HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-28-14
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Action on the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and amendments to portions of
the Airport Area Specific Plan for the Chevron Remediation and Development Project.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 276 Tank Farm Road BY: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner
Phone Number: 781-7522
E-mail: pdunsmore@slocity.org
FILE NUMBER: SPA/ER 92-08 FROM: Kim Murry, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION: Recommend the City Council adopt the following resolutions and
continue review of the Public Facilities Financing Plan (Chapter 8) of the Airport Area Specific
Plan to July 9th 2014:
1. Resolution A recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding
considerations relative to Air Quality, and Transportation and Circulation.
2. Resolution B recommends the City Council amend the Airport Area Specific Plan including
policy amendments in Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Airport Area Specific Plan and General
Plan Land Use Map to correspond to the Chevron project and FEIR.
SITE DATA
Applicant Chevron
Representatives MRS, SWCA, RRM, Avocet
Zoning (outside of City Limits)
General Plan Open Space, Services and
Manufacturing
Site Area 332 Acres
Environmental
Status
The Final EIR was released
January 2nd.
SUMMARY
The project proposes to amend the Airport Area Specific Plan to reflect remediation and
development of a 332 acre property owned by Chevron. Planning Commission reviewed the draft
Meeting Date: May 28, 2014
Item Number: 1
PC1 - 1
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 2
EIR on July 24, 2013, and draft amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) on
December 11, 2013. The Final EIR was completed and published with the responses to comments
on January 2, 2014 (Attachment 1, FEIR Executive Summary). The City is the lead agency and has
the responsibility to certify that the EIR is complete and reflects an independent judgment and
analysis of the project. Certification of the FEIR by the City will allow San Luis Obispo County to
process Chevron’s Use Permit for remediation and restoration on the property. Any development of
the property would occur after the remediation and restoration and annexation has been completed.
At this time, the applicant’s request for annexation and tentative tract map approval is not ready for
action. However the FEIR and proposed amendments to the AASP with the exception of the Public
Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) are ready for consideration. Staff has completed substantial work
on the PFFP, however, additional refinement of financing options is needed prior to final action.
Staff will return to the Planning Commission on July 9th to continue discussion of infrastructure
financing options and potential action on the PFFP.
The Planning Commission is being asked to make a recommendation to the City Council on
amendments to AASP Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7, and on certification of the Final EIR. The tentative
map and annexation request will return later this year while the Public Facilities Financing Plan will
return for action on July 9th.
Previous Review
Various advisory bodies have reviewed the proposed project and commented on the draft EIR. The
following chart illustrates the recent review history.
Chart 1: Previous Advisory Body Review
Advisory Body Date Action
Cultural Heritage Committee April 22, 2013 Reviewed/Commented on DEIR
Planning Commission July 24, 2013 Commented on DEIR
December 11, 2013 Reviewed AASP, continued discussion
Parks and Recreation
Commission
June 5, 2013 Draft EIR review
Nov 6, 2013 Final Action: Endorsed AASP amendments
Bicycle Advisory Committee July 18, 2013 Commented on DEIR
January 16, 2014 Final Action: Endorsed AASP amendments
Airport Land Use
Commission
July 31, 2013 Commented on DEIR
February 19, 2014 Reviewed AASP amendments
March 19, 2014 Final action: ALUC Endorsed AASP
amendments and found amendments consistent
with Airport Land Use Plan.
PC1 - 2
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 3
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Commission is being asked to recommend certification of the Final EIR to the City Council,
and take action on amendments to the AASP including the following:
1. Chapter 3: Conservation and Resource Management (Attachment 3)
2. Chapter 4: Land Use. (Attachment 4).
3. Chapter 6: Circulation. (Attachment 5).
4. Chapter 7: Utilities & Services (Attachment 6)
5. Chapter 8: Preview of amendments to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (Attachments 7
and 8).
The Planning Commission’s action will be a recommendation to the City Council. Certification of
the FEIR is required before the County can use the document to inform their action on the Use
Permit for the remediation project. City Council is scheduled to review the FEIR and AASP
amendments on September 3, 2014. The City is not responsible for processing any entitlements
associated with the remediation project; however City staff will be working closely with the County
to ensure that the remediation grading is consistent with any future development plans evaluated in
the FEIR. Grading associated with the remediation project will establish rough development pads
associated with the development plan.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The “project” analyzed in the FEIR is split into three components:
1) Remediation and Restoration to be entitled by the County; and
2) City Development Project: AASP amendments, Tract Map, Annexation, Development
Agreement.
3) County Development Project: Proposal for map and zoning amendment to accommodate
development in the County.
This report provides detailed analysis of component 2. The City’s review of item 1, remediation
and restoration, focuses on whether the Final EIR adequately addresses the remediation component
of the project. This is because the City is the Lead agency for the FEIR while the County is the
responsible agency. Upon review of the remediation Use Permit, the County would adopt findings
and recommendations based on the remediation component of the FEIR. Attachment 1 provides the
complete executive summary of the FEIR including a summarized project description. Attachment 2
provides a description of the remediation and restoration project as summarized by staff.
2.1 CITY DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
The City development plan responds to post remediation and restoration conditions on the property
by relocating portions of planned land use and circulation improvements on the site to reduce
impacts to habitat and address airport safety. The proposed plan integrates Business Park and
Service Commercial zones while designating a Public Facilities property that potentially may be
used for recreational facilities. At this time, no specific tenants have been identified for the
properties; however Chevron has been in discussion with Cal Ripken to allocate the majority the PF
zoned property for the future use of baseball fields. Attachment 1, the FEIR executive summary,
PC1 - 3
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 4
describes the proposed City development component in more detail. The Planning Commission is
reviewing the changes to the AASP to support redevelopment of the property once remediation is
complete; however the associated entitlements of tract map, annexation and development agreement
are not before the Commission at this time.
Vesting Tentative Tract Map and Annexation
The Chevron property is currently outside of the City limits but within the Urban Reserve. Action
on the annexation would occur along with the review of the tentative tract map later this year. The
map will provide the development and infrastructure plans necessary to support annexation and
entitlements will include project conditions that will provide details on public improvements and
implementation of FEIR mitigation measures.
Development Agreement
The Chevron application includes a request for a Development Agreement but the applicant may
instead pursue a reimbursement agreement in conjunction with the proposed Tentative Tract Map.
The details of any agreement will be analyzed in conjunction with the map and annexation later this
year.
3.0 POLICY ANALYSIS
Land Use Element Policy 1.12.3 requires a Specific Plan be prepared for the Airport Area prior to
annexation or substantial development. The adopted AASP implements policy 1.12.3 and provides
detailed policy guidance for development and open space preservation of the Chevron Tank Farm
property. The vision statement adopted by the AASP identifies the Chevron property (formerly
Unocal property) as the heart of the AASP area:
“The former Unocal petroleum tank farm, and the associated environmental
degradation from the catastrophic 1926 fire, have long set the tone for the area. This
Specific Plan is about changing the identity and perception of the area and “raising the
bar” to meet the standards of San Luis Obispo in the 21st Century. At the heart of the
planning area, the former tank farm site will be improved and preserved as an
ecological preserve that provides enhanced natural habitat, visual and recreational
open space, and educational and interpretive experiences. Similarly, vacant industrial
lands will be developed and older industrial uses renovated or redeveloped to
accommodate a new generation of industries.”
Adopted policies in the Conservation and Land Use sections of the AASP further define the
expectations for the Chevron property. Policy 3.2.24 acknowledges the changed conditions of this
property and outlines the course of remediation and restoration efforts that have now been proposed
by the Chevron team. Policy 4.3.6 requires that a comprehensive development and conservation
plan be approved for the Chevron property prior to development. The plans that Chevron have
developed over the past several years, in conjunction with the completion of the FEIR are intended
to implement policy 4.3.6.
Policy 4.3.6: Tank Farm Site
Before a substantial part of the former Tank Farm Site is subdivided or developed, the
City must have approved a comprehensive development and conservation plan for the
PC1 - 4
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 5
entire property. This development plan shall meet with the approval of federal, state and
local agencies with jurisdiction over the hazards and natural resources present, and
include:
a) A detailed resource management plan to protect and enhance natural resources found
on the Tank Farm Site, including sensitive species and their habitats (e.g., wetlands,
riparian corridors, and native grasslands). The resource enhancement plan shall address
the long-term monitoring and maintenance of habitat areas to insure protection from
adjacent development and from contamination associated with previous uses of the site.
b) Easements for the permanent protection of natural resources dedicated to an
appropriate trustee agency such as the City, RWQCB or SLO Land Trust.
c) A detailed, site-specific plan for remediation of contaminated areas associated with
developing areas designated for development and habitat restoration areas where soil
contamination is present.
d) An implementation plan that links development entitlements to completion of specific
remediation and habitat-improvement actions.
e) A mechanism, such as an endowment, for implementing the long-term monitoring,
enhancement and maintenance included in the plan.
3.1 FINAL EIR
The Draft EIR was released in June 2013 and the public comment period closed on August 5th 2013.
Approximately 37 comment letters were received, many of which focused on transportation related
matters including the roundabout, bicycle paths, and the widening of Tank Farm Road. The Final
EIR was made available to the public on January 2, 2014. The Final EIR includes mitigations for
Class 1 (impacts that remain significant with mitigation) and Class 2 impacts (impacts that can be
mitigated to a less than significant level). No mitigations are required for Class 3 impacts, which are
considered less than significant, while Class 4 are considered beneficial or “positive” impacts. The
chart below summarizes the FEIR impact categories for each of the projects while the following text
provides more detailed discussion:
Chart 2: FEIR Summary
Remediation City Project County Project
Class 1 Hazards Traffic, Air Quality Traffic, Air Quality, Waste
Water
Class 2 Air, Bio, Traffic, Water,
Geology, noise, cultural,
Aesthetics, Hazards, Ag
Air, Bio, Traffic, Geology,
Noise, Aesthetics,
Hazards, Public Services
Air, Bio, Traffic, Water,
Wastewater, Geology,
Noise, Aesthetics, Hazards,
Class 3 Air, Ag, Recreation, Public
Services, Hazards,
Wastewater, Water
Air, Traffic, Water,
Wastewater, Geologic,
Noise, Hazards, Pop &
Housing, Public Services,
Ag
Air, Bio, Traffic, Water,
Geologic, Noise, Hazards,
Pop & Housing, Public
Services, Ag
Class 4 Hazards Recreation Recreation
PC1 - 5
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 6
Remediation Project
As a result of the remediation and restoration project, the FEIR identified that impacts to “Hazards”
will remain significant following mitigation and eight Class 2 impacts that can be mitigated to a less
than significant level. The applicant team and the County have commented on the impacts and
mitigation proposal and the Final EIR reflects changes in response to those comments. A complete
list of the impacts and mitigations has been included as Attachment 2 in the FEIR Executive
Summary. A brief summary of the Class 1 and 2 impacts are provided below.
Remediation Class 1 impact: Hazards:
The FEIR identified that impacts related to “Hazards” may remain significant despite mitigation due
to the potential for increased aircraft wildlife strike risk due to wetland restoration within the airport
safety areas. The required mitigation limits on site wetland replacement to a ratio of 1:1 instead of
the 1.7:1 originally proposed. Since the quality of the wetland will likely be enhanced thus
increasing its attractiveness as bird habitat, this impact remains a Class 1. The Airport Land Use
Commission considered this potential impact and endorsed the EIR and found the project consistent
with the Airport Land Use Plan because of the many positive improvements to airport safety
included in the project. These positive improvements include reservation of Airport Compatible
Open Space Zones, re-contouring of the berms surrounding Reservoir 2 inside of the runway
protection zone, and the proposal for conservation easements that will preserve the majority of this
site (250 acres) in permanent open space.
Class 2 impacts:
The FEIR found that there will be Class 2 impacts associated with the remediation project in eight
issue areas that can be mitigated to a level of “less than significant”. When implemented, the
proposed mitigations will eliminate significant environmental impacts associated with Class 2
impacts. Most notably, there are a series of mitigation measures associated with Air Quality and
Biological Resources that will require extensive mitigation and permits from a variety of resource
agencies. Mitigation Monitoring associated with the remediation and restoration project will be the
responsibility of the County, the Air Pollution Control District, US Fish and Wildlife Service,
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and other resource agencies.
Remediation Alternatives
Attachment 2 provides a description of the proposed remediation project. In summary, there will be
limited excavation of areas of contamination and underground contamination will be covered with
gravel and soil fill termed “caps”. The EIR examines a range of alternatives for the remediation
project as part of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) alternatives analysis. These
include mass excavation with the intent of removing the majority of site contamination; excavation
as an alternative to caps; and leaving most of the contamination in place and utilizing controls and
monitoring only. These alternatives are briefly described below:
Mass Excavation would involve the excavation of 2.5 million cubic yards of material compared
with approximately 160,000 cubic yards associated with the proposed project. Approximately 3
million cubic yards of material would be required for fill which would require approximately 2
million cubic yards of material to be imported from off-site sources. This level of excavation and
fill would result in up to 140 truck trips per day over a 10-year period. Additional work would be
required to control groundwater within the excavation areas. A significantly larger portion of the
existing wetland and grassland habitat would be impacted under the mass grading scenario. This
PC1 - 6
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 7
alternative increases potential air quality impacts tenfold and would introduce significant impacts to
biological resources. The increased excavation would likely result in the permanent loss of on-site
biological functions of wetlands, native grasslands, and other biotic communities. Furthermore, the
increased truck trips, potential for groundwater contamination and other factors would increase the
severity of most of the remediation impacts analyzed in the EIR. Therefore, this alternative was not
considered to be a favorable alternative for further analysis in the EIR.
Excavation instead of caps assumes excavation of areas below former reservoirs instead of utilizing
caps constructed of gravel and fill. This would result in the amount of affected soil removed from
the site to be increased to 558,000 cubic yards instead of 160,000 proposed by the project. Required
fill would increase from 160,000 to 963,000 cubic yards requiring 226,000 cubic yards from off-site
sources. This project would also include the removal of approximately 300 feet of Tank Farm Road
to remove approximately 6700 cubic yards of contaminated material below the roadway. This level
of work would interfere with groundwater and require additional work to pump groundwater from
excavation sites. This alternative would increase potential air emissions by up to 80%, introduce
additional impacts to biological resources, and result in a significant quantity of additional truck
trips. Although this alternative would remove more of the hydrocarbons from the site, the level of
human health and ecological risk would remain the same as the proposed project because the
installation of caps results in the same level of protection as excavation of the reservoirs. This
alternative was analyzed in the EIR as a potential alternative.
Institutional controls and monitoring was evaluated as an alternative that would involve
continuation of the activity presently occurring. This would consist of maintaining fencing,
monitoring and netting to prevent people and wildlife from coming into contact with contaminants.
This alternative would substantially reduce the environmental impacts associated with the
remediation project, however the level of human health and ecological risk would not be reduced to
acceptable levels under this alternative. This alternative would not be acceptable to resource
agencies such as RWQCB and other governmental agencies that are encouraging that the surface
remediation project move forward as soon as possible.
The FEIR found that the alternatives examined would not reduce the severity of environmental
impacts and therefore found that the proposed remediation project is the environmentally superior
alternative next to the “no project alternative”. However, the no project alternative would not
accomplish the need to remediate the contamination and would not be acceptable to resource
agencies.
City Project
As a result of amending the AASP and in consideration of the potential for up to 800,000 square
feet of commercial floor area over a 25-year period, the EIR identified Significant and Unavoidable
impacts (Class 1) in the areas of Air Quality and Transportation. Even with incorporated mitigation,
the level of significance will not be reduced to acceptable levels for both of these issue areas.
Air Quality: Operational activities could generate diesel and fugitive dust that exceeds thresholds.
Mitigation measures have been designed to reduce air quality impacts, however even with
mitigation there will be unavoidable changes to air quality due to the size of the development area
and ongoing vehicle trips.
PC1 - 7
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 8
Transportation and Circulation: Under cumulative conditions, the addition of the project in the
future would cause nine intersections and two freeway segments to operate at unacceptable levels.
Some of these intersections are already approaching unacceptable levels and are included in the
current AASP circulation improvement program. With incorporation of mitigation, four of the
intersections will operate within acceptable levels while five will still operate below acceptable
levels. Levels of service are related to traffic flow as described in Table 4.3-1 from the FEIR. In
accordance with the FEIR mitigation, the applicant will be required to participate in a pro-rata share
of the cost of each of the transportation improvements as a condition of the development project.
The intersections significantly impacted by cumulative conditions and their respective mitigations
include those in the chart below, some of which would remain at unacceptable levels even
following proposed mitigation.
Chart 3: Class 1 Traffic Impacts with City Project
Class 2 Impacts
There are Class 2 impacts to eight issue areas as a result of the development project. The FEIR
includes an extensive list of mitigation measures that will reduce these impacts to less than
significant. Mitigation monitoring will be the responsibility of City staff with the assistance of
biological and site restoration monitors that are required as part of the mitigation plan. Some of the
most notable mitigations for the project include the following:
1. Installation of a roundabout instead of a signalized intersection at the re-aligned Santa Fe
and Tank Farm road intersection.
2. Installation of transit stops along Tank Farm Road.
3. Installation of bicycle and multi-use trails prior to occupancy of phase one.
4. Dedication of a property that could be used for the future development of a fire station.
5. Improving emergency services response time.
Development Alternatives examined in the EIR
The FEIR examined a no project alternative, and a reduced development scenario. The FEIR found
that the no development scenario would be the environmentally superior alternative, however this
scenario would not meet project objectives and would also eliminate the beneficial impacts of the
proposed bicycle paths, road improvements, and development contribution of the AASP. CEQA
Impacts will be mitigated to less than significant
levels
Significant impacts to Levels of Service,
while mitigated, will still exist
LOVR and Hwy 101 South Higuera and Prado
Santa Fe and Tank Farm South Higuera and Tank Farm
Broad and Prado Broad and Buckley
South Higuera and Vachell South Higuera and LOVR
Broad and Tank Farm
PC1 - 8
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 9
requires that other alternatives be given consideration in addition to the no development scenario.
Under the “Reduced Development Alternative” the FEIR found that significant impacts associated
with a portion of the air quality impacts would be reduced and some of the cumulative traffic
impacts would be reduced but would still remain in the Class 1 category. The reduced development
scenario would meet most of the project objectives but it would reduce the building square footage
thereby reducing the economic viability of the project. The reduction in building area for this
scenario would be below what is currently anticipated in the AASP. The applicant has stated that a
reduction in building area would make the project infeasible. The FEIR does not address the issue
of economic feasibility. The reduced development alternative was found to be the next
environmentally superior alternative next to the “no development scenario”.
