bella vista initial study by michael gibbons

CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1

INITIAL STUDY

FOR THE

BELLA VISTA PROJECT

IS CASE NO. # 7-03

SCH # 1994050693


Initial Study for the Bella Vista Project

Lead Agency: City of San Luis Obispo, California

990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93410

Prepared By: Michael Gibbons, CRP Undergraduate

California Polytechnic State University,

1 Grand Ave, San Luis Obispo, CA93407

CRP 342: Environmental Planning Methods

Instructor: Adrienne Greve

June 8, 2016


BELLA VISTA PROJECT

INITIAL STUDY REPORT

FOR THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

6

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Overview 6

1.2 Project Objectives 6

1.3 Project Characteristics 7

1.4 Summary of Potential Impacts and Mitigation Measures 10

1.5 Purpose and Legal Authority 15

1.6 Organization of the Initial Study 16

1.7 Initial Study Environmental Checklist Form 17

2.0 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ANALYSIS & MITIGATION MEASURES

2.1 AIR QUALITY

2.1.1 Introduction 23

2.1.2 Existing Conditions & Project Characteristics 24

2.1.3 Significance Thresholds & Regulatory Standards 25

2.1.4 Impact Analysis 26

2.1.5 Mitigation Measures 30

2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS












ILITIES/SERVICE SYSTEMS






TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

2.3 HYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY






2.4 NOISE

2.5 UT

3.0 REFERENCES 70

4.0 LIST OF APPENDICES 73

4.1 Unmitigated/Unmitigated Construction Emissions

4.2 Unmitigated Operational Emissions

4.3 Mitigated Operational Emissions


TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont.)

SECTION TITLE PAGE

5.0 LIST OF FIGURES

1. Figure 1.7-1: Project Site 19

2. Figure 2.3.2-1: Base Map with Existing Creeks

43

3. Figure 2.3.3-1: FEMA 100-year Floodplain 45

4. Figure 2.3.4-1: Rational Method equation 47

5. Figure 2.3.4-2: No Housing Placed Within 100-year FEMA

Floodplain 51

6. Figure 2.4.4-1: Noise Exposure 57

7. Figure 2.4.4-2: 70dB, 65dB, and 70dB Noise Contour Lines 59

8. Figure 2.4.4-3: Airport Area Specific Plan 61


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Initial Study evaluates the proposed Bella Vista Project, San Luis Obispo, California. The Initial

Study (IS) was prepared by the City of San Luis Obispo in cooperation with City staff. Following

hearings on the adequacy of the IS, it will represent the findings of the City of San Luis Obispo

regarding potential impacts of constructing and operating the proposed project. The project proposes

the conversion of approximately 23.5 acres of degraded grazing land to urban uses that will provide the

City of San Luis Obispo with needed housing and revenue generating uses. The Bella Vista community

creates a village that mixes retail, office, and residential uses in a sustainable, walkable, small-town

form. The project has a total of 186 multi-family units (high & medium density) and 12 single-family

units. It also includes a clubhouse and pool as central amenities. In addition to the residential elements,

the project includes a total of 29,500 sq. ft. of office space and 136,429 sq. ft. of retail. The project

features a 1.51 acres of recreational land and 7.53 acres of conservation/open space.

Location

The proposed project site is located on the west side of Broad Street at the eastern edge of the City of

San Luis Obispo, California. The proposed site is bordered by open space, to the north, agricultural

grazing land to the west, and Broad Street commercial and residential land uses to the south and east.

The site is located at the southeastern edge of the San Luis Obispo U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute quadrangle map

in the southwestern corner of Section 1 (T. 31 S / R. 12E).

1.2 PROJECT OBJECTIVES

Objective #1. Implement objectives according to section 8.7 of the Broad Street Area in the City’s

General Plan. This includes, but is not limited to, encouraging innovative design,

improving circulation, increased safety, open space preservation, trail and creek

restoration, and increased housing.

Objective #2. Increase commercial retail space in the City with associated increases in shopping

opportunities and sales tax revenue.

Objective #3. Create a system of streets and trails that border the creeks and recreation/open space

zones.


Objective #4. Place single family homes (R-2) as far away from Broad Street as possible in order to

reduce noise and traffic in those more family oriented neighborhoods.

Objective #5. Preserve the natural conditions of the site as much as possible and integrate open spaces

and recreational areas between uses.

Objective #6. Create a village that mixes retail, office, and residential uses in a sustainable, walkable,

small-town form.

Objective #7. Create a system of streets and trails that border the creeks and recreation/open space

zones.

Objective #8. Offer a mix of housing options (R-2, R-3, and R-4).

1.3 PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

Creeks

There are two creeks located on the project site: Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek. The project was

designed so as to take advantage of these natural features. The creeks act as natural divides between

high and low density uses. Both creeks were left as is. Pursuant to Objectives #1 and #5 in section

1.2 Project Objectives, both creeks will not be altered. This decision was made primarily because

one of the creeks (Acacia) is contained in a 100-year flood zone according to FEMA.

Streets

The development will feature a multitude of street types. The street system that will be implemented

will satisfy Object #7 in section 1.2 Project Objectives, and will meet the vision in section 8.7 Broad

Street Area, in the City’s General Plan. Many of the main streets either run along the recreation zones

adjacent to Orcutt and Acacia Creek. There are two main intersections proposed for the development

that lead into the site from Broad Street: Broad and Industrial Way, and Broad and Dirt Road. There is a

third ingress and egress point to the site from Dirt Road to the North-West. This road will most likely be

utilized if the property to the West of site gets developed. To meet Objective #5 the street system on site

will only cross each creek twice. While more connections would have been preferred, it was important

that there was as a little impact as possible on the creeks.


Conservation/ Open Space (C-OS)

Preserving the natural conditions on the site is a main goal of the project. These zones are strategically

placed around the site. There is a heavy concentration of open space to the West of site in order to

create an urban transect. Conservation/Open Space (C-OS) zones are also placed around the FEMA

100-year flood zone surrounding Acacia Creek. Due to the presence of serpentine soil in the South-

West of the site, the area will be zoned as Conservation/Open Space.

Medium-Density Residential (R-2)

The project is proposing 12 single-family units. Because the program called for a “sustainable, walkable,

small-town form,” R-2 residential was chosen in lieu of R-1. These homes will most likely appeal to

families and are subsequently placed as far away from the proposed Broad Street intersections as

possible. Doing so will limit the amount of noise and traffic in these areas. Additionally, the homes are

located across the street from a recreational park area that serves the entire community.

The total square footage of medium density residential on site is 40,952.55 sq. ft. Per Section

17.26.020(a) Property development standards of the San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, the maximum

allowed density in a R-2 zone is 12 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed project has a density of 12

DU/acre and offers a total of 11.28 two-story single family units. The average size of each lot (adjusted

for maximum lot coverage of 50%) is 3,630.00 sq. ft. The required amount of single-family homes was

eight (8), therefore exceeding the original project program by four (4) single-family homes.

Office (O)

Office zones are located along Broad Street and in mixed-use zones. The project program called for a

minimum of 20,000 sq. ft. of Office space. To remain consistent with project goals Office zones are

integrated in Community Commercial (C-C) and Mixed-use (MU) zones. Dedicated Office zone square

footage is 13,360 sq. ft., and space that is allotted within the mixed-use zones is 11,223 sq. ft. The site

will offer a total of 24,583 sq. ft. of Office space, therefore exceeding the requirement by 4,583 sq. ft.

Medium-High Density Residential (R-3)

The project offers R-3 residential on either side of Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek. A majority of the R-3

is located on the Western half of the site adjacent to the R-2 residential units. This type of housing meets

Objective #8 in the Project Objectives. The R-3 zone will range in housing types and affordability. This

includes, but is not limited to, town homes, row houses, apartments, and condominiums.


The total square footage of medium-high density residential on site is 181,925.50 sq. ft. Per section

17.28.020(a) Property development standards of the San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations, the maximum

allowed density in a R-3 is 18 dwelling units per net acre. The proposed project has a density of 18

DU/acre and offers a total of 75.18 two-story R-3 units. The average size of each unit/lot (adjusted for

maximum lot coverage 60%) is 2,904.00 sq. ft.

High-Density Residential (R-4)

Due to the higher density required for this type of zoning, homes were placed closer to the core of the

site that contains mixed-use (office/residential, and community commercial/residential), community

commercial, office, and medium-high density residential. While a majority of the units in this zone

designation are found separate from other uses (134,100.53sqft), 67,343 sq. ft. (60%) of the mixed-use

zone is allocated to R-4. This type of high density housing lends itself well to apartments and

condominiums.

The total square footage of high density residential on site is 201,443.94 (including allocated mixed-use

square footage). Per section 17.30.020(a) Property development standards of the San Luis Obispo

Zoning Regulations, the maximum allowed density in a R-4 is 24 dwelling units per net acre. The

proposed project has a density of 24 DU/acre and offers a total of 110.99 two-story R-4 units. The

average size of each unit (adjusted for maximum lot coverage 60%) is 2,178.00 sq. ft.

Mixed Use (MU)

Mixed-use zones are broken up into two distinct uses: Community Commercial (C-C)/High Density

Residential (R-4), and Office (O)/High Density Residential (R-4). In all mixed-use zones, the building

heights are three stories with R-4 residential on the second and third floors, and either C-C or O on the

first floor. Square footage is allocated in the following way: 60% to R-4 residential, 30% to community

commercial, and 10% to office (Table 1.0-1). The total square footage of mixed-use zones on site is

112,238.99. The proposed project has a density of 24 DU/acre and all buildings are three stories.

Table 1.0-1: Allotted Mixed Use Square Footage

Use Percent Allotted Square Footage Acres

High-Density Residential (R-4) 60% 67343 1.54

Community Commercial (C-C) 30% 33672 0.77

Office (O) 10% 11224 0.25


Community Commercial (C-C)

As per the project program, the site must contain a minimum of 40,000 sq. ft. of community commercial

space. In order to remain consistent with Project Objectives, C-C zones are placed along Broad Street

and in the core of the development. Additionally, C-C are placed at major intersections in the site. The

total square footage of community commercial on site is 57,281—including allocated mixed-use square

footage. Per section 17.41.020(a) Property development standards of the San Luis Obispo Zoning

Regulations, the maximum allowed density in a C-C zine is 36 units per net acre. The proposed project

has a density of 25 U/acre and offers a total of 90,952 two-story. The average size of each unit (adjusted

for maximum lot coverage 75%) is 2,613.00 sq. ft.

Recreation (R)

Recreation areas, while not required in the project program are scattered throughout the site. Recreation

areas include parks, playgrounds, community recreation areas, pools, and club houses. Recreation area s

line Acacia Creek and are scattered throughout the core of the development. The total square footage of

recreation area is 65843.02 sq. ft.

1.4 SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS AND MITIGATION MEASURES

The following is a list of potential impacts and the mitigation measures recommended to reduce these

impacts to a less-than significant level. Refer to the Initial Study’s Environmental Checklist sections of

this document for further details and discussion.

