVER RIBBON DRIVEWAY TO ADUBRIDGELIGHTWEIGHT STEEL OVERHEAD SHADE

STRUCTURE

OUTDOOR KITCHENGRASS PAVINGGRAVITY BLOCK RETAINING WALL

STONE CLAD ACCENT WALL

DESIGN KEY
234
5 6789
10111213
1 2
2 3
4 4 5
6 7
8 9 10
10 10
10 11
12 13
14 14
15 15
15 16
16 16
10 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 634 of 1373 ends

83 346
347
348
349
351
352
353
345
350

6+$//2:
'((3
6+$//2:
6+$//2:
6+$//2:

LANDSCAPE
PLAN
L-3

PROJECT MANAGER

WES AROLA

DRAWN BY

WES AROLA
DATE

01.11.2021

MICHAELS RESIDENCE
841 PATRICIA DRIVE | SAN LUIS OBISPO

LANDSCAPE PLANS
# DATE ITEM

,Q)HHW

LQFK IHHW
*5$3+,&6&$/(

1 DRY STACKED BOULDER RETAINING WALLS TO CREATE

LANDSCAPE TERRACESBLOCK RETAINING WALL COVERED IN VINESPERMEABLE LINEAR PAVERS

ACCENT TREES POSITIONED TO PROVIDE PRIVACY

GAPPED STEPPERS WITH PLANTED JOINTS

CONCRETE PORCH / STEPS

PLANTING AREA, TYP

ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACE

TRASH STORAGE

DESIGN KEY
234
5 678
1 9
2 3
3 3
4 5
6 6
7 7
7 8
9 9
1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 635 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A4
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021

SITE SECTIONS
1” = 20’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 20 40 800 40 80 160
1” = 40’-0” (12X18 SHEET)
*5281')/225

723

723

/(9(/

/(9(/

*5281')/225
'$'8

*5281')/225
'$'8

723'$'8

723'$'8

=21()6

322/%277

322/%277

0$;$//2:+7$%29($9**5$'(

0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$9
*
*
5 $
'
(

(
$9*)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21

(
)*

(
)*
352326('
$//2:('
%('5220
.,7&+(1

(
)*

(
)*

$9**5$'(#6(&7,21

(
$9*)*

$//2:('
352326('
*5((1+286(
9(5$1'$
$'8
723

723

/(9(/

/(9(/

723

723

0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$
9 *
*
5 $
'
(

=21()6
*$5$*())

*$5$*())

(
$9*)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21

(
)*

(
)*
$//2:(' 352326('
0%('5220 0%$7+
87,/,7<
*$5$*(
*5281')/225

*5281')/225

%$6(0(17

%$6(0(17

68,7())

68,7())

723/,9,1*
5220

723/,9,1*
5220

(
)*

(
$9*)*

(
)*
$9**5$'(#6(&7,21

0 $
;
$
/
/
2 :
+
7 $
%
2 9
(
$
9 *
*
5 $
'
(

352326('

$//2:('
352326('
(

)
*

7
25
'
,
*
(

*5($75220 )2<(5 (168,7( :,&
%$6(0(17
$6 $

6,7(6(&7,21#/,9,1*
$6 $

6,7(6(&7,21#*$5$*(
$6 $

6,7(6(&7,21#(168,7(
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 636 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A5
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021

SITE AERIAL MAP
SITE AERIAL MAP 1 1" =20’ - 0” (24 X 36 SHEET)
1” = 40’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 20 40 800 40 80 160
1” = 80’-0” (12X18 SHEET)

VIEWS OF BISHOP PEAK

VIEWS OF CALIFORNIA POLYTECHNIC STATE UNIVERSITY
1 ATTACHMENT 1

Page 637 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A6
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) YOGA
13'-3"x14'-0"

DRY SUANA
7'-6"x12'-0"
STOR
CAB.