County Project
The environmental review for the County project identified similar impacts as those identified with
the City project but included of three additional impacts: Water, Wastewater and Public Facilities.
These impacts are identified due to the lack of City-services available for development in the
County. Since the County project is not a topic of this report, no further analysis is included;
however the FEIR provides a comprehensive analysis of the potential impacts of the County project.
3.2 AASP AMENDMENTS
Although there are minor typographical corrections and text edits in all chapters of the AASP, only
Chapters 3, 4, 6, 7 and 8 include policy and substantial graphical amendments. The Planning
Commission reviewed and commented on the draft amendments on December 11, 2013 however no
substantial edits were suggested by the Commission at that time. The policy and text amendments
for all chapters, with the exception of Chapter 8, are now ready for Planning Commission review
and action.
Goodwin Consulting Group has been working with the City to develop a revised Public Facilities
Financing Plan (PFFP), which will be reflected in an updated Chapter 8 of the AASP. The financing
plan chapter needs additional refinements prior to adoption. Staff intends to return to Planning
Commission on July 9th following additional public outreach to continue discussion on the PFFP.
At this time, staff is seeking Planning Commission comments and direction to inform further work
on the PFFP.
The applicable policies and programs proposed for Planning Commission review and
recommendation are briefly discussed below with complete legislative drafts available in
Attachments 3 through 7.
3.2.1 Amendments to Conservation and Resource Management, Chapter 3
Several policies and programs need amendments to address the remediation and restoration project
and information provided by the Chevron FEIR. The maps and graphics have been updated to
reflect current conditions. See Attachment 4 for legislative draft.
PC1 - 9
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 10
Policy 3.2.6: Expansion of Wetlands
Policy 3.2.6 was originally designed to encourage the expansion of wetlands, however the Chevron
DEIR found that any expansion of the existing wetlands could create a significant unavoidable
impact as a result of increasing the potential for bird strikes by aircraft. This policy is being
amended to note that any expansion of wetlands take the potential hazard into account.
Policy 3.2.13: Native Bunchgrass
This policy asks to preserve the native bunchgrass habitat located on the “flower mound” hill in the
northeast corner of the property. The Chevron remediation project removes a significant portion of
the hill to provide cover for remediation areas. A large restoration area is set-aside to restore this
habitat in other portions of the site. This policy is amended to acknowledge the remediation and
restoration project.
Policy 3.2.23 Designation of Contaminated Land
This policy now provides updated language for consistency with project and FEIR.
Policy 3.2.24 City Consideration of “Changed Conditions” on the Chevron Property
The remediation plan and FEIR provides new information allowing this policy to be clarified to
reflect latest findings.
Program 3.3.2: Limit Access
This program is proposed for deletion as it speaks to limiting access between Broad Street and
Santa Fe Road which is inconsistent with the current bicycle transportation plan.
Program 3.3.3: 50-Foot Wetland Setback
This program is proposed for amendment to modify the requirement for a 50-foot setback from
wetlands since new roads, utilities and bike paths are proposed to be constructed within close
proximity to new or restored wetland areas.
Program 3.3.6: Public Access (Chevron Property)
Amendments are proposed to address plans for multi-use paths with regional connections.
Program 3.3.9: Wildlife Movement Corridors
This program was in the form of an incomplete sentence and is proposed to be updated to complete
the sentence.
Program 3.3.16: Historical Resources
Program is proposed for amendment to address the installation of kiosks with information regarding
historical resources associated with the industrial use and disaster as required by the Chevron FEIR.
Program 3.3.18: Expanding Wetlands
This program is proposed for amendment to note that any expansion of wetlands take the potential
hazard associated with aircraft bird strikes into account.
3.2.2 Amendments to Land Use, Chapter 4
The most substantial changes to the Land Use section are in the form of graphical changes to the
proposed land use plan. These graphical changes are reflected in figures 4-1 and figure 4-4 of the
PC1 - 10
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 11
AASP. Graphics have also been added to illustrate the current hydrocarbon contamination on the
property and the proposed Airport Compatible Open Space zones as identified in the FEIR.
Public Facility 4.2.4
The proposed addition of a Public Facility zone that may accommodate sports fields or other public
uses prompted the need to update this section to include the potential for uses in addition to the
airport itself.
Policy 4.3.6: Tank Farm Site
Changes are proposed to take into account the remediation project and FEIR findings.
Policy 4.3.7: Tank Farm Road Improvements
Minor amendment proposed to address the Chevron project description.
Proposed AASP Figure 4-4
PC1 - 11
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 12
3.2.3 Amendments to Circulation and Transportation, Chapter 6
The Circulation section has significant amendments to graphics to reflect the project description and
FEIR Mitigation Measures. The road sections have been updated to convert the dimensions from
metric to standard and to incorporate current engineering standards. A legislative draft of Chapter 6
is included as Attachment 6. Figure 4 on page 5 illustrates the proposed circulation map.
Roundabouts and/or Signalized Intersection at Santa Fe and Tank Farm Roads
The AASP identifies roundabouts instead of traffic signals for several intersections including the
intersection of Tank Farm and Santa Fe Roads. Chapter 6.4.7 of the AASP notes that roundabouts
are a desirable form of intersection control in the specific plan area. The FEIR includes mitigation
that requires the construction of a roundabout during phase 1 of the project at the intersection of
Tank Farm and Santa Fe Roads as part of the traffic mitigation. The Chevron applicant team
expressed the desire to construct a standard signalized intersection at this location instead.
The City consulted with two traffic engineering firms (The Wallace Group and Omni-Means) to
assist with conceptual design layouts and cost estimates for both a roundabout and a signalized
traffic signal for the Tank Farm and Santa Fe Road intersection; to determine whether the
roundabout was the ideal solution for this intersection, and to provide comparative analysis. The
Wallace study indicates that the construction of a roundabout will cost less and utilize less overall
right-of-way than a typical signalized intersection. Furthermore, modern roundabouts increase
vehicular traffic efficiency, reduce air pollution by reducing time at the intersection, and allow the
safe inclusion of pedestrians and bicyclists through the intersection.
Omni-Means assisted staff with a public workshop on December 9, 2013. The emphasis of the
workshop was to present the concept of roundabouts to the public and hear feedback. Omni- Means
is now in the process of assisting the City with design plans for the Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe
roundabout.
The current AASP policy requires a roundabout to be constructed at the Tank Farm and Santa Fe
intersection as specified in Table 6.2 of the AASP. However, the circulation graphic, figure 6-1 of
the AASP, identifies all of the roundabouts as “potential” roundabouts. The word “potential” was
incorporated into the specific plan to indicate that these intersections were good candidates for
roundabouts. Now, as refined plans and traffic studies are completed for the AASP and a
roundabout has been constructed on Prado Road, the roundabout has been identified as the preferred
PC1 - 12
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 13
method of intersection control. The revised graphic in the circulation plan will no longer include the
word “Potential”.
Bicycle Paths
The AASP illustrates the planned location of on and off-street bicycle paths consistent with the
Citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan. Several of these paths bisect the Chevron property and
provide regional connections to Broad Street, Buckley Road, the Damon Garcia sportsfields and the
Margarita Area. With the completion of the FEIR and the associated restoration and development
proposed on the Chevron property a clearer picture of the preferred locations of these important
connections has been identified. The Bicycle Advisory Committee commented on the plans and
asked for a continuous off-street pathway that will provide access through the Tank Farm Road
corridor. As an alternative, the Committee also asked staff to explore a “buffered” on-street bike
path on Tank Farm Road.
Page 11 of Attachment 1 provides a summary of bike infrastructure that is proposed to be reflected
in the updated AASP. Updated graphics and cross-sections are proposed to reflect these changes.
3.2.4 Chapter 7 Utilities & Services
Amendments to chapter 7 are needed to implement revised text that reflects the City’s updated
water and wastewater plans. Additionally, this chapter implements mitigation from the Chevron
FEIR regarding Fire protection services. Amended policies for fire protection recognize that
portions of the AASP commercial districts are currently outside of acceptable response times.
Policies 7.91 through 7.9.3 (Attachment 6) address fire protection.
3.2.5 Chapter 8 Public Facilities Financing
The AASP Public Facilities Financing plan, adopted in 2005, was based on build-out assumptions
and infrastructure costs in the airport area at the time. The financing plan is being revised to reflect
current build-out assumptions and infrastructure (and associated costs) required to support the
development anticipated in the AASP.
Since 2005, the build-out assumptions associated with the AASP have changed. Full annexation of
the AASP area has not occurred and several key properties have developed in the unincorporated
area. The development impact fees collected with County development did not cover what is now
known to be the development’s fair share of needed infrastructure for the area. Additionally,
several properties within the AASP prepaid impact fees as part of pre-annexation agreements and
development or redevelopment of these properties may not fully contribute to the current cost of
infrastructure development. Hence, there is less development that will contribute to the AASP
infrastructure costs than was assumed in 2005. In 2005, the AASP anticipated 5.3 million square
feet of non-residential development. Updated development figures estimate this development
potential is closer to 3.5 million square feet (Attachment 9). The initial (draft) cost estimate for the
AASP’s share of infrastructure improvement is 23.9 million compared to the 2005 estimate of 15.2
million. Staff has worked with Goodwin Consulting Group to prepare a draft financing plan, and
refinements to the plan will be required prior to adoption of a revised fee program. Their draft
report is included as Attachment 8.
PC1 - 13
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 14
EPS Study
On March 18, 2014, Economic and Planning Systems (EPS) consulting group provided a
presentation on Citywide Infrastructure Financing to the City Council. The EPS presentation
included a discussion of how these fees affect feasibility of development. Impact fees in the AASP
area are already approaching the ceiling of feasibility, and for new business park and commercial
service development, if fees continue solely on a as pay-as-you-go basis, feasibility levels will be
exceeded as shown in the chart on the following page.
Financing Options
As part of updating the infrastructure needs and associated costs, options for financing the needed
infrastructure are being evaluated. Staff initiated an AASP property owner meeting to discuss the
initial findings of the public infrastructure financing report. The Goodwin report also contained a
summary of tools available to fund infrastructure costs. The chart below summarizes several of the
options discussed with the property owners for which further analysis is needed.
PC1 - 14
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 15
Pay-as-you-Go Community Facility
District
Shift Source of
Funding
Reduced
Infrastructure
Pro Current method,
known results, backed
by City Policy
Spreads out timing to
pay for
infrastructure,
reduces direct impact
fee at time of
development
Reduce burden to
AASP, assign costs to
other city or county
areas that utilize
infrastructure, or rely
on grant-funding
Reduces cost of
development
impact fees
Con High cost of
Infrastructure may
discourage or slow
development
Requires voter
approval, does not
reduce overall
infrastructure cost to
property owners
No guarantee on
funding if
consideration includes
grants or outside
agencies
Reduces quality of
infrastructure,
could impact levels
of service, could
have CEQA impacts
Pay-As-You-Go
The City utilizes a “pay-as-you-go” system of funding infrastructure improvements. This system is
a combination of in-tract improvements provided by land developers and impact fees paid in
proportion to a development’s fair share of the cost of the area infrastructure. Developers are
reimbursed by other development in the area for improvements made in excess of their fair share
that will serve the greater area. Initial estimates confirm that if the City were to utilize solely a “pay-
as-you-go” system to continue financing infrastructure, the fees would increase to levels that are
considered to be outside of the feasibility range for typical development projects. When combined
with other City impact fees such as water, wastewater, housing, public art, and others, the result
could be up to a 10-15% average increase in development impact fees.
Community Facilities District (CFD)_
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982
to provide an alternate means of financing public infrastructure and services subsequent to the
passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The Act permits cities to create defined areas within their
jurisdiction and, with support by two-thirds of property owners within the defined area, impose
special taxes to pay for the public improvements and services needed to serve that area. A CFD may
provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible
property with an estimated useful life of at least five years. A CFD may also finance the costs of
planning, design, engineering, and consultants involved in the construction of improvements or
formation of the CFD. The facilities financed by the CFD do not have to be physically located
within the CFD.
The Goodwin study financing strategy recommends implementation of a CFD for a portion of the
infrastructure costs in order to reduce the amount of upfront developer equity required. Formation
of a CFD would require participation of the property owners as the details of the CFD are identified
including the properties to be included in the district, the facilities to be financed, and the duration
of the tax.
Although the CFD would spread out the payment of infrastructure costs it would not reduce or
eliminate the total infrastructure burden. A significant consideration of the CFD also includes the
likelihood of passage, as it is subject to a 2/3 vote within the CFD area. Because of this, it is
PC1 - 15
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 16
important to evaluate all of the financing options prior to adoption of the financing plan.
Shift infrastructure Funding Source
Table A-3 within the Goodwin Draft Financing Plan (Attachment 8) illustrates the estimated cost
allocations to development. Staff has evaluated the FEIR to determine if there may be an option to
shift the responsibility for specific infrastructure improvements and whether they should be
identified as project-specific requirements instead of AASP-wide improvements. The availability of
outside funding sources could affect the amount of infrastructure cost assigned to the area (grants
and/or County participation e.g.). Finally, if an improvement is identified as one that benefits the
City at large and not solely development in the AASP, the proportional cost of that particular
improvement could be assigned to the City-wide fee program.
However, even if the AASP burden remains similar to current levels, the overall cost per
development will still increase since there are fewer participating properties in the AASP than were
estimated in 2005.
Reduce or Modify Infrastructure
It is possible for the Planning Commission to direct staff to evaluate adjustments to the
infrastructure plan. However, doing so could prompt changes to the FEIR and could result in the
changes to identified impacts, especially if removing or modifying the infrastructure eliminates a
mitigation measure. Example adjustments could include reducing numbers of traffic lanes or
extending phasing of improvements to Tank Farm Road over a longer period of time.
Community Outreach
On April 30, staff organized a meeting with the property owners from the Airport Area to discuss
the findings of the Goodwin report and strategize on solutions to move forward. Approximately 25
property owners and representatives attended the meeting. Staff provided a presentation that
provided an overview of the needed infrastructure for the area, the proposed costs of the
infrastructure and an outline of the strategies that we will need to investigate before taking an action
on the financing plan. Staff made it clear that the current “pay-as-you-go” system does not appear to
be an effective method to solely meet the financing needs of the area. The property owners were
receptive to the information and requested another meeting prior to the July 9th Planning
Commission meeting to review and provide input on the revised PFFP. This second meeting is
tentatively scheduled for June 18, 2014.
Financing Plan Recommendation
At this time, staff is seeking feedback from the Planning Commission prior to developing the
appropriate menu of options to include in the financing plan. A viable option would be to shift
infrastructure responsibility in order to reduce the AASP fee burden to a reasonable level. It is
important to understand that nine of the intersections that were identified in the FEIR for mitigation
fall into unacceptable levels of service because of cumulative conditions. These intersections are
impacted because of existing and future traffic from many different parts of the City. Therefore, it is
possible to examine redistributing the burden of improving the infrastructure to areas outside of the
AASP. It is important to note that this alternative is not the sole solution to the funding gap as there
are fewer participants than were envisioned in 2005. This option will reduce the anticipated impact
fees, however the City will either need to assume grants and outside funding sources or increase
impact fees in order to rectify the gap that has been created by the drop in anticipated fee
PC1 - 16
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 17
contributions. Ultimately, the final adoption of Chapter 8 of the AASP will need to be accompanied
by a fee resolution that adopts the fee program for the area. Staff is seeking Commission direction
on items that should return for action at the July 9th hearing.
4.0 CONCLUSION
This hearing is the first of several hearings that will reflect the culmination of several years of
coordination between the City, the Chevron applicant team, the County, and a wide variety of
resource agencies to refine the project; to complete environmental analysis; and to outline a process
for the remediation, restoration and development of the former tank farm property. The project
application is consistent with the stated goals in the AASP and provides for open space and
development options.
Staff is requesting the Planning Commission adopt a resolution recommending the City Council
certify the Final EIR; and approve amendments to the AASP open space, land use, circulation, and
utilities sections while providing direction on updates to Chapter 8, the Public Facilities Financing
Plan.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Natural Resources Manager, Economic Development Manger, and staff from the Public Works,
Utilities, and Fire Departments have reviewed the project, the FEIR and proposed amendments to
the AASP. Their comments and edits have been incorporated in the AASP amendments.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes or additional
information in order to take an action at the July 9th regular hearing.
2. Take action on Resolution A and postpone action on Resolution B while providing
additional direction to staff towards additional information to the proposed AASP
amendments.
9.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. FEIR Executive Summary
2. Summarized Remediation project description
3. AASP Chapter 3. Conservation and Resource Management legislative draft
4. AASP Chapter 4, Land Use legislative draft
5. AASP Chapter 6, Circulation and Transportation Legislative draft
6. AASP Chapter 7, Utilities & Services
7. AASP Chapter 8, Public Facilities Financing
8. Goodwin Consulting Group Draft AASP Financing Plan.
9. AASP Floor Area Study
10. Planning Commission meeting minutes, December 13, 2013
11. Resolution A, Recommending the City Council certify the Final EIR
12. Resolution B, Recommending the City Council approve amendments to the AASP
PC1 - 17
SPA/ER 92-08 (276 Tank Farm Road)
Page 18
PC1 - 18
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-1 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Executive Summary
This Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) assesses the environmental impacts associated
with the Chevron Tank Farm Project (Project) proposed by Chevron (Applicant) (SCH
#2009031001). The Project Site is located at 276 Tank Farm Road, which is immediately south
of the City of San Luis Obispo, in San Luis Obispo County, California. The Project Site is within
a decommissioned oil facility originally owned by Union Oil, which reorganized as Unocal in
the 1980s and was purchased by Chevron in 2005. See Figure ES-1 for the general location of
the project.
The City and County have entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) concerning
each jurisdiction’s role in this process. Pursuant to that MOU, the City and County have agreed
to act as co-Lead Agencies for purposes of preparing this EIR. For purposes of ultimately
certifying a Final EIR, the City will act as Lead Agency and the County will act as Responsible
Agency. In the event that, in acting on any portion of the Project and considering whether to
certify the Final EIR, the City declines to certify the Final EIR for any reason, the County will
act as Lead Agency for purposes of acting on any portion of the Project and for certifying the
Final EIR.
This FEIR is an informational document that is being used by the general public and
governmental agencies to review and evaluate the Project. The reader should not rely
exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for judgment of the Project and its
alternatives. Specifically, the EIR should be consulted for information about the environmental
effects associated with the Project and potential mitigation measures to address or minimize
those effects.