Tables ES-1 through ES-3 summarize the environmental impacts associated with the proposed project,

proposed mitigation measures, and residual impacts. The impacts are organized by the level of impact

(i.e., Class I, Class II, or Class III impacts). Class I impacts are defined as significant, unavoidable

adverse impacts that require a statement of overriding considerations to be issued per Section 15093 of

the Guidelines for Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA Guidelines) if

the project is approved. Class II impacts are significant adverse impacts that can be feasibly mitigated to

less-than-significant levels and that require findings to be made under Section 15091 of the CEQA

Guidelines. Class III impacts are considered less than significant and do not require mitigation.


Table ES-1: Class I Impacts - Significant, Unavoidable Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated

to Less Than Significant Levels

Impacts Mitigation Measures

May Not Be Fully Mitigated to Less Than Significant Levels

AIR QUALITY

AQ Impact-1: During the construction

phase of the project, ROG and NOX

projected emissions well exceed the

APCD Tier 3 emission standards and are

considered potentially significant.

AQ-MM 1.1: On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be

allowed to idle for more than three minutes. Signs shall be

posted in the designated queuing areas to remind drivers and

operators of the three-minute idling limit.

AQ-MM 1.2: Schedule construction truck trips during non-

peak hours (as determined by the Public Works Director) to

reduce peak hour emissions.

AQ-MM 1.3: Even if APCD construction thresholds are

exceeded even after implementation of all feasible emission

reduction technologies, The City of San Luis Obispo shall

work with APCD to determine the appropriate level of

mitigation and shall consider the implementation of Air

Quality enhancing projects or the payment of mitigation fees

towards such projects.

AQ-MM 1.4: On site vehicle speeds shall be 15 miles per

hour (mph) or less.

AQ Impact-2: During the construction

phase of the project, PM10 levels are

projected to be 24.6572 lb/day. This level

of emissions would put the PM10

emissions generated on site at the APCD

Tier 1 thresholds and are considered

potentially significant.

AQ-MM 2.1: Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used

during construction to keep all areas of vehicle movement

damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site. All dirt

pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. Increased

watering frequency would be required when wind speeds

exceed 15 miles per hour (mph). Reclaimed water (non-

potable) shall be used when possible.

AQ-MM 2.2: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other

loose materials are to be covered or shall maintain at least

two feet of freeboard in accordance with the California

vehicle Code Section 23114.

AQ-MM 2.3: Reduce the amount of disturbed area where

possible.

AQ-MM 2.4: All PM10 mitigation measures required shall

be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the

contractor or building should designate a person(s) to

monitor the dust control program and to order increased

watering as necessary, to prevent of dust off site.


AQ Impact-3: During standard

operational, the overall ROG and NOX

emissions would exceed APCD Tier 2

significance threshold of 25 lb/day. Since

APCD establishes this as the threshold of

significance, the impact is considered to

be potentially significant.

AQ-MM 3.1: Limit idling time for commercial vehicles,

including delivery and construction vehicles.

AQ-MM 3.2: Provide incentives to employees to

carpool/vanpool, use public transportation, telecommute,

walk, bike, etc. by implementing the Transportation Choices

Program. The applicant shall Contact SLO Regional

Rideshare at (805) 541-2277 to receive free consulting

services on how to start and maintain a program. Further,

priority parking shall be signed for car-and van-pooling

employees.

AQ-MM 3.3: Provide shade tree planting in parking lots to

reduce evaporative emissions from parked vehicles. Design

should provide 50% tree coverage within 10 years of

construction using low ROG emitting, low maintenance

native drought resistant trees.

AQ-MM 3.4: Incorporate traffic calming modifications to

project roads, such as narrower streets, speed platforms,

bulb-outs and intersection designs that reduce vehicles

speeds and encourage pedestrian and bicycle travel.

AQ-MM 3.5: Incorporate outdoor electrical outlets to

encourage the use of electric appliances and tools.

AQ-MM 3.6: Increase number of connected bicycle

routes/lanes in the vicinity of the project.

AQ-MM 3.7: Include teleconferencing capabilities, such as

web cams or satellite linkage, which will allow employees to

attend meetings remotely without requiring them to travel out

of the area.


operational, the overall CO emissions

would exceed APCD Tier 2 significance

threshold of 50 lb/day. Since APCD

establishes this as the threshold of



AQ-MM 4.1: Use roof material with a solar reflectance

value meeting the Environmental Protection

Agency/Department of Energy Star® rating to reduce

summer cooling needs.

AQ-MM 4.2: The applicant shall ensure building energy

efficiency ratings exceed Title 24 requirements by a

minimum of 15 percent. This can be accomplished in a

number of ways (increasing attic, wall, or floor insulation,

installing double pane windows, etc.).

AQ-MM 4.3: Energy efficient interior lighting shall be

installed, where feasible.

AQ-MM 4.4: Utilize onsite renewable energy systems (e.g.,

solar, wind, geothermal, and low-impact hydro).

AQ-MM 4.5: Install programmable thermostats.



operational, the overall PM10 emissions

would exceed APCD Tier 1 significance

threshold of 10 lb/day. Since APCD

establishes this as the threshold of



AQ-MM 5.1: All roads within the development shall

incorporate bike lanes no less than 4-feet wide.

AQ-MM 5.2: The applicant shall work with San Luis Obispo

Transit to construct a minimum of two bus stops within the

project site.

AQ-MM 5.3: Implement on-site circulation design elements

in parking lots to reduce vehicle queuing and improve the

pedestrian environment.

AQ-MM 5.4: Provide on-site bicycle parking both short term

(racks) and long term (lockers, or a locked room with

standard racks and access limited to bicyclist only) to meet

peak season maximum demand. One bike rack space per 10

vehicle/employee space is recommended.

GREENHOUSE HAS EMISSIONS

GHG Impact-1: Implementation of the

proposed project would result in

potentially significant impacts to global

climate change from the emissions of

greenhouse gases.

GHG-MM 1.1: The applicant shall Provide incentives to

employees to carpool/vanpool, use public transportation,

telecommute, walk, bike, etc. by implementing the

Transportation Choices Program.

GHG-MM 1.2: The applicant shall limit idling time for

commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction

vehicles (OPR 2008).

GHG-MM 1.3: Plant trees and vegetation near structures to

shade buildings and reduce energy requirements for

heating/cooling (OPR 2008).

GHG Impact-2: The proposed project is

potentially inconsistent with the County

of San Luis Obispo APCD’s Clean Air

Plan.

GHG-MM 2.1: Provide on-site bicycle parking consistent

with City General Circulation Element Policy 3.4 and

ordinance requirements.

GHG-MM 2.2: Unless not feasible due to the installation of

solar panels or other features designed to reduce area source

emissions, skylights and windows designed to increase

natural light shall be installed in each building.

GHG-MM 2.3: Biodiesel shall be used as an alternative fuel

to diesel for at least 15 percent of the construction

vehicles/equipment used if there is a biodiesel station within

5 miles of the project site.


Table ES-2: Class II Impacts - Significant Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than

Significant Levels


May Reduce Impacts to Less Than Significant Levels

HHYDROLOGY/WATER QUALITY

HWQ Impact-1: The proposed project

would result in less than significant

increase in the rate or amount of surface

runoff with mitigation incorporated.

HWQ-MM 1.1: 30% of all surface parking lots within the

site shall incorporate pervious concrete or pavers.

HWQ-MM 1.2: The property shall include detention

ponds to limit storm water runoff generated by the

development. The ponds shall be designed to contain the

difference between the 100-year post-development runoff

rate and the 10-year pre-development runoff rate.

HWQ-MM 1.3: Storm water runoff from the site shall be

directed through grassed bioswales/biofilters to a

detention/retention basin designed to retain runoff and

percolate it back to groundwater so that the amount of

runoff from the site will not exceed the rate or volume

under existing conditions.

NOISE

NO Impact-1: The proposed location of

uses immediately along Broad Street will

expose persons to noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general

plan and noise ordinance, and therefore will

experience potentially significant impacts

unless mitigation is incorporated.

NO-MM 1.1: All exterior doors within the 65 dB contour

line shall be solid core with perimeter weather stripping

and threshold seals.

NO-MM 1.2: All buildings within the 65 dB contour line

shall implement exterior wall that consist of stucco or

brick veneer. Wood siding with a ½” minimum thickness

fiberboard (“Soundboard”) underlayer may also be used.

NO-MM 1.3: Glass in both windows and doors shall not

exceed 20% of the floor area in a room.

NO-MM 1.4: Roof or attic vents facing the noise source

should be baffled (see Appendix C in Acoustical Design

Manual for an example of a suitable vent treatment).

NO Impact-2: The proposed development

will generate noise that may be in excess of

standards established in the local general

plan and noise ordinance. Therefore,

impacts will be potentially significant

unless mitigation is incorporated.

NO-MM 2.1: Vehicle speeds within the development shall

be 35mph or less.

NO-MM 2.2: The applicant shall plant a vegetated strip

along the northern section of the site to acoustically soften

the noise generated by the operation of the development.

NO-MM 2.3: The applicant shall place buildings in such a

way that reduces noise impacts. Applicant should refer to

the San Luis Obispo Noise Guideline.


Table ES-3: Class III Impacts - Impacts That Are Adverse But Less Than Significant


Less Than Significant Levels, But Recommended Measures

UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

UT Impact-1: The city has sufficient

water supplies available to serve the

project from existing entitlements and

resources, and the construction of the site

would have less than significant impacts.

UT-MM 1.1: The applicant shall implement water

conservation best management practices including:

selection of drought-tolerant, low water-consuming plant

varieties and use of high-quality, low-flow toilets, urinals,

and faucets.

UT-MM 1.2: Consistent with Ahwahnee Water Principles

and the City’s General Plan, Conservation and Open Space

Element, Policy 10.2.2, the applicant shall design all

irrigation and water utilities infrastructure for compatibility

with on-site use of recycled water.

UT-MM 1.3: The applicant shall install water-efficient

plumbing fixtures (ultra low-flow toilets and urinals,

waterless urinals, low-flow and sensored sinks, low-flow

showerheads, and water-efficient dishwashers and washing

machines) in all proposed uses within the site.

UT Impact-2: The city is required to

support all wastewater that is generated

within the City limits. The project even if

the wastewater generated exceeds the

wastewater treatment facility thresholds.

Therefore, the projects impacts will be less

than significant.

UT-MM 2.1: Consistent with Policy B 2.2.4 in the Water

and Wastewater Element of the San Luis Obispo General

Plan (2010), the development shall pay its proportionate or

fair share of expanded treatment and collection system

capacity and upgrades.

1.5 PURPOSE AND LEGAL AUTHORITY

This Initial Study was prepared in accordance with the Guidelines for Implementation of the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), published by the Resources Agency of the State of California

(Title 14, California Code of Regulations 15000 et. seq.), and the City of San Luis Obispo’s

procedures for implementing CEQA. Per Section 21067 of CEQA and Sections 15367 and 15050

through 15053 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the City of San Luis Obispo is the Lead Agency under

whose authority this document has been prepared. The IS is intended to provide information to public

agencies, decision- makers, and the general public regarding environmental impacts, if any, that would

result from implementation of the Bella Vista Development Project. The purpose of the IS is to

identify significant effects of this project on the environment, to indicate mitigation measures in which


significant effects can be mitigated or avoided, and to identify alternatives, if any, to the proposed

Bella Vista Development Project.