A-500 A1 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_BASEMENT
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 638 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A7
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 GROUND FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) UP
UP
W D
GREATROOM DINING 22'-6"x2'0" 15'0"x19'-6"

KITCHEN
22'-6"x24'-0"
NOOK
PWDR
PANTRY
6'-6"x11'-6"
BUTLER
8'-0"x6'-1"
ELEV.
5'-0"x6'-6"
FOYER
W.I.C.
9'-6"x7'-6"
BATH
7'-0"x12'-0"

EN-SUITE
16'-0"x14'-6"

MUD ROOM
12'0"x9'-6"
BBQ
2-CAR
1-CAR GARAGE

OUTDOOR LIVING

GREENHOUSE
30'-0"x13'-0"
TOOLS
CL.

UTILITY 1
PATIO
sink
bench
pet
wash
linen
seating
flex. station
hutch
built-in
built-inbuilt-in
coat
l
i
n
e
n
pergola
prep station
entertainment REF
STOVE
MICRO
9' - 6" MIN
1 8
'
-
6 "
M
I
N
19' - 0" MIN.
1 8
'
-
6 "
M
I
N
.

A-500 A2 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 1
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 639 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A8
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 SECOND FLOOR PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) D
W
BEDROOM 3
12'-0"x11'-4"
W.I.C 3
8'-0"x4'-8"
BATH 2
W.I.C. 2
8'-0"x4'-8"
BATH 3
M. BEDROOM
15'-6"x14'-6"
HIS
5'-0"x6'-5"
HERS
6'-10"x6'-5"
T. M. BATH

OPEN TO BELOW

GALLERY
44'-0"x5'-9"
BEDROOM 2
12'-0"x11'-4"

VERANDA

BALCONY

FAMILY ROOM
15'-6"x14'-4" BALCONY
LNDRY.
7'-0"x10'-5"
ELEV.
bench
entertainment
built-in shelving
art niche
storage
A-500 A3 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 FLOOR PLAN_LEVEL 2
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 640 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A9
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 ROOF PLAN 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A-500 A4 1/8" = 1'-0"
1 SITE _ROOF PLAN
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 641 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A10
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A A
B
C
C
F
F
F
D
E
H
G
D
G
H
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 642 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A11
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
G
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 643 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE
SECOND AND THIRD FLOOR PLAN A12 PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20 MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
D
D
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 644 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A13
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PERSPECTIVE VIEWS 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) 1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 2
A
A
B
C
C
F
D
E
H
D
G
H
B
E
F
G
A
D
A
A
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 645 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A14
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 FLOOR AND ROOF PLAN - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) UP

KITCHEN/LIVING

BEDROOM
W.I.C. BATHROOM
PATIO
DECK
3/16" = 1'-0"

DADU-ROOF PLAN SCHEMATIC
3/16" = 1'-0"

DADU-FLOOR PLAN SCHEMATIC

PERSPECTIVE - FRONT
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 646 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A15
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 ELEVATIONS - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) RIGHT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
REAR ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
LEFT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
FRONT ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" (24 X 36 SHEET)
1 1
1 1
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW
A
B
C
C
F
E
H
B G
E
F
A A F
F
G
H

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 647 of 1373 ends

841 PATRICIA DRIVE RESIDENCE A16
PROJECT NO.1973-01-RS20
MARCH 12, 2021
1/8” = 1’-0” (24X36 SHEET)
0 4 8 160 8 16 32 PROPOSED COLORS & MATERIALS - ADU 1/16” = 1’-0” (12X18 SHEET) A
G
B
E
F
F
C
H
F
+RUL]RQWDO/DS6LGLQJ6DJH*UHHQ
3DLQWHG7ULP'DUN*UHHQ
A B
5DLQ6FUHHQ :RRG$FFHQW1DWXUDO&HGDU
*XWWHUV:HDWKHUHG&RSSHU$FFHQW
7HVOD6RODU5RRI7LOHV )LUHSODFH )HDWXUH:DOO
/RFDO9ROFDQLF6WRQH

C D E G H
6KDNH6KLQJOHV1DWXUDO&HGDU
F
:LQGRZV'RRUV'DUN%URQ]H0HWDO$FFHQW

CONTEMPORARY CRAFTSMAN - SAGE GREEN SCHEME
ALL EXTERIOR COVERINGS AND ROOFING WILL BE IGNITION RESISTANT CONSTRUCTION. NO COMBUSTIBLE EXTERIOR SIDIING IS PERMITTED.