The remainder of the Executive Summary consists of the following sections:
• An introduction, which discusses the Notice of Preparation (NOP) process that was used for
the EIR and the public comment period for the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR);
• A brief description of the Project;
• A discussion of governmental agency oversight and involvement in the development of the
remediation project.
• A summary of key impacts and mitigation measures associated with the Project;
• A brief description of the alternatives evaluated throughout this EIR;
• A summary of the Environmentally Superior Alternative; and
• A discussion of areas of known controversy and uncertainty.
A set of Impact Summary Tables is provided after the Executive Summary. These tables
summarize the impacts and mitigation measures for the Project. The impacts and mitigation
measures are discussed in further detail in Section 4.0. The alternatives to the Project are
discussed in Section 5.0.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 19
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-2 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Figure ES-1 Proposed Project Location
Attachment 1
PC1 - 20
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-3 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
A. Introduction
The purpose of the Executive Summary and Impact Summary Tables is to provide the reader
with a brief overview of the Project, the anticipated environmental effects, and the potential
mitigation measures that could reduce the severity of the impacts associated with the Project.
The reader should not, however, rely exclusively on the Executive Summary as the sole basis for
judgment of the Project and its alternatives.
This FEIR was prepared in accordance with State and San Luis Obispo City (City) and County
(County) administrative guidelines established to comply with CEQA. In compliance with
CEQA Guidelines, the City and County worked together to prepare an Initial Study for the
Project and solicited comments through distribution of an NOP (issued in February 27, 2009).
The scoping documents and comments received in response to the NOP were used to help direct
the scope of the analysis and the technical studies in this EIR. Copies of the Initial Study, NOP,
and the comments received in response to the NOP can be found in Appendix I.
The Draft EIR was released on June 20, 2013 for a 45-day public comment period. During the
public comment period a number of public workshops were held on the Draft EIR to provide the
public with an opportunity to ask questions about the Draft EIR. Volume II of the FEIR contains
a copy of all of the comment letters received on the Draft EIR and the responses to those
comments. Volume II is provided in electronic format on the CD attached to the inside front
cover of the FEIR. Revision marks are used throughout this FEIR to show where changes have
been made to the DEIR. Areas where the text has been revised are shown by solid vertical lines
on the left margin of the page.
In addition to the City and County, a number of other governmental agencies require a CEQA
analysis of the Project in order to act on the Project. These agencies include the San Luis Obispo
County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD), CALFire, California Department of Fish and
Wildlife (CDFW), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO), and the Airport Land Use Commission.
B. Proposed Project Description
The Project entails a complex permitting landscape for a couple of reasons. First, although the
Project Site is within the County, it is also located within the City’s Urban Reserve Line (URL)
and Urban Services Line (USL) and has been identified by the City for annexation. Second, the
Project is broken into two larger phases: remediation and development.
The County is responsible for the remediation phase, while the development phase would be
regulated by either the County or City, depending on whether or not the Project Site is annexed
into the City. In addition, the Project Site is located within an area that is subject to the Airport
Land Use Plan (ALUP) so will need approval from the Airport Land Use Commission.
The remediation and restoration component includes several activities proposed to occur over a
three-year period: demolition of existing buildings and selected reservoir remnants, excavation of
top soil and sub-surface material, site re-contouring, capping, and increasing the quantity of
wetland and rare plant habitats. Re-contouring would be done mostly using on-site materials.
The remediation portion of the Project is based on an extensive collaborative process with
resource agencies that have concurred with the Applicant’s proposed remediation approach,
while taking into consideration the proposed future uses at the Project Site.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 21
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-4 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
The second component of the Project would be development of portions of the Project Site. If the
Project is annexed into the City, there would need to be amendments to the City Airport Area
Specific Plan (AASP), the General Plan, the Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan (ACOS), a
tentative Tract Map, as well as other City permits. If the development is in the County, then a
General Plan amendment and conditional use permit would be required.
The Applicant’s goal is to develop approximately 17 percent of the Project Site with
approximately 800,000 square feet (floor area) of business park and service commercial uses.
Development would be implemented in five phases over a period of approximately 25 years;
each phase would create approximately 160,000 square feet of leasable floor area. The proposal
includes designation of approximately 15 acres for recreational use (may include up to two acres
of public land) to be developed by a subsequent Project Site/individual lot owner. The
development would be essentially the same for both the City and County options. The only major
difference would be that the County option would require the construction of a wastewater
treatment facility on-site and use of on-site groundwater to serve the development.
The Project Site is included in the City’s Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) that anticipates
future annexation of this and other properties in the area given its proximity to existing City
boundaries, existing industrial uses, and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
(SLOCRA). In addition, the City’s AASP encourages the environmentally sensitive portions of
the Project Site – comprised of approximately 250 acres – be kept in open space. The Applicant
is proposing a Development Agreement (DA) for consideration by the City Council in
association with a potential annexation of the Project Site. The purpose of the DA is to ensure
that development impact fees and project entitlements will remain stable throughout the phases
of development. The City will use the mitigations identified in this EIR as input in the
development of the DA. The mitigation measures included in the EIR will help the City identify
the infrastructure improvement that may be needed for the development project.
Given the uncertain nature of the DA and annexation processes, the Applicant has also filed a
land division map application with the County. The objective of the dual approach by the
Applicant is to provide an alternative development option in the event that the City review and
approval process for annexation and development is unsuccessful. Approved development would
either be under County or City jurisdiction, and such approvals would follow approval of
required amendments to the County General Plan and/or the City’s AASP.
The Project Site is divided into north and south sections by Tank Farm Road (see Figure ES-2).
It is bordered by light commercial and industrial development to the east and west, the SLOCRA
to the southeast, agricultural and pastoral lands with scattered residences to the south, and a
mobile home park to the northeast.
The existing buildings in the northwest part of the Project Site are used as the Applicant’s local
headquarters for a variety of environmental and remediation operations. The buildings are
proposed for demolition as part of the Project.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 22
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-5 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Figure ES-2 Project Site
Remediation Project
The remediation portion of the Project addresses soil and groundwater contamination identified
as potential human health or ecological risks as agreed upon by the resources agencies
participating in the Surface Evaluation, Remediation, and Restoration Team (SERRT) process
and reviewing the proposed remedial actions for the Project Site. The Project includes restoration
of wetland and rare plant habitats affected by the contamination and those that could be
potentially affected by implementing the remedial actions. The petroleum-related material
affecting the Project Site includes oil found in the vicinity of the former reservoirs in the
subsurface at an average depth of 25 to 40 feet below ground surface (bgs), but as deep as 60
feet. At the surface, crude oil expressions range from solid asphalt-like coke to a low-density
(light) non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL).
General remedial actions proposed by the Applicant as part of the remediation phase of the
Project include excavation and off-site transport, capping, long-term monitoring, and
institutional controls.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 23
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-6 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
The restoration phase as proposed by the Applicant would restore areas affected by the
remediation, improve habitat value and function, improve hydrologic function and conform to
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) guidance. Impacts to waters/wetlands due to remediation
efforts are expected on 42.93 acres; impacts to waters/wetlands due to development efforts are
expected on 3.71 acres. The Project would include the restoration of these wetlands onsite.
City Development Plan
The City Development Plan proposes development of the Project Site with approximately
803,000 square feet of commercial and industrial floor area with associated parking, landscaping,
open space, recreational playing fields, bicycle and pedestrian trails. The City Development Plan
could also include land for the City to construct public facilities such as a transit maintenance
yard and storage facility or a fire station and training facility.
The development would be phased over a 25-year period. The proposed land uses under the City
Development Plan include 27.85 acres of Business Park development (BP-SP), 26.01 acres of
Service-Commercial development (C-S-SP), 15.05 acres of Public Facilities (PF-SP) intended
for recreational ball fields, 13.62 acres of public right-of-way (e.g., streets), and the
approximately 250-acre balance as Open Space (C/OS-SP). See Figure ES-3.
The Applicant-proposed City Development Plan trades approximately nine acres of developable
area in the northwest portion of the Project Site and on the west edge of the area south of Tank
Farm Road for 16 acres in the northeast portion of the Project Site.
The City would provide water, sewer, and public services such as police and fire. The City
recently installed a sewer trunk line in Tank Farm Road along the property’s frontage (July
2009). The Applicant would extend the potable and recycled water mains and utilities to the
developable areas.
Improvements and modifications would be made to existing roadways in the Project area. Tank
Farm Road would be widened to four lanes from Acacia Creek in the east to the western
boundary of the property. Santa Fe Road, south of Tank Farm Road, would be re-aligned and
tied into Tank Farm Road. New roads would also be constructed north of Tank Farm Road.
The City Development Plan would also require amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan
(AASP) and the Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan (ACOS). Some of the major changes to
the AASP would include modification of some of the zoning on the Project Site, modification of
the boundaries of the Cluster Development Zone, elimination of the Unocal Collector Road,
elimination of the Class I multi-use trail to the south, and installation of a signalized intersection
at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road (the AASP calls for the use of a roundabout at this
intersection).
Amendments to the ACOS would include modification of the boundaries of the reserve spaces
and the location of the reserve areas.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 24
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-7 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Figure ES-3 City Development Plan
County Development Plan
The County Development Plan is similar to the City Development Plan with the primary
difference being that the County Development Plan proposes more rapid (Phase 1) development
in the eastern end of the Project Site (south of Tank Farm Road), where approximately 1 acre of
land designated as Industrial (I), would be used to construct an on-site wastewater treatment
facility.
The Applicant’s goal under the County Development Plan would be to develop a portion of the
Project Site with an approximate 803,000 square feet (floor area) for commercial and industrial
services with associated parking, landscaping, open space, bicycle and pedestrian trails, and
Project Site amenities (the same amount as the City Plan).
The development would be phased over 25 years. The proposed land uses under the County
Development Plan include 26.56 acres of Commercial Service (CS), 27.29 acres of Industrial,
Attachment 1
PC1 - 25
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-8 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
and Recreation (REC) consisting of 249.84 acres of open space and 15.05 acres as active sports
fields, and 13.63 acres of public right-of-way (e.g., streets). See Figure ES-4.
The Applicant-proposed County Development Plan proposes transferring the development
potential of the Industrial zoned land identified in the County General Plan (north of the
Northwest Operations Area) to the northeastern portion of the Project Site.
The County would provide public services such as police and fire. Water for the development
would be provided by on-site groundwater wells. A wastewater treatment plant would be built on
the site to handle the sewer needs of the Project.
Improvements and modifications would be made to existing roadways in the Project area. Tank
Farm Road would be widened to four lanes from Acacia Creek in the east to the western
boundary of the property. Santa Fe Road, south of Tank Farm Road, would be re-aligned and
tied into Tank Farm Road. New roads would also be constructed north of Tank Farm Road.
Figure ES-4 County Development Plan
Attachment 1
PC1 - 26
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-9 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
The Applicant proposes amending the Land Use Element of the County General Plan, including
the San Luis Obispo Area Plan, to designate approximately 27 acres to Commercial Services,
approximately 26 acres to Industrial, 265 acres for Open Space, and to allow for the remaining
14 acres to be used for streets.
C. Agency Oversight and Involvement
A large number of governmental agencies have been involved in oversite and development of the
remediation project at the Tank Farm site. The Applicant’s characterization of the contamination
has included, in addition to their identification and delineation, an evaluation of their importance
relative to human and ecological health and the need for their remediation. In order to validate
the characterization process, the Applicant entered into two cooperative programs resulting in
regulatory agency participation and third-party expert review: the Remediation Technology
Panel (RTP) and the SERRT.
The first of these collaborative processes, the RTP, was established through a cooperative
agreement between the Applicant and the Central Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). The RTP consisted of three experts drawn from academia with expertise in the
characterization and remediation of petroleum-affected sites, whose purview focused on soil- and
groundwater-related issues. They identified data gaps within the existing site characterization,
guided and reviewed subsequent characterization activities, and published a report summarizing
their consensus understanding of subsurface issues at the Project Site (RTP 2006).
A key finding of that report was that petroleum in the subsurface was effectively immobile and
that the migration of dissolved-phase constituents was controlled by natural biodegradation
processes. This finding, which was supported by a specific evaluation of natural attenuation
processes, formed the basis of evaluating MNA as an appropriate remedial technology for
impacted groundwater.
The second of the cooperative efforts, the SERRT, was established in 2002 at the suggestion of
staff at the RWQCB. This action was suggested in recognition of findings of studies which
detailed the extent of sensitive resources on the Project Site, and the subsequent desire to
consider a risk-based remediation program for the property. As part of the SERRT process the
Applicant, regulatory agencies, and local municipalities have reviewed data, evaluated
assessments, identified data gaps, established the risk associated with a given contamination
source, and determined the extent of the remediation required for the Project Site.
The SERRT formed two subgroups, the Human Health Risk Working Group (HHRWG) and the
Ecological Risk Working Group (ERWG). Both groups included the Applicant, its
representatives and consultants, and the RWQCB. In addition, the HHRWG included
representatives from the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the San
Luis Obispo County Environmental Health Division, and the San Luis Obispo County Air
Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). The ERWG in addition included representatives from
the City, the County Planning Department, California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
In addition to preparing reports documenting the human health risk assessment (HHRA) and
predictive ecological risk assessment (pERA), the SERRT prepared a consensus summary
document listing its recommendations for risk management at the Project Site, the Risk
Attachment 1
PC1 - 27
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-10 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Management Summary (BBL 2005). In order to focus risk assessment efforts, certain areas of the
Project Site, mainly those affected by liquid or plastic hydrocarbon surface expressions, were
excluded from the risk assessments on the understanding that remediation of those areas was a
“must”, and the Applicant would undertake remediation there without the need for further
detailed characterization or assessment.
The culmination of the Applicant’s characterization efforts was the Risk Management Summary,
which identified the contamination at the Project Site requires remediation. The SERRT ratified
the Risk Management Summary on December 12, 2005. The Risk Management Summary also
provided recommendations on treatment strategies based on levels and types of contamination,
the potential ecological risks, and the potential impacts of clean-up. Contamination requiring
remediation included surface liquid hydrocarbons impacting seasonal wetlands in Reservoirs 5
and 7, plastic surface hydrocarbons found across the Project Site (mostly in low-lying areas),
groundwater affected by LNAPL and benzene, arsenic in soil, asphalt affecting wetlands, and the
potential for vapor intrusion to affect buildings.
Based upon the Risk Management Summary, a Feasibility Study (FS) was conducted that
considered remedial activities that supported development consistent with the land use plans
available at that time. The FS evaluated various remedial alternatives that addressed site
contamination issues and selected a preferred remedy. The study was ratified by the SERRT on
March 15, 2007.
D. Proposed Project Impacts and Mitigation Measures
In the Impact Summary Tables and throughout this EIR, impacts of the Project and alternatives
have been classified using the categories Class I, II, III, and IV as described below.
• Class I – Significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to less than significant levels,
• Class II – Significant impacts that can be mitigated to less than significant levels,
• Class III – Less than significant impacts without mitigation, and
• Class IV – Beneficial impacts.
The term “significance” is used in these tables and throughout this EIR to characterize the
magnitude of the projected impact. For the purposes of this EIR, a significant impact is a
substantial, or potentially substantial, change to resources in the local Project area or the area
adjacent to the Project in comparison to the thresholds of significance established for the
resource or issue area. These thresholds of significance are discussed by issue area in Section
4.0.
The impacts along with the identified mitigation measures for each impact are shown in the
Impact Summary Tables, immediately following this Executive Summary. Each issue area
section of the Impact Summary Tables describes and classifies each impact, lists recommended
mitigation, and states the level of impact with mitigation.
The remainder of this section presents a brief summary of the key impacts and mitigation
measures for each issue area. The reader should refer to the Impact Summary Tables and
Section 4.0 of the EIR for a more detailed discussion of the impacts and associated mitigation
measures.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 28
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-11 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Air Quality
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) air quality impacts from the remediation
component of the Project.
Construction and operational activities associated with the remediation component of the Project
could result in air toxic, fugitive dust, diesel PM and ROG + NOx emissions, which were found
to be less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Some of the mitigation measures identified
for these impacts include use of CARB Tier 3 certified diesel construction equipment and
securing off-site reductions in ROG + NOx emissions if thresholds are exceeded.
Significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts from fugitive dust and diesel PM emissions could
occur during the development components of the Project. This is primarily due to vehicle
emissions associated with the development. Mitigation measures addressing alternative
transportation modes such as transit, and bicycle would serve to reduce these emissions, but they
would still remain significant and unavoidable.
Construction and operational activities associated with the development component of the
Project could result in Greenhouse Gas (GHG) and ROG + NOx emissions, which were found to
be less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Some of the mitigation measures identified for
these impacts include implementing a Transportation Demand Management program for
employees and securing off-site reductions in GHG and ROG + NOx emissions if thresholds are
exceeded.
Biological Resources
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to biological resources from the
remediation or development component of the Project.
Impacts to Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (VPFS) could occur during remediation activities.
Specimens of the federally threatened VPFS could be destroyed during soil remediation with
natural and artificial wetlands. Impacts to VPFS were found to be less than significant with
mitigation (Class II). Mitigation measures covering repopulation and collection of cysts
following U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocols would reduce this impact to less
than significant levels.
Construction and operational activities associated with the remediation component of the Project
could result in impacts to habitat for listed and special status species, loss of biological functions
of wetlands, native grasslands and habitat for rare plants and animals, adversely affected federal
wetlands, habitat alteration, temporary migration impediments, and the reduction in size and
diversity of plant and animal populations. These impacts were found to be less than significant
with mitigation (Class II). Some of the mitigation measures identified for these impacts include
implementing a Final Restoration Plan, conducting updated surveys of sensitive species habitats,
employing an independent biological monitor, delineating sensitive species habitat with specific
labeling, and minimizing project-related nighttime traffic.
Construction and operational activities associated with the development component of the
Project could result in loss of biological functions of wetlands, native grasslands and habitat for
rare plants and animals, temporary migration impediments, and the reduction in size and
diversity of plant and animal populations. These impacts were found to be less than significant
with mitigation (Class II). Some of the mitigation measures identified for these impacts include
implementing a Final Restoration Plan, monitoring the function of the restored native grassland
Attachment 1
PC1 - 29
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-12 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
habitat, excluding hikers, pets and cyclists from sensitive habitats, shielding light spillage into
adjacent preserved open space areas, and preparing a WWTF spill/discharge plan (County
scenario) with measures to prevent untreated discharge or accidental releases.
During both phases of the Project, the Applicant would be required to obtain all applicable
federal and state permits and agreements, including a USFWS Incidental Take Statement and
Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) and a streambed
alteration permit from California Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Transportation and Circulation
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to transportation and circulation from
the remediation component of the Project.
Significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts from cumulative traffic conditions could occur
during the Development Project. Five intersections and two freeway segments would be
impacted. Even with requirements for improvements designed to address congestion issues, these
impacts cannot be fully mitigated.
Construction and operational activities associated with the remediation component of the Project
could result in roadway impacts due to the potential obstruction of heavy vehicles creating an
unsafe situation. These impacts were found to be less than significant with mitigation (Class II).
A mitigation measure designed to address these impacts includes the implementation of a
Construction Traffic Management Plan that identifies haul routes, a traffic control plan, and a
scheduling plan.
Construction and operational activities associated with the development component of the
Project could result in one intersection operating at unacceptable levels, increased transit
ridership, bicycle and pedestrian network impacts, and site access issues. These impacts were
found to be less than significant with mitigation (Class II). Some of the mitigation measures
identified for these impacts include implementing previously scheduled improvements, installing
a multi-lane roundabout at the new intersection at Tank Farm Road and northern leg of Santa Fe
Road, installing a bus stop at the east and west end of the Project along Tank Farm Road,
installing a continuous Class I multi-use path along the north side of Tank Farm Road, and
implementing a Construction Traffic Management Plan.
Water Resources
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to water resources from the
remediation or development component of the Project.
Implementation of the County Development Plan could result in the migration of hydrocarbons
from the shallow ground water to the deep groundwater wells, which was found to be less than
significant with mitigation (Class II). The mitigation measure for this impact includes the
implementation of a sentinel monitoring program that would include wells positioned and
constructed to specifically monitor inflowing water in the vicinity of the groundwater wells that
would provide information on any approaching petroleum-related constituents of concern. If
petroleum-related constituents of concern are detected, then a groundwater treatment system
would need to be installed that uses carbon canisters, or similar technology, to remove any
hydrocarbons.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 30
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-13 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Impacts to water resources during the remediation component of the Project that are less than
significant with mitigation (Class II) include surface water quality degradation, stormwater
mobilization of contaminant constituents, and increased storm runoff flowing onto erodible soils.
Mitigation measures for these impacts include directing and controlling pollutant runoff,
implementing Surface Water Quality Management Practices, treating contaminated soil, and
preparing a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP).
Wastewater
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to wastewater from the remediation
component of the Project, or from the City Development Plan component of the Project
An impact to wastewater during the County’s Development Plan that is significant and
unavoidable (Class I) includes discharges from the WWTF increasing surface water flow rates
and affecting downstream properties. The mitigation measure for this impact includes
implementing a Wastewater Discharge Plan for the WWTF. Even with the implementation of
this measure, the impact would still be significant.
There are no less than significant with mitigation (Class II) impacts to wastewater from the
remediation component of the Project.
An impact to wastewater during the County’s Development Plan that is less than significant with
mitigation (Class II) includes the WWTF discharges increasing pollutants into the existing
drainages. The mitigation measure for this impact includes approval of a tertiary treatment
system and implementing a quarterly monitoring program that provides for sampling and testing
for all required constituent compounds.
Geological and Soil Resources
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to geological and soil resources
associated with the remediation or development components of the Project.
An impact to geological and soil resources during the remediation component of the Project that
is less than significant with mitigation (Class II) includes erosion-induced siltation of nearby
waterways as a result of ground disturbing activities. Mitigation measures for this impact include
preparation of a SWPPP, an Erosion Control Plan, and a Wet Weather Plan.
Impacts to geological resources during the development component of the Project that are less
than significant with mitigation (Class II) include erosion-induced siltation of nearby waterways,
loss of property, and risk to human life due to seismically-induced ground shaking,
hydroconsolidation, excessive settlement and expansive soils. Mitigation measures for these
impacts include compliance with all applicable codes and regulations, conduct of a detailed
geotechnical evaluation, assurance of proper compaction of unconsolidated soils, and
implementation of structural measures to assure adequate equipment support as well as design
requirements for pad development/construction.
Noise and Vibration
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to noise and vibration associated with
the remediation or development components of the Project.
Impacts to noise and vibration during the remediation component of the Project that are less than
significant with mitigation (Class II) include increased noise and vibration levels due to
Attachment 1
PC1 - 31
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-14 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
construction machinery and operational activities, such as rock blasting. Mitigation measures for
these impacts include implementing crushing plant setbacks from residential receptors, limiting
construction hours, and developing and implementing a Blasting Plan.
Impacts to noise and vibration during the development component of the Project that are less
than significant with mitigation (Class II) include increased noise levels due to construction
machinery and operational activities and exposure to the development by airport activities.
Mitigation measures for these impacts include implementing crushing plant setbacks from
residential receptors, limiting construction hours, and incorporating noise attenuation design
features in facilities within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) noise contours.
Cultural Resources and Archaeology
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to cultural resources associated with
the remediation or development components of the Project.
Impacts to cultural resources during the remediation and development components of the Project
that are less than significant with mitigation (Class II) include historical resources impacts, and
unanticipated disturbance to human remains and paleontological resources due to remediation
activities. Mitigation measures for these impacts include developing a monitoring plan and
halting area activities for expert assessment when resources are discovered.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to aesthetics and visual resources
associated with the remediation or development components of the Project.
Less than significant with mitigation (Class II) impacts to aesthetics and visual resources could
occur during the development component of the Project due to degradation of the site’s existing
visual character and introduction of new sources of light and glare. Mitigation measures
identified for these impacts include conducting an ALUP consistency review for new
construction as well as consistency reviews for the AASP and Community Design Guidelines.
Other measures include implementing a lighting plan and lighting operation schedule,
minimizing glare, and prohibiting laser light demonstrations. With these measures the impacts
would be less than significant.
An impact to aesthetics and visual resources during the remediation component of the Project
that is less than significant with mitigation (Class II) includes degradation to the visual character
or quality of the Project Site and surrounding viewshed. The mitigation measure for this impact
includes ensuring that graded areas not built on within two years of Project initiation are
temporarily landscaped or otherwise maintained to cover exposed soils and maintain growth of
weeds.
The development component of the Project was found to have less than significant (Class II)
impacts related to conflicts with the City’s AASP and the County’s ALUP. Mitigation measures
for these impacts include implementing the mitigation measures previously discussed for visual
character as well as for the County, prohibiting uses that regularly produce visually significant
quantities of smoke.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
A significant and unavoidable (Class I) impact to hazards and hazardous materials could occur
during the remediation component of the Project due to wetland restoration that could result in
Attachment 1
PC1 - 32
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-15 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
an increased risk of aircraft bird strikes. As a result, the impact would remain significant and
unavoidable. The Applicant has proposed replacing wetland areas impacted by the remediation
component of the Project at a 1.7 to 1 ratio. The biological resources section of the EIR has a
mitigation measure that would require offsetting the remediation component of the Project
impacts to wetlands at a ratio of 1 to 1 for disturbed wetlands and 2 to 1 for wetland that are
permanently lost due to the development. These wetland areas would all be located within the
airport runway safety zones.
Even at a 1 to 1 replacement ratio, the restoration activities would improve the value and
functions of the wetlands, which could make them more attractive to birds. In addition, with the
re-establishment of normal water flow throughout the site, other additional degraded wetlands
could recover and provide additional habitat functions. The natural recovery of degraded
wetlands, combined with mitigation measures, particularly restoration of on-site, existing
wetlands, would result in a potential increase in the quantity and quality of wetland habitat and
therefore possibly increase bird populations. Therefore, the impact associated with bird strike
risk has remained significant and unavoidable (Class I).
An impact to hazards and hazardous materials during the remediation component of the Project
that is less than significant with mitigation (Class II) includes increased asbestos exposure risk.
The mitigation measure for this impact includes implementing measures from the air quality
issue area.
As part of the remediation component of the Project, the Applicant proposes to make some
modification to Reservoir 2 to improve airport safety by addressing concerns raised by the
Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). The main runway alignment intersects the reservoir,
which is now a significant feature within the Runway Protection Zone (RPZ). The ALUC
identified this feature as a safety concern if an aircraft had to make an emergency landing within
the RPZ. These modifications were found to be a beneficial impact (Class IV).
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to hazards and hazardous materials
associated with the development components of the Project.
Impacts to hazards and hazardous materials during the development component of the Project
that are less than significant with mitigation (Class II) include potential health risks from
exposure to residual contamination and the potential risks associated with the future use of
acutely hazardous materials (AHMs). The mitigation measures for these impacts include
securing deed restrictions specifying trenching limits and limits of on-site storage of AHMs.
For the County Development Plan, risks associated with the WWTF chemical usage, and with
the WWTF polishing ponds and aircraft bird strikes are less than significant with mitigation
(Class II). The mitigation measures for these impacts include limits of on-site storage of chlorine
and sulfur dioxide, and prohibition of the use of polishing ponds for the WWTF.
Population and Housing
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts or less than significant with
mitigation (Class II) impacts to population and housing associated with the remediation or
development components of the Project. However, an impact to population and housing that is
less than significant (Class III) includes the project inducing substantial growth in the area by
proposing new businesses in the area. No mitigation measures are required for this impact.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 33
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-16 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Public Services and Utilities
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to public services and utilities
associated with the remediation or development components of the Project.
For the City Development Plan, impacts to demand for fire protection services were found to be
less than significant with mitigation (Class II) since the response times for the City Fire
Department are longer than the standards adopted in the City Fire Department Master Plan.
Mitigation measures include the Applicant deeding property at the Project Site to the City that
could be used for a future City fire station, and a requirement that the City deem that adequate
fire suppression services and facilities, consistent with adopted travel time standards, are
available, or will be made available concurrent with development at the Project Site. If, at time
of development it is determined that the development site is outside of adequate response time
zones, the Developer/Applicant could finance improvements that would alleviate the
deficiencies.
Under the County Development Plan fire protection services were found to be less than
significant (Class III) since the CALFIRE response times to the Project Site are adequate, and the
Applicant is required to pay the County’s fire service mitigation fee.
Recreation
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts or less than significant with
mitigation (Class II) impacts to recreation associated with the remediation or development
components of the Project. However, an impact to recreation that is less than significant (Class
III) includes the potential effect remediation activities could have on existing recreational
facilities and users. No mitigation measures are required for this impact.
The development component of the Project would include the addition of ballfields and bicycle
paths, which would be a beneficial impact (Class IV).
Agricultural Resources
There are no significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to agricultural resources associated
with the remediation or development components of the Project.
The Project could result in less than significant with mitigation (Class II) impacts to productivity
of adjacent farmlands due to construction activities during both the remediation and development
portions of the Project. Dust generated by the demolition of the existing buildings and structures
in the Northwest Operations Area, pipeline decommissioning activities, remediation activities,
and development construction activities could produce a significant short-term impact and
temporarily affect the productivity of row crops. Implementation of the fugitive dust mitigation
measures identified in air quality would reduce these impacts to less than significant.
E. Description of Project Alternatives
Alternatives to the Project have been developed per CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6. This
document has used an alternative screening analysis to select the alternatives evaluated in detail
in the EIR. The screening analysis provides the detailed explanation of why some of the
alternatives were rejected for further analysis and ensures that only potentially environmentally
preferred alternatives are evaluated and compared in the EIR. Please see Chapter 5 of the EIR
for a detailed discussion of the screened alternatives. The following are the alternatives that
were selected as part of the screening analysis for more detailed review.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 34
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-17 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
No Project Alternative
With the No Project Alternative, development of the Project Site would not occur, and the
Project Site would remain as open space. However, it is likely that the RWQCB and/or CDFW
would still require some level of remediation of the site, even with no development, to assure
protection of human health and ecological receptors.
For the purposes of the EIR, it has been assumed that the remediation and restoration of the
Project Site under the No Project Alternative would be similar to the proposed Project. The
major change would be that the remediation portion of the Project would not include the
construction of the rough pads for the proposed development. Instead, the areas that are proposed
for development would be returned to their natural grade and revegetated. None of the proposed
infrastructure improvements associated with roads would occur as part of the No Project
Alternative. Only the storm water management improvements needed to support the remediation
and restoration effort would be constructed on-site. The reader is referred to Section 2.3 of the
EIR for a detailed description of the remediation and restoration activities that would occur under
the No Project Alternative.
Replace Remedial Caps with Excavation
This alternative is similar to the proposed Project, except areas designated for remedial capping
would be excavated and then backfilled. In addition, soil with elevated arsenic concentrations
will be removed and transported off-site for disposal. This alternative would result in the
removal from the site of a larger amount of the constituents that were identified in the Human
Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and Predictive Ecological Risk Assessment (pERA), as being a
potential threat to human health and site ecology (mainly crude oil, lead, arsenic, PCBs, and
benzene), than the proposed Project.
This alternative assumes that most of the excavated material would be trucked to the Santa Maria
Landfill for use in the closure of landfill cells as part of the Landfill’s Non-Hazardous
Hydrocarbon Impacted Soil (NHIS) program. It is possible that some of the excavated material,
particularly arsenic-impacted soils, would not meet the acceptance criteria for that program and
would need to be transported to another disposal facility, such as Buttonwillow in Kern County
or Kettleman Hills in Fresno County, if it did not meet the NHIS criteria for the Santa Maria
Landfill.
Reduced Development
The reduced development alternative would have approximately 562,000 square feet of
commercial and industrial floor area with associated parking, landscaping, open space,
recreational playing fields, bicycle and pedestrian trails. This represents a 30 percent reduction in
building floor space over the proposed Project. Under this alternative, no development would
occur on the western portion of the site just north of Tank Farm Road. Known as the Northwest
Operations Area, this portion of the Project Site contains the highest level of contamination. The
Northwest Operations Area would be recontoured to a natural grade and then revegetated. All
other remediation restoration activities associated with the proposed Project would remain the
same under this alternative. This alternative would apply to both the City and County
Development Plans.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 35
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-18 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
F. Environmentally Superior Alternative
This section summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives as
compared to the Project. A more detailed comparison of the Project and the alternatives can be
found in Section 5.4 of the EIR. This comparative analysis was used to select the
environmentally superior alternative as required by CEQA, which states that “if the
environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, the EIR shall also identify an
environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives” (CEQA Guidelines Section
15126.6(e)(2)).
Remediation Alternatives
No Project Alternative
There is very little difference in the environmental impacts of remediation under the No Project
Alternative and the proposed Project. Remediation under the No Project Alternative would not
eliminate or change the significance (i.e., impact classification) of any of the environmental
impacts of the proposed remediation component of the Project. Remediation under the No
Project Alternative would reduce the severity of all of the air emission impacts. Impacts in the
other issue areas would remain essentially the same as for the proposed remediation component
of the Project.
Given that remediation under the No Project Alternative would reduce the severity of a number
of air quality impacts, it was found to be the environmentally superior alternative. However, if
the Project Site was remediated under the No Project Alternative, it would have to remain as
open space and no development could occur. As such, remediation under the No Project
Alternative would not meet any of the development objectives of the Project. CEQA requires
that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then the next most
environmentally preferred alternative must also be identified.
Replace Remedial Caps with Excavation
This alternative would not eliminate or reduce the severity of any of the environmental impacts
associated with the proposed remediation component of the Project. The severity of a number of
impacts identified for the proposed remediation component of the Project would increase with
this alternative (air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology, transportation,
noise, etc.).
This alternative would result in the removal of more of the hydrocarbon impacted material from
the site than the proposed Project. However, the level of human health and ecological risk would
remain essentially the same as for the proposed Project. The main reason for this is that with the
proposed Project the former reservoirs would be capped with clean soil/gravel, and vapor
barriers would be installed. These remedial methods would provide essentially the same levels of
protection and risk reduction as excavation based upon the type of contamination present at the
Project Site (mainly lead, arsenic, PCBs, and benzene).
The remedial cap replacement with excavation alternative would provide no reduction in the
severity of any of the impacts identified for the proposed remediation component of the Project.
Therefore, the proposed remediation component of the Project was found, in comparison to the
No Project Alternative, to be the next environmentally superior alternative.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 36
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-19 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Development Alternatives
No Project Alternative
The portion of the No Project Alternative covering development would eliminate all of the
development impacts of the proposed Project, since no development would occur. Although it
would also eliminate the beneficial impacts to recreation since the ball fields and bike paths
would not be built, the development portion of the No Project Alternative remains the clear
environmentally superior alternative.
The No Project Alternative would not meet any of the development objectives of the Project.
CEQA requires that if the environmentally superior alternative is the No Project Alternative, then
the next most environmentally preferred alternative must also be identified.
Reduced Development Alternative
The reduced development alternative would reduce the impact classification associated with
diesel particulate emissions from significant and unavoidable (Class I) to less than significant
with mitigation (Class II). Fugitive dust emissions would remain Class I, but would be reduced
in severity. Traffic impacts to five intersections and two freeway segments under the cumulative
conditions would be reduced in severity, but would remain a Class I impact for this alternative. It
should be noted that the traffic impact of the Project under the existing conditions (i.e., the
baseline) would be less than significant (Class II) for this alternative .
For the County development option, this alternative would also reduce the severity of one
significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts (discharges from the wastewater treatment plant
increasing surface water flows during storm events). However, this impact would remain
significant and unavoidable (Class I) for the reduced development alternative.
The reduced development alternative would meet all but one of the objectives of the proposed
Project. The Applicant has stated that any reduction in building square footage would not meet
objective #5 that states, “develop an economically viable commercial project with infrastructure
and development phased over 25 years”. The Applicant’s position has been that all of the
building square footage would be needed to allow for the development of the public
infrastructure that would be required for the proposed Project, and that any reduction in the
building square footage would make the Project uneconomical. The EIR does not address the
issue of economic feasibility.
With the reduced development alternative the proposed building square footage would be less
than what was envisioned in the City’s Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and would be well
below the allowable building and population densities allowed under the Airport Area Specific
Plan.
From an environmental standpoint, the reduced development alternative would eliminate one
significant and unavoidable (Class I) Project impact (the portion of AQ.7 covering diesel
particulate emissions) and reduce the severity of the remaining significant and unavoidable
portion of AQ.7 covering fugitive dust emissions. The alternative would also reduce the severity
of the significant and unavoidable (Class I) cumulative traffic impact (T.5-Traffic Impacts to
Five Intersections and Two Freeway Segments under the Cumulative Conditions). However, the
traffic and fugitive dust impacts would remain significant and unavoidable (Class I) for this
alternative.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 37
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-20 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Given that the reduced development alternative would eliminate the Class I impact associated
with diesel particulate emissions (first part of AQ.7) and would reduce the severity of two other
Class I impacts (the second part of AQ.7 covering fugitive dust emissions and T.5 covering
cumulative traffic impacts), it was found, in comparison to the No Project Alternative, to be the
next environmentally superior alternative.