The environmental review process was established to enable public agencies to evaluate a project in

terms of its environmental consequences, to examine and implement methods of eliminating or reducing

any potentially adverse impacts, and to consider alternatives to the project. While CEQA Section

15021(a) requires that major consideration be given to avoiding environmental damage where feasible,

the Lead Agency and other responsible public agencies must balance adverse environmental effects

against other public objectives, including social and economic goals, in determining whether and in what

manner a project should be approved.

1.6 ORGANIZATION OF THE INITIAL STUDY

This IS is organized into five sections. Section 1.0, Introduction, summarizes the background of the

proposed project and provides an explanation of the environmental review process. Existing

environmental conditions and projects characterizes, significance thresholds, specific project impacts,

and mitigation measures are detailed in Section 2.0, Environmental Impact Analysis and Mitigation

Measures. Documents used as a basis of information for preparing the IS are identified in Section 3.0,

References. Section 4.0, List of Appendices, highlights additional data that was utilized for preparing

the IS. Section 5.0, List of Figures, documents additional information needed to better understand this

report. Due to the constraints of this class project, this IS does not address all impact areas within the

Bella Vista Development Project. In addition, this IS does not discuss any mitigation monitoring

programs for this Project.


City of San Luis Obispo

1.7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL

CHECKLIST FORM For ER #2014-1

1. Project Title:

Bella Vista

2. Lead Agency Name and Address:

City of San Luis Obispo

919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805)

781-7170

3. Contact Person and Phone Number:

Mike Gibbons

(123) 456-7891

4. Project Location:

Broad Street (Highway 227) at the eastern edge of the City of San Luis Obispo. APN

053-231-035

Reference Figure

5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:

Entertainment 720

Pawnee, IN

6. General Plan Designation:

Open Space (O)

7. Zoning:

Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)


8. Description of the Project:

The Bella Vista community creates a village that mixes retail, office, and residential uses in a

sustainable, walkable, small-town form. The project has a total of 186 multi-family units (high &

medium density) and 12 single-family units. It also includes a clubhouse and pool as central

amenities. In addition to the residential elements, the project includes a total of 29,500 sq. ft. of

office space and 136,429 sq. ft. of retail. The project features a 1.51 acres of recreational land

and 7.53 acres of conservation/open space. The conversion of this site from degraded grazing

land to urban uses will provide the City of San Luis Obispo with needed housing and revenue

generating uses.

9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings:

The project site is an approximately 23.5-acre site located on the west side of Broad Street at the

eastern edge of the City of San Luis Obispo, California. The proposed site is bordered by open

space, to the north, agricultural grazing land to the west, and Broad Street commercial and

residential land uses to the south and east. The site is located at the southeastern edge of the San

Luis Obispo U.S.G.S. 7.5-minute quadrangle map in the southwestern corner of Section 1 (T. 31

S / R. 12E). Portions of Acacia and Orcutt creeks occur on the project site. Both onsite portions

of these creeks are highly degraded from years of cattle grazing and other agricultural land use

practices.

10. Other public agencies whose approval is required (e.g., permits, financing approval, or

participation agreement.):

Regional Water Quality Control Board

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Transportation

Army Corps of Engineers


Figure 1.7-1: Project Site


ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at

least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following

pages.

Aesthetics

--X--

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Population / Housing

Agriculture Resources

Hazards & Hazardous

Materials

Public Services

--X--

Air Quality

--X--

Hydrology / Water Quality

Recreation

Biological Resources

Land Use / Planning

Transportation / Traffic

Cultural Resources

Mineral Resources

--X--

Utilities / Service Systems

Geology / Soils

--X--

Noise

Mandatory Findings of

Significance

FISH AND GAME FEES

--X--

The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no

effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential

effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination).

The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the

payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and

Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish

and Game for review and comment.

STATE CLEARINGHOUSE

--X--

This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review

by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game,

Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall

not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)).


DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):

On the basis of this initial evaluation:

I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,

and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been

made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE

DECLARATION will be prepared.

I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.

--X--

I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially

significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has

been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached

sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the

effects that remain to be addressed

I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,

because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR

or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided

or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions

or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.

Signature Date

For: Derrick Johnson,

Printed Name Community Development Director


EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:

1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequat ely supported by the

information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is

adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects

like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained

where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive

receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).

2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as

project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.

3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must

indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.

"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there

are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.

4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of

mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."

The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than

significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-

referenced).

5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been

adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief

discussion should identify the following:

a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.

b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and

adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects

were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.

c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe

the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they

addressed site-specific conditions for the project.

6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts

(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where

appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.

7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other so urces used or individuals contacted

should be cited in the discussion.

8. The explanation of each issue should identify:

a) the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and

b) the mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance


Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources

ER #

Sources Potentially

Significant

Issues

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or

air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:

a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable

air quality plan?

b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an

existing or projected air quality violation? --X--

c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria

pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under

an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative

thresholds for ozone precursors)?

--X--

d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial

pollutant concentrations?

e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of

people?

2.1 AIR QUALITY

Question 3(b): Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected

air quality violation?

Question 3(c): Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the

project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard

(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)?

2.1.1 INTRODUCTION

Air quality is evaluated according to the concentration of pollutants in ambient air. The U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has established criteria to protect public health and welfare

for seven criteria pollutants including carbon monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), ozone (O3), sulfur

dioxide (SO2), 10-micron particulate matter (PM10), 2.5-micron particulate matter (PM2.5) and lead

(Pb). Other air pollutants of concern include toxic air contaminants (TACs) or hazardous air pollutants

(HAPs), in particular diesel particulate matter, generated from the operation of diesel engines (e.g.,

trains, equipment, truck, etc.).

Construction activities have the potential to generate a substantial amount of air pollution. The most

common construction activities include site preparation, earthmoving (including hauling of material),


paving of roadway surfaces, the erection of buildings and structures, and the application of

architectural coatings. Earthmoving activities may consist of grading, trenching, soil compaction, and

cut and fill operations. Site preparation includes activities such as general land clearing and grubbing.

Standard operational activities also contribute to the concentration of criteria pollutants in the

ambient air. Operational emissions are anticipated to occur continuously throughout the project’s

lifetime. Due to their long-term nature, operational emissions will continually contribute to the

criteria air pollutant (CAP) emissions inventory. CAPs and precursors of primary concern from

operational activities include emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG or VOC) and oxides of

nitrogen (NOx), particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 10 microns or less

(PM10), and fine particulate matter with an aerodynamic resistance diameter of 2.5 microns or less

(PM2.5).

2.1.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS & PROJECT CHARACTERISTICS

The project site currently consists of non-native grassland and is zoned as open space and is not in use.

Therefore, the site does not contribute to the concentration of criteria pollutants in the ambient air. The

Bella Vista project would convert about 16 acres of unused land to urban uses, which includes single-

family and multi-family housing, retail spaces, offices, and recreation areas.

Potential emissions generated from construction activities may include:

Exhaust emissions of particulate matter (PM) and oxides of nitrogen (NOX) from fuel

combustion for mobile heavy-duty diesel and gasoline-powered equipment, portable

auxiliary equipment, material delivery trucks, and worker commute trips;

Fugitive PM dust from soil disturbance and demolition

activity;

Evaporative emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG or VOC) from paving activity

and the application of architectural coatings.

Potential emissions generated from standard operational activities may include:

Motor vehicle trips generated by the particular land use (i.e., vehicles arriving and leaving

the project site), including those by residents, shoppers, workers, and vendors;

Fuel combustion from landscape maintenance equipment;


Natural gas combustion emissions used for space and water heating;

Hearth fuel combustion emissions from residential fireplaces and wood stoves;

Evaporative emissions of ROG associated with the use of consumer products; and

Evaporative emissions of ROG from application of architectural coatings as part of building

maintenance.

2.1.3 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLD & REGULATORY STANDARDS

Construction emission thresholds for San Luis Obispo County have been set by the San Luis Obispo’s

County Air Pollution Control District(APCD) (2003) and can be seen in Table 2.1.3-1. The City of San

Luis Obispo falls within the jurisdiction of the County of San Luis Obispo APCD. Federal air quality

standards within the jurisdiction of the County of San Luis Obispo APCD have been attained; however,

the County is a nonattainment area for the State standard for PM10 and O3.

Table 2.1.3-1: Level of Construction Activity Requiring Mitigation

Pollutant of Concern

Emissions Amount of Material Moved

Tons/Qtr Lbs/day Cu. Yd/Qtr Cu. Yd/Day

ROG 2.5 185 400,000 15,000

6 -- 970,000 --

NOx 2.5 185 50,000 2,000

6 -- 125,000 --

PM10 Any project with a grading area greater than 4.0 acres of

continuously worked are will exceed the 2.5 tons PM 10

quarterly threshold.

Notes: All calculations assume working conditions of 8 hours per day, 5 days per week, for a total of 65 days per quarter Source: County of San Luis Obispo APCD 2003


Table 2.1.3-2: Significance Thresholds for Operational Emissions

Level ROG NOx SO2 PM10

Insignificant (ND) <10 lbs/day <10 lbs/day <10 lbs/day <10 lbs/day

Potentially Significant Tier 1

10 lbs/day

10 lbs/day

10 lbs/day

10 lbs/day

Significant Tier 2

25 lbs/day

25 lbs/day

25 lbs/day

25 lbs/day

Significant Tier 3

25 tons/year

25 tons/year

25 tons/year

25 tons/year

Source: County of San Luis Obispo APCD 2003

If construction-related emissions of the proposed project equal or exceed any of the thresholds seen in

Table 2.1.3-1, mitigation of construction activities and implementation of Best Available Control

Technology (BACT) are required. The San Luis Obispo County APCD (2003) has adopted a tiered

system for assessing the significance of a project’s air quality impact, as shown in Table 2.1.3-1 and

2.1.3-2. When project emissions of ROGs, NOx, SO2, and PM10 are below 10 pounds per day and CO

emissions are less than 550 pounds per day, impacts are considered less than significant. Emissions that

exceed these amounts are considered potentially significant, or significant based on the amount, and

require different levels of environmental review.

2.1.4 IMPACT ANALYSIS

Using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod) staff was able to project the air quality

impact the proposed Bella Vista project would cause.

Construction Emissions

Construction emissions were calculated for the building construction phase (Table 2.1.4-1). Emissions

are projected to be highest in year 2017 of the construction phase due to the greatest amount of heavy-

duty diesel equipment. Emissions were calculated based on equipment list and composite emissions

factors, along with the duration of each phase. Calculations were completed using California Emissions

Estimator Model (CalEEMod) Version 2013.2.2.