ROOF ASSEMBLY SHALL BE CLASS A. ATTIC & SUBFLOOR VENTING SHALL BE DESIGNED TO INHIBIT EMBER INTRUSION (CRC 337)

TYPES OF LIGHTING PROPOSED WILL MEET

DARK SKY COMPLIANCE ZONING STANDARDS
(17.70.100). A LIGHT WILL BE PROVIDED AT ALL
EXTERIOR DOORS.
:$//6&21&(7(&+/,*+7,1*3($.
:$//6&21&((9(5*5((1/,*+7,1*6(5,(6
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 648 of 1373 ends

841 Patricia Drive Project
San Luis Obispo County, Annual
Project Characteristics - CO2 Intensity Factor for Central Coast Clean Energy year 2028CH4 and N2O are PG&E defaultsLand Use - One 4,941-sf residence and an 825-sf ADU on a 1.41-acre parcelConstruction Phase - Construction will last 18-24 months24 months has been conservatively assumedOff-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment - Off-road Equipment -

1.1 Land Usage
Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 4,941.00 3Single Family Housing 1.00 Dwelling Unit 0.71 825.00 3

1.2 Other Project CharacteristicsUrbanizationClimate Zone Rural4
Wind Speed (m/s) Precipitation Freq (Days) 3.2 44

1.3 User Entered Comments & Non-Default Data1.0 Project Characteristics Utility Company User Defined
Operational Year 2024
CO2 Intensity (lb/MWhr)
157.75 0.033 CH4 Intensity
(lb/MWhr)
N2O Intensity 0.004(lb/MWhr)
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 1 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 649 of 1373 ends

Off-road Equipment -
Off-road Equipment - Demolition - On-site shed is estimated to be: 15’ wide x 12’ deep x 10’ high Demolition is conservatively assumed as it is only an optionGrading - Approx 1,932 cubic yards (cy) of cut and 650 cy of fill for a total of 1,280 cy of earthwork.Disturb 35,000 sf (0.8 acre), however, CalEEMod defaults for graded acres during site prep and grading were assumed.

Table Name Column Name Default Value New Value
tblConstructionPhase NumDays 20.00 40.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 2.00 20.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 4.00 20.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 200.00 595.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00tblConstructionPhase NumDays 10.00 40.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00tblConstructionPhase NumDaysWeek 5.00 6.00 tblGrading MaterialExported 0.00 1,280.00
tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 4,941.00tblLandUse LandUseSquareFeet 1,800.00 825.00tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71tblLandUse LotAcreage 0.32 0.71 tblProjectCharacteristics CH4IntensityFactor 0 0.033tblProjectCharacteristics CO2IntensityFactor 0 157.75tblProjectCharacteristics N2OIntensityFactor 0 0.004tblProjectCharacteristics UrbanizationLevel Urban Rural CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 2 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 650 of 1373 ends

2.0 Emissions Summary
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 3 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 651 of 1373 ends

2.1 Overall Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e003 0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3860 295.3860 0.0585 9.4000e- 004 297.1288 2023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e003 4.0000e- 003 0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e- 003 0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0560 9.0000e- 005 316.4448 2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e004 2.5000e- 004 0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e- 005 0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4934 46.4934 7.7200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 46.6878 Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e003 0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0194 315.0194 0.0585 9.4000e- 004 316.4448 Unmitigated Construction
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Year tons/yr MT/yr
2022 0.2558 2.1167 1.9374 3.5200e003 0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 295.3857 295.3857 0.0585 9.4000e- 004 297.12852023 0.3459 1.9786 2.1906 3.8000e003 4.0000e- 003 0.0879 0.0919 1.0600e- 003 0.0846 0.0857 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0560 9.0000e- 005 316.4444 2024 0.0363 0.2822 0.3198 5.6000e004 2.5000e- 004 0.0115 0.0117 7.0000e- 005 0.0111 0.0112 0.0000 46.4933 46.4933 7.7200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 46.6877 Maximum 0.3459 2.1167 2.1906 3.8000e003 0.1404 0.0989 0.2393 0.0661 0.0944 0.1605 0.0000 315.0191 315.0191 0.0585 9.4000e- 004 316.4444 Mitigated Construction
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 4 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 652 of 1373 ends

ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Quarter Start Date End Date Maximum Unmitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) Maximum Mitigated ROG + NOX (tons/quarter) 1 3-1-2022 5-31-2022 1.0591 1.05912 6-1-2022 8-31-2022 0.5582 0.55823 9-1-2022 11-30-2022 0.5522 0.55224 12-1-2022 2-28-2023 0.7501 0.75015 3-1-2023 5-31-2023 0.5503 0.55036 6-1-2023 8-31-2023 0.5220 0.52207 9-1-2023 11-30-2023 0.5163 0.51638 12-1-2023 2-29-2024 0.4917 0.4917 Highest 1.0591 1.0591
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 5 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 653 of 1373 ends

2.2 Overall Operational
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Area 0.0324 3.1000e004 0.0272 0.0000 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 1.5000e- 004 0.0000 0.0445 0.0445 4.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0455 Energy 2.9000e004 2.4500e- 003 1.0400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 3.9631 3.9631 2.9000e- 004 8.0000e- 005 3.9943 Mobile 0.0136 0.0226 0.1372 2.8000e004 0.0293 2.7000e- 004 0.0296 7.8400e- 003 2.5000e- 004 8.0900e- 003 0.0000 26.0407 26.0407 1.5700e- 003 1.2900e- 003 26.4634 Waste 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.4994 0.0000 0.4994 0.0295 0.0000 1.2371 Water 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0413 0.0710 0.1124 4.2600e003 1.0000e- 004 0.2493 Total 0.0462 0.0253 0.1655 3.0000e004 0.0293 6.2000e- 004 0.0299 7.8400e- 003 6.0000e- 004 8.4400e- 003 0.5407 30.1193 30.6600 0.0357 1.4700e- 003 31.9897 Unmitigated Operational
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 6 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 654 of 1373 ends

3.0 Construction DetailConstruction Phase
Phase
Number
Phase Name Phase Type Start Date End Date Num Days
Week
Num Days Phase Description
1 Demolition Demolition 3/1/2022 4/15/2022 6 402 Site Preparation Site Preparation 3/29/2022 4/20/2022 6 203 Grading Grading 3/31/2022 4/22/2022 6 20 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N20 CO2e
Percent
Reduction

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 7 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 655 of 1373 ends

4 Building Construction Building Construction 4/6/2022 2/28/2024 6 595 5 Paving Paving 1/11/2023 2/25/2023 6 406 Architectural Coating Architectural Coating 1/25/2023 3/11/2023 6 40
OffRoad Equipment
Phase Name Offroad Equipment Type Amount Usage Hours Horse Power Load Factor Demolition Concrete/Industrial Saws 1 8.00 81 0.73Demolition Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Demolition Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 3 8.00 97 0.37Site Preparation Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Site Preparation Rubber Tired Dozers 1 7.00 247 0.40Site Preparation Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Grading Graders 1 8.00 187 0.41Grading Rubber Tired Dozers 1 8.00 247 0.40Grading Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 2 7.00 97 0.37Building Construction Cranes 1 6.00 231 0.29Building Construction Forklifts 1 6.00 89 0.20Building Construction Generator Sets 1 8.00 84 0.74Building Construction Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 6.00 97 0.37Building Construction Welders 3 8.00 46 0.45Paving Cement and Mortar Mixers 1 6.00 9 0.56Paving Pavers 1 6.00 130 0.42Paving Paving Equipment 1 8.00 132 0.36 Residential Indoor: 11,676; Residential Outdoor: 3,892; Non-Residential Indoor: 0; Non-Residential Outdoor: 0; Striped Parking Area: 0 (Architectural Coating – sqft)Acres of Gradin
g (Site Preparation Phase): 18.75
Acres of Gradin
g (Gradin
g Phase): 20
Acres of Pavin
g: 0
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 8 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 656 of 1373 ends

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e004 0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239 Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e004 9.0000e- 005 0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e- 005 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1554 42.1554 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239 Unmitigated Construction On-Site