G. Known Areas of Controversy and Uncertainty
According to Section 15123 of the CEQA Guidelines, the EIR shall identify “areas of
controversy known to the Lead Agency including issues raised by agencies and the public.”
There are two key issues of controversy that have been raised with regard to the Project.
Level of Cleanup of Contamination at the Project Site
A number of stakeholders have raised the issue that the Applicant should do more to remediate
the Project Site by removing more of the existing contamination. Stakeholders have wanted to
see increased excavations that would remove more of the contamination.
In determining the level of remediation that would need to occur at the Project Site, a Surface
Evaluation, Remediation, and Restoration Team (SERRT) was formed. The SERRT formed two
subgroups, the Human Health Risk Working Group (HHRWG) and the Ecological Risk Working
Group (ERWG). Both groups included the Applicant, its representatives and consultants, and the
RWQCB. In addition, the HHRWG included representatives from the California Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, the San Luis Obispo County Environmental Health
Division, and the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). The
ERWG in addition included representatives from the City, the County Planning Department, the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife, the USFWS, and the USACOE.
As part of the SERRT process a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) and a Predictive
Ecological Risk Assessment (pERA) were developed for the Project Site. The HHRA evaluated
potential human health risks at the Project Site using current U.S. EPA and CalEPA
methodologies. Risks determined in the HHRA are driven primarily by the presence of arsenic
and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) in soil. The HHRA evaluated the potential cancer risk
and noncancer hazard to future site users identified in the City and County Development Plans
from chemicals known to be present in soil, soil gas, surface water and groundwater at the
Project Site. As discussed in the Hazards and Hazardous Materials Section of the EIR (Section
4.11) these risks were found to be less than significant with the implementation of the proposed
remediation. In addition, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
(OEHHA) and the County of San Luis Obispo Environmental Health Services have both
submitted letters explicitly stating that the revised HHRA is adequate. These letters are included
in Appendix H.2 of the EIR.
The pERA was used to look at impacts of the contamination on terrestrial plants and wildlife. In
general terms, terrestrial/wetland plants and terrestrial/sediment invertebrates are the most
sensitive receptors evaluated in the pERA, especially in terms of risk due to petroleum exposure.
The main potential risks to wildlife identified in the pERA are from exposure to lead and to a
lesser extent arsenic. With the implementation of the remediation component of the Project,
which would involve mainly excavations and remedial caps, the impacts to biological resources
Attachment 1
PC1 - 38
Executive Summary
December 2013 ES-21 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
were found to be less than significant. Discussion on the pERA can be found in Section 4.2
(Biological Resources) and Section 4.11 (Hazards and Hazardous Materials).
The culmination of the Applicant’s characterization and risk assessment efforts was the Risk
Management Summary, which identified contamination at the Project Site requiring remediation
as agreed by the SERRT. The Risk Management Summary provided recommendations on
treatment strategies based on levels and types of contamination, the potential ecological risks,
and the potential impacts of clean-up.
The result of the SERRT process was the development of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP). The
Remedial Action Plan (RAP) provides regulatory agencies, the municipalities with jurisdiction
over the site, and the public with detailed information on how the Applicant will implement the
remedial actions agreed to by the SERRT.
The remediation component of the Project was developed using a human health and ecological
risk based approach, and would include a combination of excavations, remedial caps,
institutional controls and long-term monitoring developed as part of the SERRT process.
The remediation approach was developed to reduce the levels of risk without the significant
ecological impacts associated with a large excavation project. The goal of the remediation that
would occur in sensitive habitat areas would be to minimize environmental impacts to the extent
feasible, while assuring that after remediation, the Project Site is protective of human health and
the ecology.
As part of the EIR, a number of remediation alternatives were developed that would involve
increased levels of excavation at the Project Site. See Chapter 5 (Alternatives Analysis) for a
discussion of these excavation alternatives.
Long-Term Use of the Open Space
Some stakeholders have raised the issue of allowing increased public access and recreational
development on the large amount of open space that would be created by the development of the
Project Site. The proposed development would include up to 15 acres for recreational fields and
a number of bike paths. Opening up more of the open space to public access raises a number of
issues including:
The open space areas contain sensitive biological resources including, wetlands and vernal pool
fair y shrimp (VPFS), which is a federally listed species. These sensitive biological resources
could be impacted if the open space were open to public access. Protecting these sensitive
biological areas is a key goal of the resource agencies. The locations of these sensitive biological
areas are provided in Section 4.2 (Biological Resources).
The open space is within the runway protection zone of the SLOCRA, and areas of the site are
used for airport equipment. Public access to these open space areas could conflict with airport
operations and represent a hazard to the public and airport operations.
All of the open space would be part of the Reserve Space that is required by the Airport Land
Use Plan (ALUP) to allow for increased development within the Cluster Development Zone
(CDZ) of the City’s Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). In addition, some of the open space
would have to be set aside as Reserve Areas, per the ALUP. The ALUP limits the types of
Attachment 1
PC1 - 39
Executive Summary
Chevron Tank Farm ES-22 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
development and activities that can occur with Reserve Areas and Reserve Space. Information on
the Reserve Areas and Reserve Spaces is provided in Chapter 2 of the EIR.
At the time of preparation of the EIR, it was unclear what the Applicant was proposing to do
with the portion of the Project Site that would not be developed. The EIR has a mitigation
measure that would require the Applicant to place the undeveloped land in a conservation
easement that would be managed by a municipality or non-governmental organization.
The Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Prado Road Extension
The extension of Prado Road is a major transportation goal of the City. Completion of this road
is critical to the development of the Margarita Area, and is part of the Margarita Area Specific
Plan (MASP). Prado Road would provide the primary access to the Margarita Area from other
parts of the City and would connect the southeastern and southwestern parts of the City (MASP,
2004). The City Circulation Element designates Prado Road as a “highway/regional route.”
The Project is part of the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and does not include any parts of
the Prado Road extension, which is designed to support the Margarita Area. All road
improvements associated with the Project would occur in the vicinity of the Project Site and
would serve to improve the Tank Farm Road corridor. The EIR did look at an alternative that
would have included completing the Prado Road extension; however this alternative was
subsequently removed from further consideration (see Chapter 5 [Alternatives Analysis]).
Attachment 1
PC1 - 40
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Impact Summary Tables
City Development Plan
Attachment 1
PC1 - 41
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm i December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Page
Class I Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... IST-2-1
Class II Impacts.................................................................................................................................................... IST-2-4
Class III Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-2-18
Class IV Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-2-25
Attachment 1
PC1 - 42
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-1 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.7 Operational
activities associated
with the City
Development Plan
would generate
diesel particulate
and fugitive dust
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ.7 Implement mitigation measure AQ-6b. Significant
and
unavoidable
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.5 The addition of
Project traffic would
cause nine
intersections and
two freeway
segments to operate
at unacceptable
levels under
Cumulative
conditions.
Development T-5a South Higuera Street and Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the right-
of-way acquisition and intersection improvements to achieve LOS D
operations. These improvements include: installation of second left turn lanes
on the northbound, southbound, eastbound approaches; the addition of right
turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches; and the addition of
overlap phases on the eastbound and westbound approaches as determined by
the City and the level of impact associated with the contribution of either the
City or the County Development portions of the Project. This project is not
included in the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program or the AASP or
MASP impact fee programs. Due to its size and complexity, the City should
consider amending this project into one of the City’s impact fee programs. If
amended into an impact fee program, the Project shall pay impact fees in
accordance with the amended fee program.
T-5b Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Calle Joaquin –The
Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of design and installation of a
northbound left turn lane added to the future improvement on the Calle Joaquin
approach, as determined by the City and the level of impact associated with the
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Attachment 1
PC1 - 43
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-2 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
contribution of either the City or the County Development portions of the
Project. This project is currently contained in the City’s TIF program as part of
the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project however it will be not be
constructed as part of the Interchange project currently underway.
T-5c South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road – Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1
buildings/development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of
the design and installation of a second westbound right turn lane with an
overlap phase concurrent with the southbound left and a second southbound left
turn lane, as determined by the City and the level of impact associated with the
contribution of the City Development portions of the Project.
T-5d South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane – Prior to the occupancy of each phase
of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the
design and installation of the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera
Street. The AASP impact fee program contains part of the cost associated with
the Buckley Road extension, but the impact fee program needs to be updated to
reflect new project cost estimates and permitting requirements.
T-5e South Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road- The applicant shall participate
in their pro-rate share of either (1) The right-of-way acquisition, design, and
installation a second southbound through lane, second southbound right-turn
lane, and an eastbound right turn overlap signal phase concurrent with the
northbound left turn; or (2) The extension of Buckley Road to the Los Osos
Valley Road interchange (LOVR Bypass). This project is not currently in the
City’s Circulation Element and is not contained in any impact fee programs
established by the City or County. It is cumulative in nature and the City shall
add this project into the TIF or AASP if the Circulation Element Update
identifies it as an appropriate infrastructure improvement.
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Significant
and
unavoidable
Attachment 1
PC1 - 44
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-3 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
T-5f Santa Fe Road and Tank Farm Road – Mitigation measure T-3a would also
mitigate this cumulative impact.
T-5g Broad Street and Tank Farm Road - Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a northbound right turn lane, a southbound right turn overlap
phase concurrent with the eastbound left, and conversion of the westbound right
turn lane to a shared through right turn lane.
T-5h Broad Street and Buckley Road - Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a second northbound through lane and a second southbound
through lane.
T-5i Broad Street and Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a second northbound left-turn lane.
None
Significant
and
unavoidable
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Attachment 1
PC1 - 45
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-4 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.6 Operational
activities
associated with the
City Development
Plan would
generate
ROG+NOx
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ-6a Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall implement
the following mitigation measures to reduce area source emissions, where
applicable.
a. Increase walls and attic insulation by 20 percent above what is required by
the 2008 Title 24 requirements.
b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce summer
cooling needs.
c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, where applicable.
e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit
access.
f. Use double-paned windows.
g. Use low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g., sodium)
h. Use energy efficient interior lighting.
i. Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e., should meet the
EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating).
j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating.
k. Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and
windows are not available.
AQ-6b Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits or lease agreement, the
Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce vehicle
emissions.
a. Locate electrical vehicle charging station(s) in the parking lots at a ratio
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 46
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-5 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
required by County or City ordinance or as recommended by APCD.
b. In coordination with the City Transit Management, provide transit demand
enhancements (i.e., additional stops, shelters, phones) within the Project
impact area to meet the increased ridership demand associated with the
Project.
c. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with
location and design criteria established by the City’s Bicycle Transportation
Plan, with installation and design guidance provided by the City’s
Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space for every 10
employees is considered appropriate.
d. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike
or walk to work.
e. The Applicant or lessee shall meet with SLOCOG’s Rideshare Program
Coordinator to develop a Trip Reduction Plan to be reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Director and APCD. The Trip Reduction Plan shall
include the following:
1) A comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program for
employees. The TDM may include: (a) private vanpool operation; (b)
transit and vanpool fare subsidies; (c) pay parking for employees; (d)
provision of subscription bus services; (e) alternative work hours; (f)
capital improvements for transit services; (g) reduction of parking fees
for carpools and vanpools; (h) Bikeway linkages to established bicycle
routes; and (i) provision of an on-site employee transportation and
rideshare coordinator.
2) Preferential carpool and vanpool parking for employees.
3) A lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips.
4) On-site facilities for eating and convenience including refrigeration,
Attachment 1
PC1 - 47
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-6 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
automatic banking, and other vending for employees.
5) Incentive programs, similar to the County Rideshare Transportation
Choices Program, to reduce employee commute trips. Programs should
be coordinated with adjacent commercial development with a goal to
achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) of 1.20 persons per
vehicle or greater.
6) The Applicant shall set aside funds equivalent to three month
enrollment in Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club for 25 percent of all
employees (a maximum of $52,230 for this project). This fund shall be
managed by APCD through a program similar to the “Flash Pass” used
for the San Luis Obispo Home Depot development. If funds are not
used for this purpose, they may be used for other incentives that have
been included in the approved Trip Reduction Plan.
f. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City and APCD to pursue a
shared use agreement to use over-supplied parking areas for a potential
park-and-ride lot. The park-and-ride lot should be away from building
entrances and as close as possible to the parking lot entrance nearest to
Tank Farm Road or fronting street. The target number of park-and-ride
spaces should be 25. The parking area should be identified with signage
and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an
official park-and-ride lot.
g. Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce
vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment.
AQ-6c Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, if emissions of ROG+NOx
with the above mitigations still exceed the thresholds, the Applicant shall secure
SLOAPCD approved off-site reductions in ROG+NOx emissions from the
SLOAPCD to ensure that ROG+NOx emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD daily
and annual thresholds.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 48
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-7 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AQ-6d Implement a program of periodic wet-vacuum street sweeping in coordination with
APCD in order to reduce vehicle-related fugitive dust emissions.
AQ.8 Operational and
construction
activities
associated with the
City Development
Plan would
generate GHG
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ-8 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits for each phase, the Applicant
shall include building efficiency improvements and/or off-site reductions in GHG
emissions to ensure that GHG emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD thresholds.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.2)
BIO.8 The City
Development Plan
would result in
permanent loss of
biological
functions of
wetlands, native
grasslands, habitats
for rare plants and
animals, and other
biotic communities
considered
sensitive by
federal, state, or
local policies,
statutes, and
Development BIO-8a The final restoration plan shall include criteria that would require the restoration of
at least a 2:1 replacement ratio (4.14 acres as defined by Padre 2008c) of all “native
grasslands” habitat permanently lost in the development elements of the project.
Restored native grassland habitat shall meet standards and criteria as defined by the
County of San Luis Obispo and CDFW within the proposed restoration of 45.2
acres of forb field habitat. Implementation of the terrestrial habitat restoration shall
follow the plan, including locations to be restored, restoration techniques, a
schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and remedial
actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO-8b The function of the restored native grassland habitats shall be monitored. A Long-
Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan shall be developed and appended to
the final restoration plan. The habitat management and evaluation plan shall include
methods to determine if the restored areas are meeting success criteria per the
approved restoration plan including criteria of plant and wildlife species in restored
habitats and to compare such results to pre-Project conditions. The complementary
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 49
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-8 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
regulations. plan shall include surveys to monitor the occurrence of native plants and animals in
restored habitats relative to their occurrence in similar habitats prior to remediation
and development.
BIO-8c Hikers, pets, and bikers shall be excluded from sensitive habitats within the Project
Site. The final SLO City and County-approved restoration plan shall include a
fencing plan element with specific details on location, requirements of permanent
and seasonal exclusion zones, and type of fencing to ensure that wildlife movement
is not restricted. The fencing plan shall include information on placement of signs,
educational placards, type of fencing required, method of exclusions, and
monitoring and repair of exclusion devices, and shall include, at the least, a
description and figure of those areas (i.e., VPFS habitat, vernal pool habitat, riparian
habitat, and habitat in the process of being restored) that would require full time
exclusion.
BIO-8d The final restoration plan shall require a 2:1 replacement of the 3.71 acres of
USACE Jurisdictional Waters/wetlands, isolated waters/wetlands, and one-
parameter wetlands (for a replacement of 7.42 acres) permanently impacted by the
City Development Plan. Implementation of the wetland and habitat restoration shall
follow the plan, including locations to be restored, restoration techniques, a
schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and remedial
actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO.9 The City
Development Plan
would permanently
impede migration
and dispersal of
upland, aquatic,
and semi-aquatic
wildlife species.
Development BIO-9a To reduce impacts to wildlife migration, the Applicant shall include in the approved
final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) landscape designs for planting of native
vegetation along the northern portion of the City Development Plan area. The native
vegetation landscaping shall be designed to provide wildlife species cover and
refuge during migration. The landscaping shall be designed to shield migrating
wildlife from human presence, noise, and lighting from residential and recreational
activities in the City and County Development Plan footprint. Due to the 2 to 25
year duration of development phase, such planting shall occur on the onset of the
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 50
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-9 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
development phase.
BIO-9b To reduce cumulative impacts to wildlife migration the Applicant shall include in
the final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) a fencing plan element with specific details
on location and requirements for the purpose of restricting wildlife movement
through the development area but allowing movement through the open space areas.
BIO.10 The City
Development Plan
has the potential to
reduce the size and
diversity of plant
and animal
populations at the
Project Site.
Development BIO-10 Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit the Applicant shall submit a lighting
plan to the City for approval. All Project lighting shall be designed to shielded
spillage of light into adjacent preserved open space areas. Any structural part of the
light fixture providing this shielding shall be permanently affixed. Outdoor lighting
for buildings shall be restricted to lights required by code for lighting building
exteriors and for safety and security needs. The lighting for the ball field shall not
be on during period when there are no activities at the fields. In no case shall the
lights at the ball fields be on between the hours of midnight and 7:00 AM. After
initial installation of Project lighting, a City-approved biologist shall conduct a field
inspection to confirm that the proper lamps have been installed and that light
spillage into Open Space areas has been minimized to the maximum extent feasible
without compromising safety or other critical night-lighting requirements.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.3 Impacts to the
City’s transit
system could result
due to increased
ridership generated
by the Project,
impacts to bicycle
Development T-3a Site Access (Northeastern Parcel): Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road: Prior to the
occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant shall install a multi-
lane roundabout at the new intersection of Tank Farm Road and northern leg of
Santa Fe Road accessing the Project Site. This improvement is consistent with the
intersection control in the AASP. Also the Applicant shall extend the existing four
lane section of Tank Farm Road thru the multilane roundabout.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 51
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-10 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
and pedestrian
facilities could
result from
network
discontinuities and
unsafe crossings;
impacts to site
access and on-site
circulation could
result from queue
spillback and the
creation of
additional conflict
points.
Transit: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant
shall install transit facilities along Tank Farm Road to the satisfaction of the City
Public Works Department with direct pedestrian and bicycle connections to
buildings on the Project Site. The Applicant shall also work with the City and SLO
Transit to ensure that transit service capacity is adequate to serve the projected
demand.
Bicycle and Pedestrian: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development,
the Applicant shall, at a minimum, install the following bicycle and pedestrian
facilities: 1) a continuous Class I multi-use path along the north side of Tank Farm
Road, 2) City standard 6.5 foot wide Class II bike lanes on the north and south sides
of Tank Farm Road between the east and west boundaries of the entire Project Site
along with appropriate transitions to existing Tank Farm Road, 3) a Class I multi-
use path between Tank Farm Road and the southern limits of the Project Site
connecting to the ‘Avila Ranch’ development project, 4) a Class I multi-use path
through the north-west portion of the property (old Chevron Collector street
location) with a provision to allow construction of a City sewer connection to the
lift station, and 5) a Class I multi-use path through the north-east portion of the site
linking the properties to the east to the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection.