Table 2.1.4-1: Overall Construction Emissions (Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Year ROG NOx CO SO2 PM10

2017 6.1808 69.7188 47.9103 0.0692 20.9997

2018 976.4141 27.5559 33.9126 0.0554 3.6575

Total 982.5949 97.2747 81.8229 0.1246 24.6572

Tier I (lbs/day) 10 10 -- 10 10

Tier II (lbs/day) 25 25 550 25 25

Tier III (tons/year) 25 25 -- 25 25

Significant YES YES NO NO Potentially

Notes: Emissions (lb/day) are estimated as for an annual scenario. Emissions (tons/year) are from annual emissions as

calculated by CalEEMod

APCD Thresholds: Tier 1 = Potentially Significant, Tier 2 = Significant, Tier 3 = Significant, Less than Tier 1 =

Insignificant

Some of the projected emissions for the proposed project were found to be above the Insignificant

threshold as specified by APCD. During 2017, ROG emissions (6.1808 lb/day) are predicted to be less

than Tier 1 meaning that the emissions are insignificant. However, in 2018 the ROG emissions rise to

976.4141 lb/day, well exceeding the Tier 3 threshold. Combined, 2017 and 2018 ROG emissions would

have significant impacts with or without mitigation. During 2017 and 2018, NOx emissions are

calculated to exceed Tier 3. Standard APCD-recommended conditions at the project site would

minimize construction-related air quality impacts; however, these impacts would remain significant and

unavoidable, even after mitigation measures.

It was determined that CO, SO2, and PM10 emissions are projected to be less than the APCD significance

levels that require mitigation. CO and SO2 emissions are less than the Tier 1 threshold levels and

therefore are insignificant. PM10 emissions are projected to be at Tier 2 in 2017 at the start of

construction, but then fall to less than Tier 1 in 2018 nearing the end of construction. Total PM10

emissions of 24.6572 lb/day are projected to reach Tier 2 levels and be deemed potentially significant

and will require further environmental review.


Operational Emissions

Based on calculations due to the vehicular trips, deliveries, and operation of large retail stores, the

proposed project would exceed the APCD’s Tier 3 significance thresholds, and thereby require

mitigation measures to reduce impacts. Long-term, project-specific emissions, or operational emissions,

associated with the proposed project, as shown in Table 2.1.4-2, comprise the combined total of vehicle

emissions (based on vehicle trips generated) and area source emissions (painting, natural gas usage, etc).

Table 2.1.4-3 shows operational emissions implementation of some mitigation measures, including

supporting alternative transportation methods for accessing the project site. CalEEMod Version

2013.2.2. was used to calculate vehicle emissions associated with the proposed project, based on the

number of vehicle trips that could be generated by each land use type.

Table 2.1.4-2: Overall Operational Emissions (Unmitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Emission Sources ROG NOx C

O

SO2 PM10

Area 20.1288 0.1911 16.468 8.60E-04 0.0899

Energy 0.0881 0.7665 0.4206 4.81E-03 0.0609

Mobile 27.6883 52.6014 233.281 0.3641 26.3367

Total 47.9052 53.559 250.1696 0.3698 26.4875

Tier I (lbs/day) 10 10 50 10 10

Tier II (lbs/day) 25 25 550 25 25

Tier III (tons/year) -- -- -- -- --

Significant YES YES Potentially NO Potentially


calculated by CalEEMod.

APCD Thresholds: Tier 1 = Potentially Significant, Tier 2 = Significant, Tier 3 = Significant, Less than Tier 1 =

Insignificant

Area source emissions are generated from the use of natural gas for heating, cooling, cooking, etc. as

well as other activities and were estimated using CalEEMod. As shown in Table 2.1.4-2, area source

emissions for the project site are considered significant based on APCD thresholds (>10 lbs/day) even

when mitigation measures are implemented. Cumulatively, these emissions add to the overall

operational emissions at the site. Mitigation measures recommended below are to be used in addition to


the mitigation measures already taken into account in Table 2.1.4-3. These measures would further

reduce area source emissions associated with the proposed project. However, the emissions that

would result in development of the site would remain significant even with mitigation measures

implemented.

Table 2.1.4-3: Overall Operational Emissions (Mitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Emission Sources ROG NOx C

O

SO2 PM10

Area 19.0617 0.1911 16.468 8.60E-04 0.0899

Energy 0.0769 0.6687 0.3648 4.81E-03 0.0531

Mobile 26.6853 45.955 213.4957 0.3641 21.9581

Total 45.8239 46.8148 230.3285 0.3698 22.1011

Tier I (lbs/day) 10 10 50 10 10

Tier II (lbs/day) 25 25 550 25 25

Tier III (tons/year) -- -- -

-

-- -

- Significant YES YES Potentially NO Potentially


calculated by CalEEMod. APCD Thresholds: Tier 1 = Potentially Significant, Tier 2 = Significant, Tier 3 = Significant, Less than Tier 1 =

Insignificant

AQ Impact-1: During the construction phase of the project, ROG and NOX projected emissions well

exceed the APCD Tier 3 emission standards and are considered potentially

significant.

AQ Impact-2: During the construction phase of the project, PM10 levels are projected to be

24.6572 lb/day. This level of emissions would put the PM10 emissions generated on

site at the APCD Tier 1 thresholds and are considered potentially significant.

AQ Impact-3: During standard operation, the overall ROG and NOX emissions would exceed APCD

Tier 2 significance threshold of 25 lb/day. Since APCD establishes this as the

threshold of significance, the impact is considered to be potentially significant.

AQ Impact-4: During standard operation, the overall CO emissions would exceed APCD Tier 2

significance threshold of 50 lb/day. Since APCD establishes this as the threshold of

significance, the impact is considered to be potentially significant.


AQ Impact-5: During standard operation, the overall PM10 emissions would exceed APCD Tier 1

significance threshold of 10 lb/day. Since APCD establishes this as the threshold of

significance, the impact is considered to be potentially significant.

2.1.5 MITIGATION MEASURES

AQ-MM 1.1: On- and off-road diesel equipment shall not be allowed to idle for more than three

minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas to remind drivers

and operators of the three-minute idling limit.

AQ-MM 1.2: Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours (as determined by the Public

Works Director) to reduce peak hour emissions. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR,

2009)

AQ-MM 1.3: Even if APCD construction thresholds are exceeded after implementation of all

feasible emission reduction technologies, The City of San Luis Obispo shall

work with APCD to determine the appropriate level of mitigation and shall

consider the implementation of Air Quality enhancing projects or the payment

of mitigation fees towards such projects. (Chinatown Project Addendum EIR,

2009)

AQ-MM 1.4: On site vehicle speeds shall be 15 miles per hour (mph) or less. (Prefumo Creek

Commons Final EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 2.1: Water trucks or sprinkler trucks shall be used during construction to keep all

areas of vehicle movement damp enough to prevent dust from leaving the site.

All dirt pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed. Increased watering

frequency would be required when wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour (mph).

Reclaimed water (non-potable) shall be used when possible. (Chinatown Project

Addendum EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 2.2: All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or

shall maintain at least two feet of freeboard in accordance with the California

vehicle Code Section 23114.


AQ-MM 2.3: Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. (Richmond-

Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project IS/ Mtigated NegDec, 2011)

AQ-MM 2.4: All PM10 mitigation measures required shall be shown on grading and building

plans. In addition, the contractor or building should designate a person(s) to

monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering as necessary, to

prevent of dust off site. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 3.1: Limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery and construction

vehicles. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)\

AQ-MM3.2: Provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool, use public transportation,

telecommute, walk, bike, etc. by implementing the Transportation Choices

Program. The applicant shall Contact SLO Regional Rideshare at (805) 541-2277

to receive free consulting services on how to start and maintain a program.

Further, priority parking shall be signed for car-and van-pooling employees.

(Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 4.1: Use roof material with a solar reflectance value meeting the Environmental

Protection Agency/Department of Energy Star® rating to reduce summer cooling

needs. (Chinatown Project Addendum EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 4.2: The applicant shall ensure building energy efficiency ratings exceed Title 24

requirements by a minimum of 15 percent. This can be accomplished in a number

of ways (increasing attic, wall, or floor insulation, installing double pane

windows, etc.). (Chinatown Project Addendum EIR, 2009)

AQ-MM 4.3: Energy efficient interior lighting shall be installed, where feasible.

(Richmond- Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project IS/ Mtigated NegDec,

2011)

AQ-MM 5.1: All roads shall incorporate bike lanes no less than 4-feet wide.

AQ-MM 5.2: The applicant shall work with San Luis Obispo Transit to construct a minimum of two

bus stops within the project site.


2.2 GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS


ER #

Sources Potentially

Significant

Issues

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,

that may have a significant impact on the environment? --X--

b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for

the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? --X--

Question 7(a): Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may

have a significant impact on the environment?

Question 7(b): Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the

purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?

2.2.1 INTRODUCTION

Unlike emissions of criteria and toxic air pollutants, which have local or regional impacts,

emissions of greenhouse gases (GHGs) that contribute to global climate change have a broader

global impact. Global climate change is a process whereby GHGs accumulating in the atmosphere

contribute to an increase in the temperature of the earth’s atmosphere. The principal GHGs

contributing to global climate change are carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide

(N2O), and fluorinated compounds. These gases allow visible and ultraviolet light from the sun to

pass through the atmosphere, but they prevent heat from escaping back out into space.

Global Climate change could potentially affect other resource areas, including hydrological

resources, economical resources and biological resources. Projected impacts to the region caused by

global climate change include: potential decreases in water supply and surface water quality;

possible long-term decreases in groundwater yields; changes in coastal water quality; rising sea

levels; increased flooding and fire events; declines in aquatic ecosystem health; lowered profitability

for water-intensive crops; changes in species and habitat distribution; and impacts to fisheries

(California Regional Assessment Group 2002). Like most criteria and toxic air pollutants, much of

the GHG production comes from motor vehicles. GHG emissions can be reduced to some degree by

improved coordination of land use and transportation planning on the city, county and sub-regional


level, and other measures to reduce automobile use. Energy conservation measures can contribute to

reductions in GHG emissions.


San Luis Obispo County’s climate can generally be characterized as Mediterranean, with warm dry

summers and cooler, relatively damp winters. Inland areas typically experience a wider range of

temperatures than on the coast, mainly due to the separation of regions by transformation in terrain,

such as the coastal mountain ranges. Maximum temperatures in the summer in coastal areas average

about 70 degrees Fahrenheit, while temperatures in the high 90s are typical in the inland valleys

(Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009). Average minimum winter temperatures range from the

low 30s along the coast to the low 20s inland.

The project site does not produce any GHG emissions currently being that it is vacant and not in use.

Many of the land uses the applicant is proposing will generate vehicle trips to and from the site

(commercial, office, residential). The increase in amount of vehicle trips will increase GHG

emissions that could exceed the amount considered potentially significant.

2.2.3 SIGNIFICANCE THRESHOLDS & REGULATORY STANDARDS

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) is responsible for the control of vehicle emission

sources. The California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (AB 32) requires the CARB to adopt

regulations to evaluate statewide GHG emissions, and then create a program and emission caps to

limit statewide emissions to 1990 levels. The program is to be adopted by 2012, and implemented in a

manner achieving emissions compliance by 2020. AB 32 does not directly amend the California

Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) or other environmental laws.

The County of San Luis Obispo APCD adopted the CAP in January 1992; the Plan was updated in

1998, and again in 2001. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce

emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. The

purpose of the County’s CAP is to address the attainment and maintenance of State and federal ambient

air quality standards by following a comprehensive set of emission control measures within the Plan.