3.1 Mitigation Measures ConstructionPaving Rollers 1 7.00 80 0.38Paving Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes 1 8.00 97 0.37Architectural Coating Air Compressors 1 6.00 78 0.48 Trips and VMT
Phase Name Offroad Equipment
Count
Worker Trip
Number
Vendor Trip
Number
Hauling Trip
Number
Worker Trip
Length
Vendor Trip
Length
Hauling Trip
Length
Worker Vehicle
Class
Vendor
Vehicle Class
Hauling
Vehicle Class
Demolition 5 13.00 0.00 1.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTSite Preparation 3 8.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTGrading 4 10.00 0.00 160.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTBuilding Construction 7 1.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDTPaving 5 13.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT Architectural Coating 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.00 13.00 20.00 LD_Mix HDT_Mix HHDT CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 9 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 657 of 1373 ends

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e004 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0335 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 8.8000e004 6.8000e- 004 7.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.5200e- 003 6.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 2.0002 Total 8.8000e004 7.8000e- 004 7.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.5300e- 003 6.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0337 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 9.0000e005 0.0000 9.0000e- 005 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e004 0.0168 0.0168 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239 Total 0.0338 0.3324 0.2792 4.8000e004 9.0000e- 005 0.0168 0.0169 1.0000e- 005 0.0157 0.0157 0.0000 42.1553 42.1553 0.0107 0.0000 42.4239 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 10 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 658 of 1373 ends

3.2 Demolition - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 1.0000e004 2.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0320 0.0320 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.0335 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 8.8000e004 6.8000e- 004 7.4400e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.5200e- 003 6.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 1.9809 1.9809 6.0000e- 005 6.0000e- 005 2.0002 Total 8.8000e004 7.8000e- 004 7.4600e- 003 2.0000e- 005 2.5100e- 003 1.0000e- 005 2.5300e- 003 6.7000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 6.8000e- 004 0.0000 2.0129 2.0129 6.0000e- 005 7.0000e- 005 2.0337 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.3 Site Preparation - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e004 6.2300e- 003 6.2300e- 003 5.7300e- 003 5.7300e- 003 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 15.2375 Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e004 0.0626 6.2300e- 003 0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e- 003 0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 15.2375 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 11 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 659 of 1373 ends

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.7000e004 2.1000e- 004 2.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.6154 Total 2.7000e004 2.1000e- 004 2.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.6154 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0626 0.0000 0.0626 0.0300 0.0000 0.0300 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e004 6.2300e- 003 6.2300e- 003 5.7300e- 003 5.7300e- 003 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 15.2375 Total 0.0131 0.1463 0.0709 1.7000e004 0.0626 6.2300e- 003 0.0689 0.0300 5.7300e- 003 0.0358 0.0000 15.1153 15.1153 4.8900e- 003 0.0000 15.2375 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 12 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 660 of 1373 ends

3.3 Site Preparation - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 2.7000e004 2.1000e- 004 2.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.6154 Total 2.7000e004 2.1000e- 004 2.2900e- 003 1.0000e- 005 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 7.7000e- 004 2.0000e- 004 0.0000 2.1000e- 004 0.0000 0.6095 0.6095 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.6154 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e004 7.4200e- 003 7.4200e- 003 6.8300e- 003 6.8300e- 003 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e004 0.0709 7.4200e- 003 0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e- 003 0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 13 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 661 of 1373 ends

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e004 0.0163 2.8500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.3700e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.5100e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 5.3612 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 9.7000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.7693 Total 7.2000e004 0.0165 5.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 2.3300e- 003 1.4000e- 004 2.4800e- 003 6.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 6.1305 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Fugitive Dust 0.0709 0.0000 0.0709 0.0343 0.0000 0.0343 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Off-Road 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e004 7.4200e- 003 7.4200e- 003 6.8300e- 003 6.8300e- 003 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Total 0.0154 0.1698 0.0922 2.1000e004 0.0709 7.4200e- 003 0.0784 0.0343 6.8300e- 003 0.0411 0.0000 18.1027 18.1027 5.8500e- 003 0.0000 18.2491 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 14 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 662 of 1373 ends