The precise alignment of these Class I paths shall be subject to the approval of the
Community Development and Public Works Directors.
T-3b Site Access (Northwestern Parcel): Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/
development, the Applicant shall redesign its major access to the northwestern
parcel so that it is consolidated with adjacent parcels to minimize the potential for
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts and to prevent a break in the median on
Tank Farm Road. The recommended consolidated access point is proposed as a part
of Tentative Tract Map 3009 and would require coordination with other property
owners.
T.4 The proposed
construction Development T-4 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the Applicant shall submit a
construction traffic management plan that includes a revised phasing plan Less than
Attachment 1
PC1 - 52
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-11 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
phasing plan would
disrupt vehicle and
bicycle travel for
an extended
duration, and the
proposed truck
routes are
inconsistent with
the City’s
Circulation
Element.
Construction
activities related to
the Project could
result in potentially
significant impacts
to roadways in the
Project vicinity due
to the potential
obstruction of
heavy vehicles.
minimizing the duration of construction. In addition to the components described in
mitigation measure T-1a, the plan shall ensure that adjacent sections of
infrastructure be modified at the same time to minimize disruption of travel. The
plan shall include proposed truck routes that do not use the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange. The construction traffic management plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the City’s Public Works Department in consultation with County
Public Works and Caltrans.
significant
with
mitigation
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES (Section 4.7)
GR.4 Construction
activities and
grading may cause
erosion-induced
siltation of nearby
waterways as a
result of ground
disturbing
activities.
Development GR-4a Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall prepare a
construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified
SWPPP Developer (QSD) certified professional for the development Project for
review and approval by the City. The plan shall include features meeting the
construction activities best management practices and the applicable provisions of
the erosion and sediment control best management practices (ESC-1 through ESC-
56) published in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks
(Construction Activity) and best management practices (CD-4(2)) of the Caltrans
Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Construction Contractor's Guide and
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 53
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-12 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
Specifications, to ensure that every construction site meets the requirements of the
regulations during the time of construction. Further, the plan shall ensure
compliance with and enrollment under the State Water Board General Construction
Permit.
GR-4b Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall prepare
an Erosion Control Plan and Wet Weather Plan for review and approval by the City
of San Luis Obispo. The plan shall detail the best management practices that will be
used on the site to control erosion and sedimentation to be implemented during all
development activities. The plan shall include at least the following measures unless
other erosion control measures are specified in the agency approved SWPPP:
a. Graded areas shall be stabilized with riprap (i.e., crushed stone) or other
ground cover as soon as grading is completed. The surface of slopes shall be
roughened during the construction period to retain water, increase infiltration,
and facilitate establishing vegetation. Tracked machinery shall be operated up
and down (parallel with) slopes to leave horizontal (perpendicular) depressions
in the soil, which run across the slope, on the contour.
b. Slope breaks, such as diversions, benches, or contour furrows shall be
constructed to reduce the length of cut- and fill-slopes, thus limiting sheet and
rill erosion and preventing gully erosion.
c. Sediment barriers shall be used around construction areas to retain soil
particles on-site and reduce surface runoff velocities during rainfall events.
Sediment barriers could include straw bales, silt fences, and gravel and earth
berms. Silt fences shall be installed per specification on slope contours in areas
where shallow overland flow is anticipated.
d. Temporary and permanent drainages shall be employed, as necessary, to
reduce slope erosion and prevent damage to construction areas. Sheet flow
across or toward a disturbed area shall be intercepted and conveyed to a low to
moderate gradient (1 to 5 percent slope) sediment basin, erosion-resistant
drainage channel, or a level, well-vegetated area. Drainages would include
Attachment 1
PC1 - 54
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-13 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
swales, diversion dikes, and slope drains.
e. Water bars, rolling dips, and out-sloping roads shall be constructed as part of
new road construction to disperse runoff and reduce the erosive forces
associated with concentrated flows.
GR.5 Moderately
expansive soils
prone to swelling
and shrinking from
increased or
decreased water
content could
damage proposed
structures and
infrastructure,
resulting in loss of
property and risks
to human health
and safety.
Development GR-5a Expansive soils should be mitigated by the over-excavation and replacement of non-
expansive soils for all buildings and structures, as approved by the City of San Luis
Obispo. Alternatively, all construction for buildings shall use thickened slabs,
extended slab edges, and additional reinforcement to reduce negative impacts from
any expansive soil movement. Several equivalent remedial measures may be
implemented that are standard construction and mitigation measures. In addition,
capillary breaks shall be used under slabs to address the potential for moisture
transport and pumping that leads to moisture infiltration as a result of heat and
moisture gradients where buildings are sensitive to moisture infiltration. All
remedial measures, designs, and calculations shall be prepared by a registered civil
engineer, and shall be reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the
applicable building permits.
GR-5b The Applicant shall use low- to non-expansive soils for slab, trench backfill, and
pavement support to eliminate risk, which can be accommodated by importing
select materials. Select grading techniques could utilize the granular soils on-site for
subsequent use. Alternatively, an equivalent remedial measure to mitigate expansive
soils may be implemented where the appropriate design and calculations prepared
by a registered civil engineer, demonstrate a suitable design, and have been
reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the applicable building
permits.
GR-5c Soils shall be properly compacted as specified by a registered civil engineer. The
registered civil engineer should also specify the appropriate soil-water content for
expansive soil mitigation. The compaction levels and soil-water content shall be
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 55
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-14 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
approved by the City prior to issuance of the applicable building permit.
GR.7 Compressible soils
that underlie the
site will be prone
to excessive
settlement that
could adversely
affect the proposed
development and
improvements.
Development GR-7 Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall have a
registered civil engineer prepare a geotechnical report based on the proposed
development to the magnitude of total and differential settlements and time rates for
waiting during construction. The report shall be submitted to the City for review and
approval. The report shall discuss the measures that have been taken to ensure that
the primary settlement is within acceptable limits for the proposed development.
Acceptable measures could include but are not limited to:
a. Surcharging the proposed building sites with fill for a specified time frame.
Settlement monuments shall be required to measure the total settlement. The
results of the survey shall be presented to the City for review and approval and
should include time rate plots to demonstrate that at least 90 percent (t90) of the
primary settlement (or as determined necessary) has occurred before any further
construction of structures in the area.
b. Partial or complete over-excavation of the clay layers and replacement with gravel
drain layer and engineered fill. Settlement monuments shall be required to measure
the total settlement. The results of the survey shall be presented to the City for
review and approval and should include time rate plots to demonstrate that at least
90 percent (t90) of the primary settlement (or as determined necessary) has occurred
before any further construction of structures in the area.
c. Support structures on deepened foundations that extend thru the soft or unsuitable
layers and derive support from suitable materials. Where necessary, the piles shall
be required to be designed to withstand negative friction as necessary. Various
foundations schemes will require specific design criteria, but are typical to these
types of mitigation measures and should follow custom and practice in the
industry.
d. Perform in-situ remedial measures, such as sand drains, to accelerate and mitigate
the anticipated settlements. Various schemes will require specific design criteria,
but are typical to these types of mitigation measures and should follow custom and
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 56
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-15 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
practice in the industry.
NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.8)
N.3 Construction
activities
associated with the
construction of the
City Development
Plan could increase
noise levels in the
area.
Development N.3 Implement mitigation measures N-1a, N-1b, and N-1c. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
N.5 Development
within the ALUP
single event noise
contours could
cause the
development to be
exposed to
unacceptable noise
levels.
Development N-5 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the incorporate noise reduction
measures into the development design (i.e., extra insulation or thicker walls, window
design) for all applicable land uses that would be located within the ALUP noise
contours (Tentative Tract Map, Lot 1, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and portions of 6 and 14 within
the 75 dBA contour and all or most of the remaining plots within the 65 dBA contour).
Noise mitigation shall result in noise levels being at or below acceptable levels specified
in the ALUP. Noise reduction measures shall clearly be identified with construction
permit applications.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (Section 4.10)
AE.2 The City
Development Plan
component of the
Project would
degrade the
existing visual
character or quality
of the site and its
Development AE-2 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall ensure that
all development projects are reviewed for consistency with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan, the Airport Area Specific Plan design guidelines
outlined in Section 5.0 Community Design, and the City’s Community Design
Guidelines as part of the City Architectural Review process.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 57
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-16 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
surroundings.
AE.3 The Project would
generate a new
source of
substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect
day or nighttime
views in the area.
Development AE-3 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall submit a
lighting plan and lighting operation schedule for review and approval. The lighting
plan shall demonstrate that direct views of light sources are shielded from nearby
residences. The lighting schedule shall describe the number, location and amounts
of lights, and the proposed hours of operation for the entire property. The lighting
schedule shall propose the minimum number of lights, level of illumination, and
hours of operation allowed by City codes and ordinances, including the City’s Night
Sky Ordinance. The approved lighting schedule shall become a required condition
of the lease between the property owner and any tenant on the Project Site.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.6 Potential health
risk from exposure
to residual
contamination
following site
cleanup and
development.
Development HM-6 Prior to recordation of applicable tract map, the Applicant shall include deed
restrictions on development parcels identifying specific limits on trenching
activities and procedures for conducting subsurface construction activities. The
Applicant shall maintain responsibility for air quality monitoring during any
subsurface excavation activities.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
HM.8 Potential risk
associated with the
future use of
acutely hazardous
materials in the
SLOCRA safety
areas .
Development HM-8 The Applicant shall include deed restrictions on development parcels limiting on-
site storage of AHMs to amounts less than the reportable quantities as currently
defined in California Health and Safety Code §2770.5, California Accidental
Release Program (CalARP) List of Substances, and California Code of Regulations
§5189, Process Safety Management of Acutely Hazardous Materials, Appendix A. .
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (Section 4.13)
PS/U.5 Build-out of the
City Development
Plan could increase
Development PS/U-5a The Applicant shall deed to the City property at the Project Site that the City could
use for the development of a public Fire Station.
Less than
significant
with
Attachment 1
PC1 - 58
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-17 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
demand for fire
protection services.
PS/U-5b Development shall only be approved when the City deems that adequate fire
suppression services and facilities, consistent with adopted travel time standards, are
available, or will be made available concurrent with development at the Project Site.
If, at time of development it is determined that the development site is outside of
adequate response time zones, feasible options to enhance emergency access to the
development sites may include but are not limited to the following:
a. Completion of transportation improvements that improve emergency services
travel time to proposed development sites.
b. Co-location of City fire services with existing Cal Fire facilities located on
Broad Street
c. Establishment of fire facilities within a closer proximity to the development
site that meet or exceed adopted travel time standards.
d. Developer/Applicant financing of other improvements that will contribute to
alleviating current deficiencies as identified in the SLOFD Master Plan.
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 59
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-18 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.5 Construction
activities associated
with the City
Development Plan
would generate
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development Fugitive dust mitigation measures (see impact AQ.2) would be applicable to this phase of
the Project as per SLOAPCD requirements.
Less than
significant
AQ.9 Operational
activities associated
with the City
Development Plan
would generate CO
emissions that
produce localized
CO Hot Spots.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
AQ.10 Operational
activities associated
with the City
Development Plan
would generate
diesel PM emissions
that produce
localized, elevated
cancer impacts.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.2 The addition of
traffic generated by
the Project would
cause one
intersection to
operate at
unacceptable levels
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 60
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-19 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
under Existing plus
Project conditions.
WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.5)
WR.6 Paving and
development could
result in changes to
surface water flows
thereby increasing
surface water runoff
from the Project
Site.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WR.7 Flooding of
development
structures or
redirection of flood
flows could occur if
buildings are built
within the 100-year
flood plain.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WASTEWATER (Section 4.6)
WW.2 The wastewater
generated from the
City Development
Plan component of
the Project would
exceed the design
capacity of the
City’s downstream
sewer lines or the
capacity of the
City’s water
reclamation facility.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 61
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-20 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES (Section 4.7)
GR.2 Seismically induced
ground shaking
could damage
proposed structures
and infrastructure,
potentially resulting
in loss of property or
risk to human health
and safety.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
GR.3 Existing uncertified
fill on-site could be
subject to
hydroconsolidation,
excessive settlement,
expansive soil shrink
and swell, and
differential
settlement and
expansion, and thus
could damage
proposed facilities,
resulting in loss of
property and risks to
human health and
safety.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
GR.6 Construction and
improvement in
areas lacking
suitable factors of
safety for existing
slopes could result
in gross or surficial
instability, as well as
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 62
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-21 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
earthquake-induced
landslides, which
could damage
proposed structures
and infrastructure,
resulting in loss of
property and risks to
human health and
safety.
NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.8)
N.4 Off-site City
Development Plan
related traffic would
generate noise
impacts to nearby
areas.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.7 Potential risk
associated with
development within
the SLOCRA safety
areas.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
HM.9 Risk associated with
land use changes
and aircraft wildlife
strikes and other
aircraft hazards.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
POPULATION AND HOUSING (Section 4.12)
P/H.2 The City
Development Plan
may induce
substantial growth in
the area by
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 63
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-22 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
proposing new
businesses in the
area.
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (Section 4.13)
PS/U.6 Build-out of the City
Development Plan
land uses would
create an
incrementally higher
demand for police
protection services.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
PS/U.7 Construction and
operation of the City
Development Plan
could potentially use
nonrenewable
resources in a
wasteful or
inefficient manner.
Development PS/U-7a If additional electrical or natural gas energy infrastructure is required to
accommodate the proposed Project, the Applicant would be required to pay a
fee to PG&E or SCG respectively, to provide additional service.
PS/U-7b To avoid wasteful use of gasoline or diesel fuel, construction vehicles should be
left on-site for the duration of each annual active construction season (as
defined by allowed construction timing by the various mitigation measures),
and construction vehicles shall be turned off when not in use to avoid idling.
PS/U-7c The Applicant shall comply, to the maximum extent feasible, with all adopted
City policies regarding energy consumption such as:
a. Incorporating cost-effective, renewable, energy resources into the Project;
b. Providing passive features through site design that allows shade to reduce
unwanted heat gain, thereby reducing the need to use energy for cooling; and
c. Installation of energy efficient appliances, heat recovery equipment, and
building energy management systems.
Less than
significant
PS/U.8 Construction and
operation of the City
Development Plan
could generate
significant amounts
Development PS/U-8a Pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Ordinance 1381, Chapter 8.05, a
Recycling Plan for the City Development Plan to be implemented during
construction shall be submitted for approval by the City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department, prior to building permit issuance. Throughout construction
periods, documentation shall be provided to the City Utilities Department
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 64
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-23 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
of solid waste. demonstrating compliance with the plan and the City’s Ordinance 1381. The plan
shall include strategies to increase recycling of construction materials, and
documentation that a minimum of 50 percent of discarded construction materials
are diverted from landfills. The plan may consist of the following information:
a. The name and contact information of who will be responsible for
implementing the recycling plan.
b. A brief description of the proposed Project wastes to be generated, including
types and estimated quantities of each material to be salvaged, reused, or
recycled during the construction phase of this Project.
c. Waste sorting/recycling and/or collection areas shall be clearly indicated on the
Site Map.
d. A description of the means of transportation and destination of recyclable
materials and waste, and a description of where recyclable materials and waste
will be sorted (whether materials will be site-separated and hauled to
designated recycling or landfill facilities, or whether mixed materials will be
removed from the site to be processed at a mixed waste sorting facility).
e. The name of the landfill(s) where trash will be disposed of and a projected
amount of material that will be landfilled.
f. A description of meetings to be held between Applicant and contractor to
ensure compliance with the recycling plan.
g. A contingency plan shall identify an alternate location to recycle and/or
stockpile construction debris in the event of local recycling facilities becoming
unable to accept material (for example: all local recycling facilities reaching
the maximum tons per day due to a time period of unusually large volume).
h. Ongoing documentation by the Contractor submitted with each
Building/Zoning Inspection reporting on a quarterly basis.
i. Disposal information including quantity of material landfilled, which landfill
was used, total landfill tipping fees paid, and copies of weight tickets,
manifests, receipts, and invoices.
j. Recycle information including quantity of material recycles, receiving party,
and copies of weight tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 65
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-2-24 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
k. Reuse and salvage information including quantities of salvage materials,
storage locations if they are to be used on-site, or receiving party if resold/used
off-site.
PS/U-8b Pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Source Reduction and Recycling
Element to achieve a 50% reduction in solid waste as required by AB 939, the
project shall provide a plan for the disposal, storage and collection of solid waste
material for the project. The plan shall include provisions for adequate recycling
bin capacity as well as timely collection of recyclables. The development of the
plan shall be coordinated with the City’s franchised solid waste collection and
disposal firm, San Luis Obispo Garbage.
PS/U.9 Development of the
Project could impact
availability of water
supplies from the
City water Utility.
Development PS/U-9 The Development shall connect to the City’s reclaimed water system and shall
use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation.
Less than
significant
AGRICULTURE (Section 4.15)
AR.4 The City
Development Plan
would result in the
conversion of
farmland or grazing
land to non-
agricultural uses.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
AR.5 The City Development
Plan would involve
other changes in the
existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature,
could result in
conversion of farmland
to non-agricultural use.
Development AR-5 The Applicant shall design the development for the Northwest Operations Area
such that the buildings are located near the eastern edge of the parcel. This
mitigation measure would not apply if the agricultural property adjacent to the
Northwest Operations Area has received entitlements from the City to develop the
property prior to development of the Northwest Operations Area.
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 66
Impact Summary Tables-City Development Plan
December 2013 IST-2-25 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS IV Impacts – Proposed Project – City Development Plan
Beneficial Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
RECREATION (Section 4.14)
REC.2 The City
Development Plan
would increase the
City’s recreational
acreage stock with
15 acres of sports
fields, as well as
Class I and Class II
bicycle lanes, while
not adding
residential
development.
Development No mitigation required. Beneficial
Attachment 1
PC1 - 67
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Impact Summary Tables
Remediation Project
Attachment 1
PC1 - 68
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm i December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Page
Class I Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... IST-1-1
Class II Impacts.................................................................................................................................................... IST-1-2
Class III Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-1-36
Class IV Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-1-41
Attachment 1
PC1 - 69
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-1 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.4 Increased aircraft
wildlife strike risk
due to wetland
restoration within
the airport Runway
Protection Zone and
Safety Areas.
Remediation HM-4 The applicant shall limit the on-site wetland replacement to a ratio of 1:1 for a total
on-site wetland restoration of 46.64 acres (42.93 acres for remediation and 3.71
acres for development area).