Per the County’s CAP, jurisdictions thresholds should be consistent with AB 32 and State CEQA

Guidelines Section 15183.5, and include requirements or feasible measures to reduce its GHG

emissions to 1990 levels or 15% below 2008 emission levels. Therefore, the CAP threshold for GHG

emissions shall be 4.9 MT CO2e Service Population Efficiency Threshold. If required mitigation

cannot bring a project below either threshold requirement, the project would be found cumulatively

significant and could be approved only with a Statement of Overriding Considerations and a showing

that all feasible mitigation measures have been implemented.


CalEEMod was used to calculate GHG emissions, in the form of CO2, as recommended by the Office

of Planning and Research’s (OPR’s) CEQA and Climate Change document 3.3 AIR QUALITY

Prefumo Creek Commons Project 3.3-13 Final EIR (June 2008), and the California Air Pollution

Control Officers Association (CAPCOA) white paper CEQA and Climate Change (January 2008).

CalEEMod uses land use type, floor surface area of use, and projected population to calculate CO2

emissions (Table 2.2.4-1). In addition, the software calculates methane, which is converted to CO2e

equivalents, as well as area source emissions from energy use and vehicles. It also estimates impacts

of mitigation options. Unmitigated greenhouse gas emissions from both construction and operation of

the proposed project, including area and vehicle sources, as calculated by CalEEMod, are shown in

Tables 2.2.4-2 and 2.2.4-3. Mitigated greenhouse gas emissions for operation of the proposed project,

as calculated by CalEEMod, are shown in Table 2.2.4-4. With the projected total service population

(Table 2.2.4-1), and unmitigated/mitigated CO2e emissions (Tables 2.2.4-2, 2.2.4-3, and 2.2.4-4), the

total emissions per service population was calculated for the project without mitigation and with

mitigation. The total Unmitigated Emissions per Service Population as calculated in Table 2.2.4-5 is

8.2 MT/yr CO2e. As stated in the County’s CAP, the threshold for. CO2e is 4.9 MT/yr CO2e. The

project without mitigation would be 3.3 MT CO2e over the threshold. The total Mitigated Emissions

per Service Population as calculated in Table 2.2.4-6 is 6.9 MT/yr CO2e. The project with mitigation

is 2 MT/yr CO2e over the threshold.


Table 2.2.4-1: Project Characteristics/Service Population

Land Uses Size Metric Lot Acreage Floor Surface Area Population

Strip Mall 136.43 1000 sq. ft. 2.09 136,429.00 57

Apartments Mid Rise 111.00 Dwelling Unit 4.62 241,732.72 317

Apartments Low Rise 75.00 Dwelling Unit 4.18 218,310.00 215

General Office Building 29.50 1000 sq. ft. 0.56 29,500.00 12

Single Famiy Housing 12.00 Dwelling Unit 0.94 40,952.55 34

Total Service Population 635

Notes: SLO APCD GHG Thresholds and Supporting Evidence Table 10. Calculated using CalEEMod and SLO APCD GHG

Thresholds and supporting Evidence Appendix 4.

Table 2.2.4-2: Overall Construction GHG Emissions (Unmitigated and Mitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Year Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

2017 0.00 6,485.90 6,485.90 1.94 0.00 6,526.72

2018 0.00 4,976.57 4,976.57 0.72 0.00 4,991.86

Total 0.00 11,462.47 11,462.47 2.66 0.00 11,518.58

Notes: Emissions (lb/day) are estimated as for an annual scenario as calculated by CalEEMod.

Table 2.2.4-3: Overall Operational GHG Emissions (Unmitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Emission

Sources

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Area 0.00 29.44 29.44 0.02 0.00 30.06

Energy -- 961.11 961.11 0.01 0.01 966.96

Mobile -- 30,199.30 30,199.30 1.34 -- 30,227.61

Total 0.00 31,189.85 31,189.85 1.37 0.01 31,224.63



Table 2.2.4-4: Overall Operational GHG Emissions (Mitigated)

Emissions (lb/day)

Emission

Sources

Bio- CO2 NBio-CO2 Total CO2 CH4 N2O CO2e

Area 0.00 29.44 29.44 0.02 0.00 30.06

Energy -- 838.82 838.82 0.01 0.01 843.92

Mobile -- 25,428.15 25,428.15 1.16 -- 25,452.65

Tota

l

0.00 26,296.41 26,296.41 1.19 0.01 26,326.63


Table 2.2.4-5: Unmitigated Emissions per Service Population (CO2e)

Unmitigated Construction (MT/yr) 38.12

Unmitigated Operational (MT/yr) 5,169.00

Total Unmitigated Emissions (MT/yr) 5,201.12

Emissions per service population 8.2

Notes: Emissions and service population based on CO2e totals from CalEEMod. Total emissions were converted from lbs/day

to MT/yr.

Table 2.2.4-6: Mitigated Emissions per Service Population (CO2e)

Unmitigated Construction (MT/yr) 38.12

Unmitigated Operational (MT/yr) 4,358.00

Total Unmitigated Emissions (MT/yr) 4,396,012.00

Emissions per service population 6.9

Notes: Emissions and service population based on CO2e totals from CalEEMod. Total emissions were converted from lbs/day

to MT/yr.

Development of the proposed project would result in GHG emissions that exceed the County’s CAP

threshold (4.9 MT/yr). Even with the implementation of some mitigation measures, the proposed

development will exceed the threshold by 2 Mt/yr Co2e. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GHG-

MM 1.1 through GHG-MM 2.3 could potentially bring the projected Co2e emissions down below the

CAP threshold.

GHG Impact-1: Implementation of the proposed project would result in potentially significant

impact to global climate change from the emissions of greenhouse gases.


GHG Impact-2: The proposed project is potentially inconsistent with the County of San Luis Obispo

APCD’s Clean Air Plan.


GHG-MM 1.1: The applicant shall provide incentives to employees to carpool/vanpool, use public

transportation, telecommute, walk, bike, etc. by implementing the Transportation

Choices Program. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)

GHG-MM 1.2: The applicant shall limit idling time for commercial vehicles, including delivery

and construction vehicles. (OPR 2008)

GHG-MM 1.3: Plant trees and vegetation near structures to shade buildings and reduce

energy requirements for heating/cooling. (OPR 2008)

GHG-MM 2.1: Provide on-site bicycle parking consistent with City General Circulation Element

Policy 3.4 and ordinance requirements. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)

GHG-MM 2.2: Unless not feasible due to the installation of solar panels or other features designed

to reduce area source emissions, skylights and windows designed to increase natural

light shall be installed in each building. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)

GHG-MM 2.3: Biodiesel shall be used as an alternative fuel to diesel for at least 15 percent of the

construction vehicles/equipment used if there is a biodiesel station within 5 miles of the

project site. (Richmons- Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project IS/ Mtigated NegDec,

2011)



ER #

Sources Potentially

Significant

Issues

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge

requirements?

b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere

substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be

a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local

groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing

nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support

existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been

granted)?

c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or

area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or

siltation on or off site?

d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or

area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or

river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface

runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?

--X--

e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the

capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or

provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?

f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on

a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map

or other flood hazard delineation map?

--X--

h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which

would impede or redirect flood flows?

i) Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or

death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the

failure of a levee or dam?

j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?

2.3 HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY

Question 9(d): Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including

through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or

amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?

Question 9(g): Place housing within the 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on federal Flood

Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map?


2.3.1 INTRODUCTION

Water Runoff:

When precipitation falls over the land, it follows various routes. Some of it evaporates, returning to

the atmosphere, some seeps into the ground, and the remainder becomes surface water, traveling to

oceans and lakes by way of rivers and streams. Impervious surfaces associated with urbanization alter

the natural amount of water that takes each route. Impervious covers are defined as surfaces that do

not allow water to penetrate the soil, such as rooftops, driveways, streets, and parking lots. The

consequences of this change are a decrease in the volume of water that percolates into the ground, and

a resulting increase in volume and decrease in quality of surface water (Impacts of Impervious Cover,

2003). These hydrological changes have significant implications for the quantity of fresh, clean water

that is available for use by humans, fish and wildlife.

Natural, undeveloped lands consisting of trees, brush, and other vegetation break the momentum of

rainwater runoff and reduces surface erosion. Developed lands consisting of rooftops, parking lots,

and streets collect storm water and channel it into waterways and creeks. The larger volume, velocity

and duration of flow change the shape of stream banks, intensifying the erosion and sediment transport

from the landscape and stream banks (Hollis, 1975 p. 433). This often causes channel erosion, clogged

stream channels, and habitat damage. Channelized rivers and streams exhibit similar problems

accommodating large peak runoff volumes and supporting aquatic ecosystems.

The introduction of impervious cover can have the following effects (Hollis, 1975 p. 433):

Excessive stream channel erosion (bed and bank)

Reduced groundwater recharge

Increased size and frequency of flooding

Decreased movement of groundwater to surface water

Loss of streambank tree cover

Increased fine sediment in stream bed

Overall degradation of the aquatic habitat


Increased impervious cover associated with urbanization alters the natural cycling of water. Changes in

the shape and size of urban streams, followed by decreased water quality, are the most visible effects of

increased imperviousness (Chester & Gibbons, 1996, p. 255). Greater frequency and severity of

flooding, channel erosion, and destruction of aquatic habitat commonly follow watershed urbanization.

Alterations in the aquatic environment associated with these hydrological changes greatly compromise

the normal functioning of our waterways.

Flood Risk

Flood zone mapping and drainage improvements are based on the probability of a certain amount of

rain to fall within a particular time frame, usually 24 hours. From rainfall gage records, the size of a

storm that has a one percent probability of occurring in any one year within a particular watershed can

be calculated. A storm with this probability is often referred to as the “100-year storm” since at least

one such storm would be expected to occur in a 100-year period, and the associated overflow termed

the “100-year flood.” Similarly, a storm that has a four percent probability of occurring in any one year

is referred to as the “25-year storm,” and flows from this storm are called Q25 flows or 25-year floods.



According to the Safety Element of the General Plan, average seasonal precipitation in the City of San

Luis Obispo is 22 inches. The project site has two creeks—Orcutt and Acacia—that generally flow

north to south across the site with an average slope of just over one percent (1%) (see Figure 2.3.2-1).

These creeks drain to an upstream area that is primarily urbanized and flow downstream through

mostly undeveloped areas, eventually connecting to San Luis Obispo Creek. The project site is mostly

non-native grassland and was historically used for cattle grazing. Approximately three-fourth of the

soils on the site are Cropley Clay; this soil is designated as “moderate” for erodibility and has a K

factor of 0.15 (NRCS, Web Soil Survey, 2010). All proposed development for the project are

proposed to be constructed on the Cropley Clay.


The proposed project is offering a mixture of uses that will add impervious services to the site. Table

2.3.2-1 shows the square-footage of each land use and provides a total amount of impervious services

that will be added to the site due to development.