3.4 Grading - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 3.8000e004 0.0163 2.8500e- 003 5.0000e- 005 1.3700e- 003 1.4000e- 004 1.5100e- 003 3.8000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 5.1000e- 004 0.0000 5.1154 5.1154 1.7000e- 004 8.1000e- 004 5.3612 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.4000e004 2.6000e- 004 2.8600e- 003 1.0000e- 005 9.6000e- 004 0.0000 9.7000e- 004 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 2.6000e- 004 0.0000 0.7619 0.7619 2.0000e- 005 2.0000e- 005 0.7693 Total 7.2000e004 0.0165 5.7100e- 003 6.0000e- 005 2.3300e- 003 1.4000e- 004 2.4800e- 003 6.4000e- 004 1.4000e- 004 7.7000e- 004 0.0000 5.8773 5.8773 1.9000e- 004 8.3000e- 004 6.1305 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.5 Building Construction - 2022 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e003 0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464 Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e003 0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6292 210.6292 0.0367 0.0000 211.5464 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 15 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 663 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.9000e004 3.0000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.8924 Total 3.9000e004 3.0000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.8924 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e003 0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461 Total 0.1912 1.4504 1.4763 2.5600e003 0.0683 0.0683 0.0660 0.0660 0.0000 210.6290 210.6290 0.0367 0.0000 211.5461 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 16 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 664 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2022
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 3.9000e004 3.0000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.8924 Total 3.9000e004 3.0000e- 004 3.3200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.1200e- 003 3.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 004 0.0000 0.8838 0.8838 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 0.8924 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.5 Building Construction - 2023 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e003 0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973 Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e003 0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2946 283.2946 0.0481 0.0000 284.4973 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 17 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 665 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.0000e004 3.6000e- 004 4.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1632 Total 5.0000e004 3.6000e- 004 4.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1632 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e003 0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970 Total 0.2376 1.8268 1.9673 3.4400e003 0.0803 0.0803 0.0775 0.0775 0.0000 283.2943 283.2943 0.0481 0.0000 284.4970 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 18 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 666 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 5.0000e004 3.6000e- 004 4.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1632 Total 5.0000e004 3.6000e- 004 4.1200e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5000e- 003 1.0000e- 005 1.5100e- 003 4.0000e- 004 1.0000e- 005 4.1000e- 004 0.0000 1.1525 1.1525 3.0000e- 005 3.0000e- 005 1.1632 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.5 Building Construction - 2024 ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e004 0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 46.5037 Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e004 0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3109 46.3109 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 46.5037 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 19 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 667 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 8.0000e005 5.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.1841 Total 8.0000e005 5.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.1841 Unmitigated Construction Off-Site
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e004 0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 46.5036 Total 0.0362 0.2821 0.3192 5.6000e004 0.0115 0.0115 0.0111 0.0111 0.0000 46.3108 46.3108 7.7100e- 003 0.0000 46.5036 Mitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 20 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 668 of 1373 ends

3.5 Building Construction - 2024
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Hauling 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Vendor 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000Worker 8.0000e005 5.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.1841 Total 8.0000e005 5.0000e- 005 6.3000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 0.0000 2.5000e- 004 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 7.0000e- 005 0.0000 0.1825 0.1825 0.0000 1.0000e- 005 0.1841 Mitigated Construction Off-Site3.6 Paving - 2023
ROG NOx CO SO2 Fugitive
PM10
Exhaust
PM10
PM10
Total
Fugitive
PM2.5
Exhaust
PM2.5
PM2.5
Total
Bio- CO2 NBio- CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e
Category tons/yr MT/yr
Off-Road 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e004 6.1700e- 003 6.1700e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e- 003 0.0000 23.7315 Paving 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000 Total 0.0129 0.1247 0.1761 2.7000e004 6.1700e- 003 6.1700e- 003 5.6900e- 003 5.6900e- 003 0.0000 23.5449 23.5449 7.4600e- 003 0.0000 23.7315 Unmitigated Construction On-Site
CalEEMod Version: CalEEMod.2020.4.0 Page 21 of 35 Date: 11/7/2021 6:44 PM 841 Patricia Drive Project - San Luis Obispo County, Annual EMFAC Off-Model Adjustment Factors for Gasoline Light Duty Vehicle to Account for the SAFE Vehicle Rule Not Applied ATTACHMENT 2

Page 669 of 1373 ends

San Luis Obispo City CouncilApril 4, 2023

San Luis Obispo City Council
April 4, 2023