Significant
and
unavoidable
Attachment 1
PC1 - 70
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-2 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.1 Construction
activities associated
with remediation
could generate ROG
+ NOx and Diesel
PM emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Remediation AQ-1a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, and throughout project construction,
as applicable, the Applicant shall implement the following construction emission
reduction measures:
a. Properly maintain all construction equipment according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with CARB-certified
motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use CARB Tier 3 certified diesel construction equipment or cleaner off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with state Off-Road Regulations;
d. Use CARB 2007 or cleaner certified on-road heavy-duty diesel trucks and
comply with state On-Road Regulations;
e. If construction or trucking companies that are awarded the bid or are
subcontractors for the project do not have equipment to meet the above two
measures, the impacts from the dirtier equipment shall be addressed through
SLOAPCD approved off-site or other mitigation measures;
f. All on- and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted or
applicable measures shall be employed as per the direction of the SLOCAPCD,
including monitoring or low-particulate engine technologies. (Sensitive
receptors are defined in the SLOAPCD Handbook as people that have an
increased sensitivity to air pollution or environmental contaminants. Sensitive
receptor locations include schools, parks and playgrounds, day care centers,
nursing homes, hospitals, and residential dwelling units);
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors or applicable measures shall be employed as per the direction of the
SLOCAPCD, including monitoring or low-particulate engine technologies; No
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 71
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-3 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
staging, queuing or idling within 1,000 feet of the recreational fields when in
use;
i. Equipment shall be electrified when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered or diesel hybrids in place of diesel-powered
equipment, where feasible; and
k. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane, or
biodiesel.
AQ-1b Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall ensure
SLOAPCD regulations that prohibit developmental burning of vegetative material
within San Luis Obispo County are followed.
AQ-1c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall ensure that
portable equipment and engines 50 horsepower or greater, used during grading and
construction activities must have a California portable equipment registration
(issued by the ARB) or an SLOAPCD permit. Proof of registration must be
provided to the SLOAPCD prior to the start of grading or construction or a permit
secured from the SLOAPCD prior to the start of grading or construction. The
following list is as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting
requirements, but it is not exclusive:
a. Power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers;
b. Portable generators and equipment with 50-horsepower or greater engines;
c. Internal combustion engines;
d. Unconfined abrasive blasting operations;
e. Concrete batch plants;
f. Rock and pavement crushing;
g. Tub grinders; and
Attachment 1
PC1 - 72
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-4 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
h. Trommel screens.
AQ-1d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall obtain the
required SLOAPCD permits for the hydrocarbon contaminated soil. In addition, the
following measures shall be implemented unless otherwise directed by the
SLOAPCD upon a finding that alternative measures will result in equal or greater
reduction in emission of air contaminants.
a. Covers on storage piles shall be maintained in place at all times in areas not
actively involved in soil addition or removal;
b. Contaminated soil shall be covered with at least six inches of packed
uncontaminated soil or other TPH –non-permeable barrier such as plastic tarp
or other methods as approved by the SLOCAPCD. No headspace shall be
allowed where vapors could accumulate;
c. Covered piles shall be designed in such a way to eliminate erosion due to wind
or water. No openings in the covers are permitted;
d. The air quality impacts from the excavation and haul trips associated with
removing the contaminated soil must be evaluated, with emissions estimates
provided to the SLOAPCD and mitigated with low emission trucks, low
emission construction equipment and/or offsets if needed, if total emissions
exceed the SLOAPCD’s construction phase thresholds. An estimate of these
emissions is included in this EIR;
e. During soil excavation, odors shall not be evident to such a degree as to cause a
public nuisance, or violation of SLOAPCD regulations would result;
f. Clean soil must be segregated from contaminated soil; and
g. The permit shall specify applicable criteria established by SLOAPCD.
The notification and permitting determination requirements shall be directed to the
SLOAPCD Engineering Division.
AQ-1e Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, or during construction, if emissions
Attachment 1
PC1 - 73
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-5 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
of ROG+NOx with the above mitigations still exceed the thresholds, the Applicant
shall secure SLOAPCD-approved off-site reductions in ROG + NOx emissions to
ensure that ROG + NOx emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD quarterly
thresholds. Coordination with the SLOAPCD should begin at least six (6) months
prior to issuance of grading permits for the Project to allow time for refining
calculations and for the SLOAPCD to review and approve the CAMP and off-site
mitigation approach.
AQ-1f Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall ensure that all
grading and construction equipment greater than 100 bhp be equipped with CARB
Level 3 diesel particulate filters (DPF), or equivalent, to achieve an 85 percent
reduction in diesel particulate emissions. If CARB verified Level 3 DPFs cannot be
secured for all of the equipment greater than 100 hp then the applicant will work to
offset the added DPM with measures including but not limited to schedule
modifications, implementation of no idling requirement, and expanded
implementation of AQ-1a measures "i", "j", and "k"(e.g. use of alternative fueled
generators).
AQ-1g Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall produce a
schedule detailing the phasing of activities for each OU and ensuring that the
emissions of diesel particulate in any quarter falls below the applicable SLOAPCD
thresholds. This could include measures such as ensuring that Reservoir 5 Cap,
Reservoir 7 Cap and North Marsh remediation do not coincide. As an alternative
approach, if scheduling is not feasible, the Applicant shall provide SLOAPCD-
approved off-site reductions in DPM emissions to ensure that DPM emissions do
not exceed the SLOAPCD thresholds.
AQ.2 Construction
activities associated
with remediation
could generate
Remediation AQ-2a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall provide
satisfactory evidence that a SLOAPCD-approved Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP) has been prepared that addresses fugitive dust
emissions. The Plan shall include requirements in the SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 74
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-6 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
fugitive dust that
exceeds SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include a combination of the
following, as approved by the SLOAPCD:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent
airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply source must be
identified. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever wind
speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a
SLOAPCD-approved alternative method will be used. (90 percent reduction).
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
e. Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than one month
after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating non-invasive grass
seed and watered until vegetation is established, unless other dust and erosion
control measures are specified in the agency-approved Dust Control Plan.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as
soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible
after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance
between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with CVC Section 23114.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 75
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-7 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should be used
where feasible
l. Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas within the construction site (61
percent reduction in particulate emissions).
m. Application of soil binders to dirt roads shall be applied to achieve at least an
80 percent reduction in fugitive dust emissions. All soil binders used shall be
‘environmentally friendly’ and shall be either lignosulfonate- or calcium
lignosulfonate-based approved by the SLOAPCD. All dust control methods,
including soil binders and gravel, shall be demonstrated in the fugitive dust
control plan to ensure compliance with SLOAPCD Rule 401.
n. All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving should be completed as soon as
possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as possible after
grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
o. The contractor or builder shall designate a person to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and oversee mitigation measure implementation as per SLOAPCD
approval to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions to less than 20
percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust off-site. The designated
monitor shall carry out these duties on regular workdays, as well as holidays
and weekends when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone
number of the designated monitor shall be provided to the SLOAPCD
Compliance Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork, or
demolition.
AQ-2b Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall submit an APCD
approved Construction Activity Monitoring Plan (CAMP), which shall include, but
not be limited to the following elements:
a. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses all, but is not limited to,
Attachment 1
PC1 - 76
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-8 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
measures associated with impact AQ.1 and AQ.2;
b. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment information (e.g., make,
model, type, engine tier, DPM Level 3 filter age, horse-power, and miles or
hours of operation);
c. Construction truck trips scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce peak-hour
emissions;
d. Limited construction work-day period, if necessary; and
e. Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
AQ-2c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall implement the
following idle-restricting measures for both on- and off-road equipment during the
Project grading and construction phase near sensitive receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors or applicable measures shall be employed as per the direction of the
SLOCAPCD, including monitoring or low-particulate engine technologies. No
staging, queuing or idling within 1,000 feet of the recreational fields when in
use;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted or
applicable measures shall be employed as per the direction of the SLOCAPCD,
including monitoring or low-particulate engine technologies. No staging,
queuing or idling within 1,000 feet of the recreational fields when in use;
c. Use alternative fueled equipment whenever possible; and
d. Signs identifying the no idling requirements must be posted and enforced at the
construction site.
AQ-2d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall implement the
following idle-restricting measures for on-road vehicles during the grading and
construction phase of the Project:
a. Section 2485 of Title 13, the California Code of Regulations limits diesel-
fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of California with
gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000 pounds and licensed for
Attachment 1
PC1 - 77
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-9 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
operation on highways. It applies to California and non-California based
vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies that drivers of these vehicles:
- Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for more than 5 minutes
at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the regulation; and,
- Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS) to power a
heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on that vehicle during
sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for greater than 5 minutes at any
location when within 100 feet of a restricted area, except as noted in
Subsection (d) of the regulation.
b. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind
on-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
AQ-2e Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall implement the
following idle restricting measures for off-road vehicles during the construction
phase of the Project:
a. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling restriction
identified in Section 2449(d)(3) of the CARB In-Use off-Road Diesel
regulation: www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
b. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to remind
off-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
AQ-2f Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a geologic
evaluation under the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction,
Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, to determine if Naturally
Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area that will be disturbed. NOA
has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the CARB. If NOA is not present,
an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the
Applicant must 1) comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.
This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an
Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the SLOAPCD; 2) require that
Attachment 1
PC1 - 78
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-10 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
any crushing operations do not result in any dust that is visible crossing the property
line, does not discharge into the air any visible emissions other than uncombined
water vapor, for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour
which are 50 percent as dark or darker in shade as that designated as number one on
the Ringlemann Chart or exceed at 10 % opacity; and 3) conduct a geological
evaluation prior to any grading. Technical Appendix 4.4 of the SLOAPCD CEQA
Handbook includes a map of zones throughout the County where NOA has been
found. More information on NOA is available at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-2g Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Applicant shall comply with asbestos
containing material (ACM) requirements. Demolition activities can have potential
negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling,
demolition, and disposal of ACM. ACM could be encountered during demolition or
remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes and
pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for
removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated,
various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in
the National Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M
- asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but are not limited to: (1)
notification to the SLOAPCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified
Asbestos Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of
identified ACM. More information on asbestos is available at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ.4 Construction
activities associated
with remediation
would generate
toxic emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
Remediation AQ.4 Implement mitigation measures AQ-1a through AQ-1g, and AQ-2a through AQ-2g. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 79
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-11 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
thresholds for
impacts to sensitive
receptors.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.2)
BIO.1 Site remediation has
the potential to
result in both short-
term and long-term
impacts to habitat
for listed and
special status
species.
Remediation BIO-1a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and
submit a final restoration plan to the San Luis Obispo County Department of
Planning and Building, City of San Luis Obispo, Department of Natural
Resources, USFWS, USACE, and CDFW for review. The restoration plan
shall be approved by San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and
Building USFWS, and CDFW in consultation with the City of San Luis
Obispo, Department of Natural Resources. The final plan shall be revised as
necessary to adequately mitigate actual disturbance to habitats for listed and
special status species due to remediation.
Conservation easement(s) shall be recorded on all property associated with the
final restoration plan that is not designated for development. Draft
conservation easement agreements, in a form approved by County Counsel and
the City Attorney, shall be submitted for review and approval with the
submittal of the final restoration plan. The final conservation easements shall
be approved by the County and City in consultation with other resource
agencies, and recorded, prior to final inspection of the restoration site(s) to
protect biological resources in perpetuity.
BIO-1b The Applicant shall conduct updated surveys of sensitive species habitats
(including sensitive plant species, CRLF, wetland habitat, and VPFS habitat)
within the Project Site within the appropriate season immediately prior to the
onset of any ground disturbances associated with the Project in order to
evaluate the current occupancy of suitable habitat for sensitive species and to
refine the final habitat mitigation replacement acreages. Updated surveys for
federally listed species shall be completed per the timing and methodology
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 80
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-12 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
specified by resource agency protocol.
BIO-1c The final restoration plan shall provide for plant salvaging and replanting
where appropriate (e.g., San Luis Obispo dudleya), restoration, and/or creation
of habitat suitable for special status plant species including Cambria morning
glory, Congdon’s tarplant, San Luis Obispo owl’s clover, Hoover’s button-
celery, San Luis Obispo serpentine dudleya, and purple needlegrass.
To offset impacts to VPFS habitat, the final restoration plan shall require a
minimum of a 1:1 creation or restoration replacement of all VPFS habitat
impacted by remediation or restoration efforts (or at least 14.78 acres of VPFS
habitat depending on final disturbance acreages). The restoration shall be
designed to restore or enhance enough habitat to ensure the final restoration
replacement ratio. The final plan shall also include defined schedules of
restoration efforts, success criteria, weed management methods including for
those areas not being remediated or developed to ensure weed species do not
encroach into restored areas, monitoring schedules, reporting requirements,
and a Long-Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan, (see mitigation
measure BIO-5c). The objective of the Long-Term Habitat Management and
Evaluation Plan shall be to assess if the restored habitats are functioning equal
to or better than pre-Project conditions. The assessment of function shall be
based on indicators such as wildlife use and presence of sensitive species
within the habitats compared to pre-Project conditions.
BIO-1d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall enter into an
agreement with the County to fund and provide access for a County-approved
(in consultation with the City) independent biological monitor who shall
regularly review and monitor remediation and restoration efforts to ensure that
conditions of approval are being enforced and that success criteria are being
met. The independent biological monitor shall have the authority to
temporarily halt activities if permit requirements and conditions are not being
Attachment 1
PC1 - 81
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-13 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
met.
BIO-1e If performance standards detailed in the Final Restoration Plan are not
achieved in any restoration area, the Applicant shall submit and implement an
alternative or adaptive mitigation strategy during the restoration and
monitoring phase, for approval to the County or City, and appropriate resource
agencies including the USFWS and CDFW.
BIO-1f The monitoring results collected as part of the Long-Term Habitat
Management and Evaluation Plan shall be reported at least annually to the
County, City, and appropriate resource agencies (i.e., USFWS and CDFW).
The annual report shall document the effects of the proposed Project to the
VPFS on the property and include acreage of occupied habitat that was
impacted. The report shall contain a discussion of the problems encountered in
implementing sensitive species habitat protection and other protective
measures and recommendations for adaptive management to enhance the
conservation of sensitive species habitat.
BIO-1g Remediation and restoration activities within 100 feet of potential or occupied
VPFS habitat shall be scheduled to occur when the soil is dry to the touch both
at the surface and one inch below the surface. After any precipitation event of
greater than 0.2 inches, Project activities will only occur after the soil has dried
sufficiently as described above, and no sooner than 48 hours after the rain
event ends to reduce potential impacts to sensitive VPFS habitat outside of the
construction and remediation boundaries. Project activities in upland areas can
occur during the rainy season with appropriate habitat protection measures
including exclusion fencing, biological monitoring, and sediment control
measures to ensure that construction related materials do not enter VPFS
habitat.
BIO-1h Only qualified, USFWS-approved, personnel with demonstrable field
experience conducting VPFS cyst collection and reintroduction, consistent
Attachment 1
PC1 - 82
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-14 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
with the proposed Project activities, shall handle VPFS cysts, identify VPFS
habitat, and conduct VPFS monitoring. The VPFS-qualified biologist shall
assist with marking the limits of disturbance to habitats for listed and special
status species. Work shall not be conducted in areas marked for avoidance.
BIO-1i The VPFS-qualified biologist shall conduct sensitive vernal pool branchiopod
surveys within the appropriate season immediately prior to the start of
construction activities per the timing and methodology specified by USFWS
protocol. The VPFS-qualified biologist shall monitor during construction
activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided. The final acreage of habitat
loss shall be revised as necessary to adequately mitigate actual disturbance to
habitats for listed and special status species due to remediation.
BIO-1j The VPFS-qualified biologist shall conduct cyst collection efforts (cyst-
bearing soil) and storage efforts from work areas prior to construction
activities from the entire work area of each impacted pool when the
ephemerally wetted areas are dry. The VPFS-qualified biologist shall follow
USFWS standard procedures and guidance established in that agency’s
permitting process The cysts shall be stored in labeled containers that are
adequately ventilated. The cysts shall be kept out of direct sunlight to prevent
excessive heating of the soil. The cysts shall be kept out of direct contact with
water. When restored VPFS habitat is constructed, the inoculum shall be
placed within the surface layer of the soil in a manner following USFWS
protocols and guidance.
BIO-1k Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, the Project Applicant (via the
USACE) shall consult with the USFWS and NMFS to obtain an Incidental
Take Statement, pursuant to Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act
to cover the Project's "take" (which includes the permanent and temporary loss
of VPFS habitat and the potential impact to south-central coast steelhead
habitat). The Applicant shall comply with all measures issued by USFWS and
Attachment 1
PC1 - 83
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-15 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
NMFS for the Project.
BIO-1l Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the Project Applicant shall
be required to obtain all applicable Federal and State permits and/or
agreements, including, but not necessarily limited to: a Section 404 Permit
from the USACE; and a Section 1601 Streambed Alteration Agreement from
the CDFW.
BIO.2 Site remediation
and restoration
would result in the
taking of listed
specimens, special-
status species, or
species protected by
the Migratory Bird
Treaty Act.
Remediation BIO-2a Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall fund and implement a
biological resources training program for all construction workers and their
contractors to minimize potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species.
Training shall occur prior to initial construction activities and again, annually
and as needed for new workers. Prior to issuance of demolition permit, the
training program shall be reviewed and approved by the County Department of
Planning and Building in consultation with the Environmental Monitor (see
EM-1) and City, and shall include a description of important biological
resources within the Project Site and all applicable conditions, permit
requirements, and protection measures implemented to protect those resources.
BIO-2b Prior to construction activities, all grading limits and construction boundaries
shall be delineated by construction fencing. Sensitive species habitat shall be
delineated with specific sensitive species labeling (e.g., permanent signage
every 100 feet along the fence stating “No Entry ― Sensitive Habitat.”). The
County shall approve the fencing prior to commencement of grading activities
(including clearing and grubbing).
BIO-2c Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall enter into an agreement
with the County to fund a biological monitor, selected by the Applicant and
approved by the County in consultation with the City and the USFWS to
minimize potential impacts to sensitive species. The County-qualified biologist
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
for VPFS,
and other
Sensitive
Species,
MBTA, and
Aquatic
Species
Attachment 1
PC1 - 84
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-16 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
shall conduct sensitive species’ (including CRLF) surveys immediately prior
(within the appropriate season) to construction activities and shall monitor
during construction activities in the vicinity of habitats to be avoided. Any
sensitive species observed during the pre-construction surveys shall be
relocated out of harm’s way by a qualified and permitted biologist into the
nearest suitable habitat as determined in consultation with the jurisdictional
resource agency outside the disturbance area. Construction and sediment
control fencing shall be inspected each work day during construction activities
to ensure that sensitive species are not exposed to hazards.