Table 2.3.2-1: Projected Impervious Services Added to Site from Development

Land Use

Total Square

Footage

Acres

Percent Lot

Coverage

Total Buildable

Square Footage

Square Footage

Dedicated to Roads

and Sidewalks

Community

Commercial (C-C)

90,952.70

2.09

75%

68,214.52

27,285.81

Office (O) 24,583.90 0.56 60% 14,750.34 7,375.17

Medium Density

Residential (R-2)

40,952.55

0.94

50%

20,476.27

12,285.77

Medium-High

Density Residential

(R-3)

181,925.50

4.18

60%

109,155.30

54,577.65

High Density

Residential (R-4)

201,443.94

4.62

60%

120,866.36

60,433.18

Total 539,858.59 12.39 -- 333,462.79 161,957.58

Total Impervious Service Added 48.40% 495,420.37

Notes: Maximum lot coverage from March 2015 San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations. "Square Footage Dedicated to Roads

and Sidewalks" estimated assuming that 30% of the total square footage per use would be dedicated to roads and sidewalks.


This page is intentionally left blank


Figure 2.3.2-1: Base Map with Existing Creeks


Flood Risk

The creeks located on site—Acacia and Orcutt—run through the center of the site at a gradual slope.

The project development site is relatively flat, with topography gently sloping southeasterly away from

the South Hills Open Space at a slope of approximately 0.5-1 percent. The Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) are used to determine the flooding

hazard along waterways. Using FEMA flood maps it was determined that a portion of the project site

lies within the 100-year flood area (Figure 2.3.3-1). The 100-year flooding over the project site stems

from the overbank flows of Acacia Creek.


Water Runoff

According to the San Luis Obispo Creek Drainage Design Manual, Volume III (2003), Section 3.3 off-

Site Facility Analysis, Design, and Mitigation:

Runoff shall be managed to prevent any significant increase in downstream peak flows,

including 2-year, 10-year, 50-year, and 100-year events. Significant generally means an

increase of over 5 percent at and immediately downstream of the project site, but must be

determined on a site-specific basis, considering capacity of downstream hydraulic

structures, any increase in flood water surface SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual 11

February 2003 elevations, and existing channel stability. Cumulative hydrologic impacts

shall also be considered (p. 10).

Flood Risk

Flood Hazard policy in the City of San Luis Obispo is directed by the Safety Element of the

General Plan and by the City Waterway Management Program (WMP) per CC Resolution No.

9494 (2003). The WMP incorporates three volumes: the WMP, the Drainage Design Manual,

and the Stream Management and Maintenance Program. Under the General Plan. Any property

within the FEMA or FIRM defined 100-year flood zone is considered as having a hazard

potential requiring specified controls or protective measures. The City of San Luis Obispo’s


Figure 2.3.3-1: FEMA 100-year Floodplain


Floodplain Management Regulations require that all building pads within a 100-year flood zone be raised

at least one foot above the specified 100-year flood elevation. The regulations also state that,

cumulatively, developments will not displace floodwater sufficient to raise the flood elevation more than

1 foot at any point, without causing damage to any off-site properties. The floodplain management

policies in the Drainage Design Manuel are more restrictive and generally require that fill placed on

floodplains be managed so that there is no adverse impact in terms of flooding or bank stability. These

are referred to as the “Managed Fill” and “No Adverse Impact” policies of the DDM. The DDM also

requires applicants that create adverse hydrologic impacts to fully mitigate them (Prefumo Creek

Commons Final EIR, p. 3.5-12, 2009).

The San Luis Obispo County Flood Control and Irrigation District provides for control, disposition and

distribution of flood and storm waters of the district and of streams flowing into the district and for

protection of the watersheds and watercourses in the district from such waters. Section 22.05.040 of the

San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance establishes the County’s standards for the control of

drainage to minimize the harmful effects of stormwater runoff. However, incorporated cities within the

County have their own responsibilities with regard to drainage and flood control. County restrictions on

development in floodplains require that incorporated cities, at a minimum, enforce the current federal

floodplain management regulations as defined in the FEMA NFIP. The City of San Luis Obispo’s

standards regarding areas located within or near the 100-year floodplain are outlined in Chapter 17.84

of the City Municipal Code, which is based on FEMA NFIP requirements. For structures within the

100- year floodplain, the code requires either the implementation of structural accommodations,

namely limiting construction to at least one foot above floodplain elevation, or the addition of flood-

proofing measures to the structure. (Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) National Flood

Insurance Program (NFIP)/Floodplain Management Regulation. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal

Code, Chapter 17.84).



Water Runoff

The project is proposing a mixture of land uses that range from single-family, multi-family, general

office, recreation, commercial, and open space. The Rational Method (Figure 2.3.4-1) for determining

storm water runoff was used to calculate the peak runoff for the site.

Figure 2.3.4-1: Rational Method Equation

Using this storm water runoff method, staff determined that there was a projected 12 percent increase in

storm water runoff after development of the site occurred (Table 2.3.4-1). To calculate the pre and post

development run-off projections, the intensity variable was taken from Table 2.3.4-2 with a 15 minute

rainfall duration.

To calculate the pre and post development run-off projections, the coefficient for all years was sourced

from Table 2.3.4-3 with 2-10% for overall site slope. According to the level of significance as specified

by the SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual, the post development runoff would be seven percent higher

than the threshold of five percent. With this findings, it can be determined that there would be a

significant impact on the downstream water runoff due to the development. Flooding impacts could

occur due to a combination of factors, including: (1) the increase in the amount of impervious surfaces

on the site, and (2) the loss of floodplain storage resulting from the import of fill to construct the

project. Each of these factors is discussed below.


Table 2.3.4-1: Projected Runoff from Project Site

Storm Recurrence

Interval

PROJECT SITE ONLY

Existing Conditions Peak

Runoff Rate (cfs)

Proposed Conditions Peak

Runoff Rate (cfs)

Increase in Peak

Runoff Rates

cfs %

2 18.45574 20.70086 2.245124 12

10 30.4922 34.20154 3.709342 12

50 39.72007 44.55197 4.831904 12

100 43.73219 49.05216 5.319972 12

Table 2.3.4-2: Rainfall Intensity (mm/hr). Areas With 550 mm to 700 mm Annual Rainfall

Recurrence Interval (years)

Duration

10 min

15 min

30 min

1 hr

2 hrs

3 hrs

6 hrs

10 hrs

2 53 46 30 19 14 12 9.1 7.1

5 74 64 43 27 19 17 13 10

10 91 76 53 33 23 21 16 12

25 102 89 61 38 28 25 20 15

50 117 99 66 43 33 29 23 18

100 127 109 74 47 35 31 25 19

Increased Impervious Surfaces:

The proposed project would increase the impermeable surface of the project site property compared to

current conditions. The project site is currently comprised entirely of pervious surfaces (grass land). The

proposed components of the project would add impervious surfaces such as large commercial structures,

parking lots, roads, walkways, and other paved areas to the site. These surfaces would increase the

amount of runoff following storm events.

Reduced Floodplain Storage:

Floodplains provide surface area and storage capacity for flood flows that overtop the banks of the

creek. This storage area attenuates flood peaks. When such areas are reduced, peak flows downstream

are impacted. Floodwaters currently stored on site would be displaced by fill placement, and the

displaced water volume would enter Orcutt and Acacia Creeks, potentially increasing downstream peak

flows, water velocities, and flood water surface elevations (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR, 2009)


Development of the proposed project would result in a small increase in the amount of impervious

surface area and a small increase in rate and volume of storm water runoff from the site (seven percent).

Implementation of Mitigation Measures HWQ-MM 1.1 through HWQ-MM 1.3 would ensure regulatory

compliance and reduce potential storm water impacts to less than significant levels.

Flood Risk

Housing units, including R-2, R-3, and R-4, were placed outside of the FEMA designated 100-year

floodplain. Land uses within the 100-year floodplain are Recreation and Conservation/Open Space,

therefore, there is no impact. See Figure 2.3.4-2.

Table 2.3.4-3: Run-off Coefficients for Sloped by Land Use

Type of Developments

Hydrologic Soil

Group

Run-off Coefficients for

Slopes

<2% 2-10% >10%

Single-Family Residential Lots 20,000 sq. ft. D 0.40 0.45 0.55

C 0.30 0.40 0.50

10,000 sq. ft. D 0.40 0.50 0.60

C 0.35 0.40 0.50

6,000 sq. ft. D 0.50 0.60 0.65

C 0.45 0.50 0.60

Moderate Vegetation (grasslands with trees &

brush) D 0.25 0.35 0.45

C 0.25 0.30 0.35

Sparse Vegetation (grasslands and pasture) D 0.40 0.45 0.50

C 0.30 0.35 0.40

Agricultural (cropland) D 0.20 0.20 0.25

C 0.15 0.15 0.20

Impervious Surfaces (streets, parking lots, ect)

-- 0.85 0.87 --

0.80 0.85 0.90

Unimproved Vacant Lands (parks, lawns,

cemeteries)

D 0.15 0.20 0.30

C

0.10

0.15

0.20

Notes: C = Sandy Loam, Gravel, Loam. D = Clay, Adobe, Shallow Soil and/or Rockland. Refer to USDA San Luis Obispo

Area Soil Survey for hydrologic soil groups.

Source: City and County of San Luis Obispo 2003 Waterway Management Plan


HWQ Impact-1: The proposed project would result in less than significant increase in the rate or

amount of surface runoff with mitigation incorporated.

HWQ Impact-2: There is no housing placed within the FIRM or FEMA designated 100-year floodplain.

Therefore, there is no impact.


HWQ-MM 1.1: 30% of all surface parking lots within the site shall incorporate pervious concrete or

pavers.

HWQ-MM 1.2: The property shall include detention ponds to limit storm water runoff generated by the

development. The ponds shall be designed to contain the difference between the 100-year

post-development runoff rate and the 10-year pre-development runoff rate. (Chinatown

Project Addendum EIR, 2009)

HWQ-MM 1.3: Storm water runoff from the site shall be directed through grassed bioswales/biofilters

to a detention/retention basin designed to retain runoff and percolate it back to

groundwater so that the amount of runoff from the site will not exceed the rate or volume

under existing conditions. (Richmond- Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project IS/

Mtigated NegDec, 2011)


Figure 2.3.4-2: No Housing Placed Within 100-year FEMA Floodplain



ER #

Sources Potentially

Significant

Issues

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of

standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance,

or applicable standards of other agencies?

--X--

b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne

vibration or groundborne noise levels?

c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the

project vicinity above levels existing without the project?

d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise

levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the

project?

e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where

such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public

airport or public use airport, would the project expose people

residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?

f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the

project expose people residing or working in the project area to

excessive noise levels?

2.4 NOISE

Question 12(a): Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards

established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?

2.4.1 INTRODUCTION

Noise is usually defined as unwanted sound. Noise consists of any sound that may produce

physiological or psychological damage and/or interfere with communication, work, rest, recreation, or

sleep. Several noise measurement scales exist that are used to describe noise in a particular location. A

decibel (dB) is a unit of measurement that indicates the relative intensity of a sound. The 0 point on the

dB scale is based on the lowest sound level that the healthy, unimpaired human ear can detect. Changes

of 3.0 dB or less are only perceptible in laboratory environments. Audible increases in noise levels

generally refer to a change of 3.0 dB or more, as this level has been found to be barely perceptible to

the human ear in outdoor environments. Sound levels in dB are calculated on a logarithmic basis. An

increase of 10 dB represents a 10-fold increase in acoustic energy, while 20 dB is 100 times more

intense, and 30 dB is 1,000 times more intense. Each 10 dB increase in sound level is perceived as

approximately a doubling of loudness. Sound intensity is normally measured through the A-weighted

sound level (dBA). This scale gives greater weight to the frequencies of sound to which the human ear

is most sensitive.



According to the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element (1996), the major exterior noise

source in the vicinity of the proposed project site is vehicular traffic. Community Noise Equivalent

Levels (CNEL) of 70, 65, and 60 extend approximately 67, 145 and 311 feet, respectively, from the

centerline of Highway 227 (Broad Street) which is located adjacent to the project site. Additionally, the

project site boarders the San Luis Obispo Airport Specific Plan planning area. Noise associated with

vehicle movement similar to that expected with a regional arterial roadway occurs at the project site.

The project is proposing a mixture of land uses that boarder Highway 227: general office, high-density

residential, and commercial.


State Regulations

Sound levels up to 65 Ldn or CNEL are determined to be normally acceptable for multi-family

residential land uses. Sound levels up to 70 CNEL are normally acceptable for buildings containing

professional offices or defined as business commercial. However, a detailed analysis of noise reduction

requirements is recommended when new office or commercial development is proposed in areas where

existing sound levels approach 70 CNEL (State of California’s Guidelines for the Preparation and

Content of Noise Element of the General Plan, 1987).

Local Regulations

According to state law, a Noise Element is required in all city and county general plans. The City’s

maximum noise exposure standards for noise-sensitive land use due to transportation noise sources as

defined in the City of San Luis Obispo, General Plan Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996) are

shown in Table 2.4.3-1. Since commercial land uses are not considered noise-sensitive, there are no

recommended maximum noise exposure guidelines. The City’s municipal code specifies noise standards

for various categories of land use. These limits, shown in Table 2.4.3-2, would apply to long- term

operation of the site, and are not applicable during construction. Where feasible, construction activities

shall be conducted so that maximum sound levels at affected properties would not exceed 80 A-

weighted dB (dBA) for multi-family residential and 85 dBA for mixed residential/commercial land

uses, as shown in Tables 2.4.3-3 and 2.4.3-4. Except for emergency repair of public service utilities, or


where an exception is issued by the Community Development Department, no operation of tools or

equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or demolition work shall occur daily between

the hours of 7:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M., or any time on Sundays or holidays, such that the sound creates a

noise disturbance across a residential or commercial property line (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR,

p. 3.7-4, 2009)

Table 2.4.3-1: Maximum Noise Exposure for Noise-Sensitive Uses Due To Transportation Noise

Sources

Land

Use

Outdoor Activity Areas Indoor Spaces

Ldn2 or CNEL Ldn

2 or CNEL Leq

3

Residences, hotels, motels, hospitals, nursing homes 60 45 --

Theaters, auditoriums, music halls -- -- 35

Churches, meeting halls, office building, mortuaries 60 -- 45

Schools, libraries, museums -- -- 45

Neighborhood parks 65 -- --

Playgrounds 70 -- --

If the location of outdoor activity areas is not shown, the outdoor noise standard shall apply at t he property line of the use.

Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1996.

Table 2.4.3-2: Exterior Noise Limits

Zoning Designation

Time Period Maximum Acceptable Noise

Level (dBA2)3

Low and Medium-Density Residential

Conservation/Open Space 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M 50

7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 55

Medium- and High-Density Residential 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M 50

7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 55

Office and Public Facility 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M 55

7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 60

Neighborhood, Retail, Community,

Downtown and Tourist Commercial 10:00 P.M. – 7:00 A.M 60

7:00 A.M. – 10:00 P.M. 65

Service Commercial Any Time 70

Manufacturing Any Time 75

The classification of different areas of the community in terms of environmental noise zones shall be determined by the Noise

Control Office(r) based upon community noise survey data. Additional area classifications should be used as appropriate to

reflect both lower and higher existing ambient levels than those shown. Industrial noise limits are intended primarily for use at

the boundary of industrial zones rather than for noise reduction within the zone (Ord. 1032 § 2 [part] 1985)


Table 2.4.3-3: Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-Term Operation

(Less than 10 Days) of Mobile Equipment at Residential Properties

Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)

Single-Family Residential

Daily 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., except

Sundays and legal holidays

75

Multi-Family Residential 80

Mixed Residential/Commercial 85

Single-Family Residential 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., all day Sunday and

legal holidays

50



Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2008a.

Table 2.4.3-4: Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled, Relatively Long Term

Operation (10 Days or More) of Stationary Equipment at Residential Properties

Zoning Category Time Period Noise Level (dBA)

Single-Family Residential

Daily 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M., except

Sundays and legal holidays

60



Single-Family Residential 7:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M., all day Sunday and

legal holidays

50



Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2008a.


Highway 227 (Broad Street)

The proposed development will be subject to some noise generated from Highway 227—located to the

east of the site. The chosen location for the general office, high-density residential, and commercial are

located within the 65 dB and 60 dB buildout buffer as shown in Figures 2.4.4-1 and 2.4.4-2. Per the

maximum noise exposure for noise-sensitive uses due to transportation noise sources as shown in Table

2.4.3-1, the maximum dB for residential uses is 60 dB. A majority of the uses that boarder Highway 227

are within the 65 bB and 60dB contour lines. The noise exposure for residential and office uses is 60 dB.

Therefore, the noise exposure the residential and office uses will be exposed to will be above threshold


and will be conditionally acceptable with the implementation of mitigation measures. The development

that falls within the 60 dB contour line will not require any mitigation because the noise they will be

exposed to will not exceed the limits hat the City of San Luis Obispo has provided. Since commercial

land uses are not considered noise-sensitive, there are no recommended maximum noise exposure

guidelines.


Figure 2.4.4-1: Noise Exposure


This page is intentionally left blank.


Figure 2.4.4-2: 70dB, 65dB, and 70dB Noise Contour Lines


This page is intentionally left blank


Figure 2.4.4-3: Airport Area Specific Plan


Airport Area Specific Plan

The proposed development boarders the San Luis Obispo Airport Specific Plan planning area as

shown in Figure 2.4.4-3. The site nor any development within the proposed site falls within the

noise contours or planning areas as specified by the Airport Master Plan.

Operational Impacts

The primary purpose of the development is to create a community village that mixes retail, office,

and residential uses in a sustainable, walkable, small-town form. Many of the land uses that are

proposed for the site will generate vehicle related noise. There are existing uses around the

proposed project site (residential to the north) that would be subject to noise levels that may

exceed noise threshold levels and be potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.

NO Impact-1: The proposed location of uses immediately along Broad Street will expose persons to

noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan and noise

ordinance, and therefore will experience potentially significant impacts unless

mitigation is incorporated.

No Impact-2: The proposed development will generate noise that may be in excess of standards

established in the local general plan and noise ordinance. Therefore, impacts will be

potentially significant unless mitigation is incorporated.


NO-MM 1.1: All exterior doors within the 65 dB contour line shall be solid core with perimeter

weather stripping and threshold seals. (San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2010)

NO-MM 1.2: All buildings within the 65 dB contour line shall implement exterior wall that consist of

stucco or brick veneer. Wood siding with a ½” minimum thickness fiberboard

(“Soundboard”) underlayer may also be used. (San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2010)

NO-MM 1.3: Glass in both windows and doors shall not exceed 20% of the floor area in a room.

(San Luis Obispo General Plan, 2010)


NO-MM 1.4: Roof or attic vents facing the noise source should be baffled (see Appendix C in Acoustical

Design Manual for an example of a suitable vent treatment). (San Luis Obispo General

Plan, 2010)

NO-MM 2.1: Vehicle speeds within the development shall be 35mph or less.

NO-MM 2.2: The applicant shall plant a vegetated strip along the northern section of the site to

acoustically soften the noise generated by the operation of the development.

NO-MM 2.3: The applicant shall place buildings in such a way that reduces noise impacts to bot off-

and on-site uses. The applicant should refer to the San Luis Obispo Noise Guideline for

design and building orientation ideas.



ER #

Sources Potentially

Significant

Issues

Less Than

Significant

with

Mitigation

Incorporated

Less Than

Significant

Impact

No

Impact

17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable

Regional Water Quality Control Board?

b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water

or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing

facilities, the construction of which could cause significant

environmental effects?

c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water

drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the

construction of which could cause significant environmental

effects?

d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from

existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded

entitlements needed?

--X--

e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider

which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate

capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to

the provider’s existing commitments?

--X--

f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to

accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?

g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations

related to solid waste?

2.5 UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS

Question 17(d): Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed?

Question 17(e): Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may

serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to

the provider’s existing commitments?

2.5.1 INTRODUCTION

Potable Water Supply

The City of San Luis Obispo receives water from the Salinas Reservoir, Nacimiento Reservoir, Whale

Rock Reservoir, and three groundwater wells. Table 2.5.1-1 shows the estimated water availability in

San Luis Obispo in 2015. Treated wastewater is also recycled and distributed to certain areas of the

City for irrigation purposes (City of San Luis Obispo 2008e). The City of San Luis Obispo has adopted

policies addressing the distribution of water supply among new and existing development in the

General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element (2006). These policies are based on a Safe


Annual Yield concept; defined as the amount of water that can reliably be produced by the City’s water

supply sources to meet estimated water demand under critical drought conditions. Each water source

for the City has a Safe Annual Yield; estimates developed by simulating the operation of the City’s

water supply sources over a historical period to determine the maximum level of demand that could be

met during the most severe droughts on record.

Table 2.5.1-1: 2015 San Luis Obispo Water Resource Availability

Water Resoure Acre Feet Description

Salinas & Whale Rock Reservoirs 6,940 Safe Annual Yield1

Nacimiento Reservior 3,380 Dependable Yield2

Recycled Water 185 2014 Annual Usage1

Siltation from 2010 to 2060 (500) WWME Policy A 4.2.24

10,005 2015 Annual Availability

1. Safe Annual Yield determined from computer model, which accounts for siltation loss through 2010 (per WWME Policy A

4.2.1).

2. Dependable Yield is the contractual amount of water the City has rights to from Nacimiento Reservio ir.

3. The quantity of recycled water included is the actual prior year's recycled water usage (calendar year 2014) per WWME

Policy A 7.2.2.

4. Reservoir siltation is a natural occurrence that reduces storage capacity over long periods, resulting in the reduction of safe

annual yield.

Wastewater

The City of San Luis Obispo provides public wastewater treatment within City limits. According to the

City’s General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element (2010), Policy 2.2.4, “The City

shall be the only provider of public wastewater treatment within the City.” The City’s waste treatment

facility is located off Prado Road in San Luis Obispo. The treated water from the facility is either used

for irrigation or put back into San Luis Obispo Creek.


The site for the proposed project is currently not in use. Historically, the property has been used as

grazing land for cattle and has never been developed. The Bella Vista project program is proposing

a mixture of uses that all require potable water and will generate wastewater. A majority of the

development will be residential that ranges from single-family homes to high-density residential.

Additionally, the project will offer both dedicated commercial and general office spaces.


Wastewater and potable water services are not currently provided at the project site. Development

of the site will require the installation of these services.



The total Safe Annual Yield for the City of San Luis Obispo for 2015 was determined to be 7,330 ac.ft..

Based on the City’s water demand and Safe Annual Yield, the City has approximately 2,340 acre-feet

of water available to allocate to new development (Table 2.5.3-1).

Table 2.5.3-1: Current Water Demand and Safe Annual Yield in the City of San Luis Obispo

Year Population Percent Water Demand Safe Annual Yield Water Currently not in use

2006 44,439 7,218 @145 gpcd 7,730 ac. ft. 512 ac. ft.

2015 45,802 4,990 @ 97.3 gpcd 7,330 ac. Ft. 2340 ac. Ft.

Notes: Based on estimated 2015 City population of 45,805 people.

Wastewater

According to the City’s General Plan, Water and Wastewater Management Element (2010), Policy

B2.2.2, “The City’s wastewater collections system and Water Reclamation Facility shall support

population and related service demands consistent with eh General Plan.” Additionally, Policy

B2.2.3 Wastewater Service for New Development states that “New development shall pay its

proportionate or fair share of expanded treatment and collection system capacity and upgrades. New

development will only be permitted if adequate capacity is available within the wastewater collection

system and/or Water Reclamation Facility.

mailto:@145




Total usage per year for the Bella Vista project was calculated using the water use factors as specified in

the City of San Luis Obispo Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR. Table 2.5.4-1 provides a detailed breakdown

of the water usage by land use. General Office use does not have a provided water use factor that is

provided by the City of the Orcutt Area Specific Plan EIR. A use factor was determined based on the

density at use factor of the commercial land use on site. The use factor for commercial is 0.11 ac.ft per

1,000 sq.ft.. Because the density for office related uses is higher than that of commercial uses and less

than medium density residential, a use factor of 0.15 ac.ft. per 1,000 sq.ft. was chosen. The predicted

total usage per year for the Bella Vista project would be 67.58 ac.ft..

Table 2.5.4-1: Bella Vista Water Use Factor Calculations

Use

Square Footage

Units

WUF ac.ft./yr

Acre-Feet Per

Year

Community Commercial (C-C) 136,429.05 -- 0.11 per 1,000 sq.ft. 15.0071955

General Office (O) 26,500.68 -- 0.15 per 1,000 sq.ft. 3.975102

Medium Density Residential (R-2) 40,952.55 12 0.30 ac ft/unit per year 3.6

Medium-High Density Residential (R-3) 218,310.60 75 0.21 ac ft/unit per year 15.75

High Density Residential (R-4) 241,732.72 111 0.18 ac ft/unit per year 19.98

Recreational 65,843.02 -- 0.14 per 1,000 sq.ft. 9.2180228

Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) 328,223.84 -- 0.00 per 1,000 sq.ft. 0

Total 67.5303203

Wastewater Generation 47.27122421

As can be seen from the Table 2.5.1-1, the water availability for 2015 is 10,005 acre feet. The 10,005

acre feet takes into account water sources form the City’s Primary water supply, reliability rese rve, and

secondary water supply. For accuracy, the total water in San Luis Obispo that is not currently in use was

calculated by using the amount of water in the primary source (7,330 ac.ft.). Based on this, the City has a

total of 2,340 ac.ft. of water that is not currently in use by the city (Table 2.5.3-1). The total usage per

year of the proposed project will be around 67.58 ac.ft., only about 2% of the overall excess water supply

that from the city’s primary source. The project is well within the current supply that the city has

available. The city has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements

and resources, and the construction of the site would have less then significant impacts.


Wastewater

Wastewater generated for the Bella Vista project was determined by calculating 70% of the total usage

per year based on the EIA Method for Wastewater Generation Analysis (Corbitt 1990). Using this

method, the total wastewater generation from the project will be 47.27 ac.ft. (Table Table 2.5.4-1).

Policy B 2.2.2 Service Capacity in the Water and Wastewater section of the City General Plan states

“The City's wastewater collection system and Water Reclamation Facility shall support population and

related service demands consistent with the General Plan.” Because the project is located in the city

limits, the city is required to support all wastewater that is generated in the city, even if the wastewater

generated exceeds the wastewater treatment facility thresholds.

While the city is required to support all wastewater generated within its limits, all new develo pment is

required to pay its proportionate or “fair share” of expanded treatment and collection systems, as stated

in the Water and Wastewater section of the SLO City General Plan, Policy B 2.2.3.

UT Impact-1: The city has sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing

entitlements and resources, and the construction of the site would have less than

significant impacts.

UT Impact-2: The city is required to support all wastewater that is generated within the City limits. The

project even if the wastewater generated exceeds the wastewater treatment facility

thresholds. Therefore, the projects impacts will be less than significant.

2.5.5 MITIGATION MEASURE

Recommended

UT-MM 1.1: The applicant shall implement water conservation best management practices including:

selection of drought-tolerant, low water-consuming plant varieties and use of high-

quality, low-flow toilets, urinals, and faucets. (Prefumo Creek Commons Final EIR,

2009)

UT-MM 1.2: Consistent with Ahwahnee Water Principles and the City’s General Plan, Conservation

and Open Space Element, Policy 10.2.2, the applicant shall design all irrigation and

water utilities infrastructure for compatibility with on-site use of recycled water.



UT-MM 1.3: The applicant shall install water-efficient plumbing fixtures (ultra low-flow toilets and

urinals, waterless urinals, low-flow and sensored sinks, low-flow showerheads, and

water-efficient dishwashers and washing machines) in all proposed uses within the site.

UT-MM 2.1: Consistent with Policy B 2.2.4 in the Water and Wastewater Element of the San Luis

Obispo General Plan (2010), the development shall pay its proportionate or fair share of

expanded treatment and collection system capacity and upgrades.


3.0 REFERENCES

Booth, Derek B. "Urbanization and the Natural Drainage System-Impacts, Solutions, and Prognosis."

The Northwest Environmental Journal 7.1 (1991): 93-118.

Boswell, Michael. (2016, May). Noise. Lecture presented in CRP 121B, San Luis Obispo

California Air Resources Board (CARB), 2008. Climate Change Scoping Plan: a framework for change.

December 2008.

California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). (2015). California Emissions

Estimator Model. Retrieved May 18, 2016 from http://www.caleemod.com/

California Emissions Estimator Model, v 2013.2.1. Retrieved May 23, 2016 from http://

www.caleemod.com/

Central Coast Low Impact Development Initiative. LID Bioretention Guidance. Retrieved May 17, 2016

from http://www.centralcoastlidi.org/uploads/Bioretention%20TAM_Letter%20High

%20Resolution0.pdf

Center for Watershed Protection. “Impacts of Impervious Cover on Aquatic Systems”, Ellicott City,

MD, 2003.

Center for Watershed Protection & US Forest Service. Reducing Stormwater Runoff. Retrieved May 25,

2016 from http://forestsforwatersheds.org/reduce-stormwater/.

Chester L. Arnold and C. James Gibbons. "Impervious Surface Coverage: The Emergence of a Key

Environmental Indicator." Journal of the American Planning Association. Spring, 1996. p. 255

City of Sacramento, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. (2016). Construction

Generated CAP (pp. 1-11). Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District.

City of Sacramento, Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District. (2016). Operational

Generated CAP (pp. 1-19). Sacramento, CA: Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management

District

http://www.caleemod.com/

http://www.caleemod.com/

http://www.centralcoastlidi.org/uploads/Bioretention%20TAM_Letter%20High

http://forestsforwatersheds.org/reduce-stormwater/


City of San Luis Obispo Geographic Information Systems Department. (2015). Noise_60_DB;

Noise_65_DB; Noise_70_DB. [GIS Data file] Retrieved May 18, 2016 from the Cal Poly

Campus GIS File Server http://libguides.calpoly.edu/GISData

City of San Luis Obispo. (1996). Noise Element. San Luis Obispo. Retrieved May 25, 2016 from

http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643

City of San Luis Obispo. (2000). Safety Element. San Luis Obispo. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from


City of San Luis Obispo. (February, 2003) Waterway Management Plan Volume III Drainage Design

Manual. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4400

City of San Luis Obispo. (1987). Water and Wastewater Element. San Luis Obispo. Retrieved May 25,

2016 from http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6649

City of San Luis Obispo Geographic Information Systems Department. (2015). FloodZones. [GIS Data

file] Retrieved May 17, 2016 from the Cal Poly Campus GIS File Server http://

libguides.calpoly.edu/GISData

City of San Luis Obispo, (2009). Prefumo Creek Commons Project – Final Environmental Impact

Report. Prepared by City of San Luis Obispo.

City of San Luis Obispo. (2003). Costco/Froom Ranch – Final Environmental Impact Report. Prepared

by Morro Group, Inc.

City of Richmond. (May 2011). Richmond—Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project – Draft CEQA

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration. Prepared by LSA Associates, Inc.

Corbitt, R. A. (1990). Standard handbook of environmental engineering. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill

Publishing Company.

County of San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District (APCD). 2003. CEQA Air Quality Handbook.

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Flood Zones. Washington D.C.: Department of Homeland

http://libguides.calpoly.edu/GISData



http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4400



Security. Retrieved May 17, 2016 from http://www.fema.gov/flood-zones’’

Fehr and Peers. 2009. Prefumo Creek Commons Draft Transportation Impact Analysis. January 2009

Greenroads International. Greenroads Manual v1.5. Retrieved May 31, 2016 from https://

www.greenroads.org/files/102.pdf

Hollis, G. E., 1975, The effects of urbanization on floods of different recurrence intervals. Water

Resources Research, 11, 431-5

Nathanson, Jerry. (2003). Basic environmental technology: Water supply, waste management, and

pollution control, Fourth Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall.

National Cooperative Soil Survey.(2011). NRCS_Soils [GIS Data file] Retrieved May 19, 2016 from the

Cal Poly Campus GIS File Server http://libguides.calpoly.edu/GISData

San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District. (April, 2014). CEQA Air Quality Handbook. San

Luis Obispo & San Luis Obispo County. Retrieved May 15, 2016.\

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Sources of Greenhouse Gas Emissions. Retrieved on

June 1, 2016 from https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

Western Regional Climate Center. (2005). San Luis Obispo Climate Summary. Retrieved on May 18,

2016, from http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?caslop+sca.

LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA). 2010a. Request for Verification of Jurisdictional Determination for the

Richmond-Ohlone Greenway Gap Closure Project in the Cities of Richmond and El Cerrito,

Contra Costa County, California. Submitted to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco,

California. July 19.

LSA Associates, Inc., 2010b. Cultural and Paleontological Resources Study Richmond-Ohlone

Greenway Gap Closure Project, Richmond and El Cerrito, Contra Costa County, California

(LSA Project #FPT0901). Prepared for the City of Richmond. 24 June.

http://www.fema.gov/flood-zones

http://www.greenroads.org/files/102.pdf

http://libguides.calpoly.edu/GISData

https://www3.epa.gov/climatechange/ghgemissions/sources.html

http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?caslop+sca


4.0 LIST OF APPENDICES

Table 4.1: Unmitigated/mitigated Construction Emissions

Table 4.2: Unmitigated Operation Emissions

Table 4.3: Mitigated Operational Emissions