The Applicant shall be responsible for conducting inspections of the work area
each work day to ensure that excavation areas, restored habitats, and other
open water habitat in the area do not have oil sheen, liquid oil, or any other
potential exposure risk to wildlife. If any exposure risk is identified, the
Applicant shall implement measures that could include, but are not limited to
hazing, fencing, and wildlife removals to eliminate the exposure risk. The
Applicant shall prepare and submit for approval, as part of the Final Long-
Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan, an Oiled Wildlife
Contingency Plan to the County and CDFW.
BIO-2d To minimize potential impacts to nesting native bird species, and in
compliance with the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Sections 3503,
3503.5, or 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code, all activities resulting
in ground disturbances during all phases of remediation, restoration, pipe
removal, and construction activities involving vegetation removal/trimming
shall be done, as feasible, outside the breeding season (February 15 through
August 31). If vegetation must be removed during this period, then the
Applicant shall retain a biologist acceptable to the County in consultation with
the City to conduct surveys for nesting birds. Surveys shall be conducted
within three days prior to vegetation removal or other construction-related
disturbances. If nesting birds are observed within the vicinity, then a minimum
100-foot buffer from the nest would be established. The buffer would be
Attachment 1
PC1 - 85
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-17 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
delineated by orange construction fencing or other delineator approved by
County in consultation with the City and signage and would remain in place
until the nest is abandoned or the young have fledged. The qualified biologist
shall be present when any buffer fencing is established. The qualified biologist
shall monitor the nest to ensure that Project activities do not violate the
Migratory Bird Treaty Act or the California Fish and Game Code. At
minimum, the biologist would check for new active nests, and determine the
status of ongoing active nests, weekly during the specified nesting season. The
biologist would ensure that all fencing and signage was properly maintained,
and would provide weekly, or less frequent if requested by the agencies, e-
mail updates on the status of all monitored nests to the County, City, CDFW,
and USFWS. If the biologist determines that nesting is being disrupted, the
construction activities shall cease and wait until a new buffer area is
determined, the young have fledged, or the nest is determined to have failed.
BIO-2e Hawks and owls nest earlier than most other native birds. If initial construction
activities, ground disturbance, or vegetation clearing involving vegetation
removal/trimming occurs from December 1 through August 31, the nest
monitor would conduct a pre-construction survey within three days prior to
vegetation removal or other construction-related disturbances focused on
actively nesting hawks or owls. If any actively nesting hawks or owls are
found, a 500-foot buffer would be established around the nest tree to help
ensure that nesting is not disrupted. The buffer would be delineated by orange
construction fencing and signage and would remain in place until the nest is
either abandoned or the young have fledged. The nest monitor would be
present when any buffer fencing is established.
BIO.3 Site remediation
and restoration
could result in
short-term and
Remediation BIO-3a The final restoration plan shall require a 2:1 replacement of all native
grassland (as defined by the County of San Luis Obispo and CDFW) impacted
by remediation efforts of the Project (at least 6.73 impacted acres as described
in Padre 2008c). Implementation of the native grassland restoration shall
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 86
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-18 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
permanent loss of
biological functions
of wetlands, native
grasslands, habitats
for rare plants and
animals, and other
biotic communities
considered sensitive
by federal, state, or
local policies,
statutes, and
regulations.
follow the plan, including locations to be restored, restoration techniques, a
schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and
remedial actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO-3b The final restoration plan shall require a 1:1 replacement of all
Waters/wetlands of the U.S. and one-parameter wetlands (42.93 acres)
temporarily impacted by remediation and restoration efforts) . Implementation
of the wetland and habitat restoration shall follow the plan, including locations
to be restored, restoration techniques, a schedule of surveys to monitor the rate
of recovery, success criteria, and remedial actions if success criteria are not
met.
BIO-3c Prior to issuance of grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate that all
staging areas, equipment storage areas, stockpile sites, and refueling areas are
located at least 100 feet from surface water bodies and wetland habitats to
minimize the potential for releases into surface water or wetland habitat.
BIO-3d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare
and submit a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for approval to
the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and Building. The final
plan shall be revised as necessary to include any updated contours of the final
grading as determined in the final restoration plan. The SWPPP shall
adequately mitigate any potential impacts resulting from storm water flow into
sensitive habitats. The SWPPP shall ensure that all remediation and restoration
activities, especially those activities occurring within the riparian and stream
corridors that could result in turbidity or release of contaminated material into
sensitive habitats employ measures such as sediment fences or other
containment devices and construction best management practices to minimize
the potential for impacts to sensitive habitats.
BIO.4 Site remediation
would adversely
Remediation BIO-4a The final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) shall be implemented to improve the
value and function of existing wetlands on site that would result in a 1:1 ratio Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 87
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-19 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
affect federal
wetlands as defined
in Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act
and State Wetlands.
of restored wetlands to wetlands lost due to Project disturbances.
Implementation of wetland restoration shall follow the plan, including
locations of existing wetlands to be restored, restoration techniques, schedule
of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and remedial
actions if success criteria are not met. The final plan shall also include a Long-
Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan (MM BIO-1c) that will
include performance standards to assess whether the restored wetland habitats
are functioning similar to pre-Project conditions.
BIO-4b Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
obtain a Section 404 permit prior to disturbance of wetland areas. Consultation
with the USFWS and NMFS shall be completed during the Section 404
permitting process. The Applicant shall comply with all measures issued by
USFWS and NMFS for the Project. These measures could include, but are not
limited to habitat restoration, habitat enhancement, biological resources
training, biological monitoring, sensitive species relocation effort, restoration
monitoring and reporting, and agency approval of restoration efforts.
with
mitigation
BIO.5 Site remediation
and restoration
would result in
habitat alteration
that precludes the
re-establishment of
native populations
of plants and
animals.
Remediation BIO-5a The terrestrial ecosystem portion of the final restoration plan shall include
success criteria for re-establishing populations of native plants and wildlife.
BIO-5b The final restoration plan, shall be implemented to restore at least 4.0 acres of
phreatophytic woodland, 27.0 acres of mixed hardwood/forb field, 10.9 acres
of coastal scrub chaparral, and 45.2 acres of forb field (Padre and WSP 2009).
Implementation of the terrestrial habitat restoration shall follow the plan,
including locations to be restored, restoration techniques, a schedule of
surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and remedial actions
if success criteria are not met.
BIO-5c The function of the restored terrestrial habitats shall be monitored. A Long-
Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan shall be developed and
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 88
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-20 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
appended to the final restoration plan. The habitat management and evaluation
plan shall include methods to determine if the restored areas are meeting
success criteria per the approved restoration plan. The complementary plan
shall include surveys to monitor the occurrence of native plants and animals in
restored habitats relative to their occurrence in similar onsite habitats prior to,
or unaffected by, remediation and development.
BIO.6 Site remediation
and restoration
would temporarily
impede migration
and dispersal of
upland, aquatic, and
semi -aquatic
wildlife species.
Remediation BIO-6a The terrestrial ecosystem portion of the final restoration plan shall be reviewed
and approved by the San Luis Obispo County Department of Planning and
Building in consultation with the City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources
Manager. The plan shall include provisions to maintain and re-establish habitat
linkages.
BIO-6b The final restoration plan shall include consideration of on-site natural habitats
and linkages to off-site, adjacent habitats, especially the South Hills
Conservation Area.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
BIO.7 Site remediation
and restoration have
the potential to
reduce the size and
diversity of plant
and animal
populations at the
Project Site.
Remediation BIO-7a A qualified biologist shall conduct surveys throughout areas proposed to be
disturbed to determine the presence of wildlife species prior to ground
disturbance. The biologist shall be on site during initial site disturbances (i.e.,
brush removal, top soil disturbances). Wildlife species encountered during the
initial disturbances shall be relocated to suitable habitat out of potential
danger. All handling and relocation of sensitive and non-sensitive wildlife
species shall be conducted by biologists with appropriate authorizations and
permits (CDFW and USFWS). Remediation activities, including restoration
efforts shall be regularly monitored throughout the remediation and restoration
phases to ensure that wildlife species have not entered work areas. The
biological monitor shall conduct regular site inspections of the remediation
and restoration activities to ensure that all applicable mitigation measures are
being enacted. The biological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily
halt activities if permit requirements and conditions are not being met. The
biological monitor shall prepare an annual summary report describing site visit
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 89
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-21 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
observations and shall provide this report to the City, County, and regulatory
agencies (including CDFW, USACE, and USFWS) for review.
BIO-7b To minimize the potential for road mortality of wildlife, all nighttime traffic
shall be minimized during the remediation and restoration phases and
permitted only for activities required for safety reasons, emergencies, or
equipment staging and vehicle maintenance necessary to comply with traffic
and air quality mitigation measures; all hauling activities shall be restricted to
daylight hours, defined as the hours after sunrise and before sunset.
BIO-7c The Stockpiling Plan required by Mitigation Measure WR-3c shall also
include methods to keep wildlife from coming into contact with stockpiled
contaminated soils.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.1 Remediation
activities related to
the Project could
result in potentially
significant impacts
to roadways in the
Project vicinity due
to the potential
obstruction of heavy
vehicles creating an
unsafe situation.
Remediation T-1 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall develop a
construction traffic management plan for review and approval by the City and
County Public Works department in consultation with County Public Works and
Caltrans. The plan shall include at least the following items:
1. Identification of haul routes for materials hauling and equipment deliveries.
This section shall include a Haul Permit from Santa Barbara County Public
Works.
2. Monitoring program for street surface conditions so that damage or debris
resulting from construction or remediation of the Project can be identified and
corrected by the Applicant.
3. A traffic control plan showing proposed temporary traffic control measures,
including lane closure procedures, accommodation for pedestrians and cyclists,
and removal procedures for the temporary traffic control devices and added
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 90
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-22 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
lanes.
4. A scheduling plan showing hours of operation to minimize traffic congestion
during peak hours and special events.
5. The use of electronic message signs providing the traveling public with current
construction information and the availability of alternate travel routes.
6. A park and ride program to reduce the number of worker single occupant
vehicle trips going to the site.
WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.5)
WR.1 The remediation
stage of the Project
could result in
short-term, impacts
to surface water
quality, including
indirect impacts to
beneficial uses such
as threatened and
endangered species
habitat, due to
polluted runoff
during construction.
Remediation WR-1a Prior to the issuance of any construction/grading permit and/or the commencement
of any clearing, grading or excavation, a Notice of Intent (NOI) shall be submitted
to the California SWRCB Stormwater Permit Unit. Compliance with the General
Permit includes the preparation of a SWPPP, which shall identify potential pollutant
sources that my affect the quality of discharges to stormwater, and shall include the
design and placement of (Best Management Practices) BMPs to effectively prohibit
the entry of pollutants from the Project Site into surface water sources or wetlands
or storm drains.
WR-1b The Surface Water Quality Management Practices summarized below shall be
implemented to reduce potential impact to surface water quality during
construction-related activities.
1. Soil stockpiles and graded slopes shall be covered after 14 days if inactivity and
24 hours prior to and during inclement weather conditions.
2. Fiber rolls shall be placed along the top of exposed slopes and at the toes of
graded areas to reduce surface soil movement, as necessary.
3. A routine monitoring plan shall be implemented to ensure success of all on-site
erosion and sedimentation control measures.
4. Dust control measures shall be implemented to graded areas during construction
activities to control fugitive dust.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 91
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-23 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
5. Streets surrounding the Project Site shall be cleaned daily or as necessary.
6. Best Management Practices shall be strictly followed to prevent spills and
discharges of pollutants on site (material and container storage, proper trash
disposal, construction entrances, etc.)
WR.3 The excavation of
the contaminated
soils could bring
contaminant
constituents to the
surface where they
could be mobilized
by stormwater or
irrigation activities.
Remediation WR-3a Contaminated soils that will be removed, relocated or treated on-site shall be
managed according to the procedures and practices of the California Stormwater
BMP Handbook. The Applicant shall conduct pre-construction environmental
assessments of any contaminated soil prior to construction and have a specific
treatment and BMP plan in order to prevent surface water, ground water or
stormwater pollution.
WR-3b All necessary precautions and preventive measures shall be taken to prevent the
flow of water, including ground water, from mixing with contaminated soil. If
water does enter an excavation and becomes contaminated, such water shall be
discharged into clean watertight holding tanks and treated or disposed of in
accordance with federal, state and local laws.
WR-3c Polluted soils shall not be stockpiled on-site without an approved stockpiling plan.
The stockpiling plan shall detail the method to be used to prevent runoff from
leaving the area, and could include measures such as covering and berming. The
stockpiling plan shall be consistent with the requirements specified in AQ.1d and
BIO-7c. Stockpiles shall not be permitted near storm drains or watercourses.
WR-3d The Applicant shall provide training to employees and contractors in contaminated
soil identification, handling and disposal procedures. Regular meetings shall be
held to discuss and reinforce disposal procedures.
WR-3e Plastic sheeting, tarps, sandbags, straw wattles, silt fencing, and any other
implemented BMP devices shall be treated as contaminated materials and shall be
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 92
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-24 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
removed and disposed of according to the local regulatory agencies.
WR.4 The construction of
the remediation
caps may increase
or concentrate storm
runoff flowing onto
erodible soils from
impervious
surfaces.
Remediation WR-4a The impervious surface of the caps shall be designed to ensure that storm water
discharge to surrounding conveyances is non-erosive.
WR-4b The Surface Water Quality Management Practices summarized below shall be
implemented to reduce potential impact to surface water quality during
construction-related activities associated with remediation caps.
• Fiber rolls, or other equivalent techniques, shall be placed along the top of
exposed edges of the cap and at the toes of graded areas to reduce surface soil
movement, as necessary.
• Areas surrounding caps which are disturbed during construction shall be re-
vegetated, as soon as is practical, prior to the beginning of the rainy season.
• Sandbags, or other equivalent techniques, shall be utilized along each graded
cap area to prevent siltation transport to the surrounding areas.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES (Section 4.7)
GR.1 Remediation
activities may cause
erosion-induced
siltation of nearby
waterways as a
result of ground
disturbing activities.
Remediation GR-1a Prior to the issuance of the applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a
construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the Remediation
Project for review and approval by San Luis Obispo County Public Works. The plan
shall include features meeting the construction activities best management practices
and the applicable provisions of the erosion and sediment control best management
practices (ESC-1 through ESC-56) published in the California Storm Water Best
Management Practice Handbooks (Construction Activity) and best management
practices (CD-4(2)) of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Construction
Contractor's Guide and Specifications, to ensure that every construction site meets
the requirements of the regulations during the time of construction.
GR-1b Prior to the issuance of the applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare an
Erosion Control Plan and Wet Weather Plan for review and approval by San Luis
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 93
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-25 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
Obispo County Public Works. The plan shall detail the Best Management Practices
that will be used on the site to control erosion and sedimentation to be implemented
during all remediation activities. The plan shall include at least the following
measures unless other erosion control measures are specified in the agency
approved SWPPP:
a. Graded areas shall be stabilized with riprap (i.e., crushed stone) or other
ground cover as soon as grading is completed. The surface of slopes shall be
roughened during the construction period to retain water, increase infiltration,
and facilitate establishing vegetation. Tracked machinery shall be operated up
and down (parallel with) slopes to leave horizontal (perpendicular) depressions
in the soil, which run across the slope, on the contour.
b. Slope breaks, such as diversions, benches, or contour furrows shall be
constructed to reduce the length of cut- and fill-slopes, thus limiting sheet and
rill erosion and preventing gully erosion.
c. Sediment barriers shall be used around construction areas to retain soil
particles on-site and reduce surface runoff velocities during rainfall events.
Sediment barriers could include straw bales, silt fences, and gravel and earth
berms. Silt fences shall be placed on slope contours in areas where shallow
overland flow is anticipated.
d. Temporary and permanent drainages shall be employed, as necessary, to
reduce slope erosion and prevent damage to construction areas. Sheet flow
across or toward a disturbed area shall be intercepted and conveyed to a low to
moderate gradient (1 to 5 percent slope) sediment basin, erosion-resistant
drainage channel, or a level, well-vegetated area. Drainages would include
swales, diversion dikes, and slope drains.
e. Water bars, rolling dips, and out-sloping roads shall be constructed as part of
new road construction to disperse runoff and reduce the erosive forces
associated with concentrated flows.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 94
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-26 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.8)
N.1 On-site construction
activities could
generate noise
impacts to nearby
areas.
Remediation N-1a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall ensure that the
crushing plant is located at least 1,500 feet away from any residential receptor or an
equivalent distance or is treated with some other form of acoustical mitigation (e.g.,
located within an enclosure) to ensure noise levels at the closest residential receptor
are below 60 dBA. The location of the crushing plant shall be identified on the site
plan for the grading permit. If noise reducing measures are applied instead of
increased distances, vibration calculations shall be performed to demonstrate that
vibration impacts would remain below the applicable thresholds
N-1b The Applicant shall ensure that all construction activity at the Project Site
(including deliveries and arriving and departing workers) is limited to the hours
from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and prohibit activities on
Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If activities outside this timeframe occur,
noise monitoring shall be established to demonstrate that applicable noise codes are
not exceeded. This shall be a note placed on all construction plans.
N-1c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, and throughout construction, the
Applicant shall ensure that all construction machinery is maintained according to
the manufacturers’ specifications and ensure that mufflers and silencers are
maintained properly. Back-up OSHA noise indicators shall be ambient sensitive and
self-adjusting to minimize backup indicator noise or flaggers shall be used in the
place of backup alarms (as allowed by OSHA).
N-1d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall provide formal
notification to all sensitive receptors (including residential and office) within 1,000
feet of the Project area prior to commencing the blasting or rock crushing operation.
The notification should identify potential noise, work hours and time frame, and
contact information. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit
a copy of the notice and a list of addresses to where the notice was sent (see N-2).
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 95
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-27 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
N.2 On-site construction
activities including
blasting of rock
could generate
vibration impacts to
nearby areas.
Remediation N-2 Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall submit a blasting
plan for review and approval by San Luis Obispo County Planning and Building for
all blasting activities at the site that includes:
1. Informing the public about the Project and potential blasting-related
consequences;
2. Scheduling the work to reduce adverse effects;
3. Designing the blast to reduce vibration and air over pressure including limiting
the size of blasting charges and confinement to the minimum feasible;
4. Using blast signals to notify nearby residents that blasting is imminent;
5. Monitoring and recording the vibration and air overpressure effects of the
blast;
6. Responding to and investigating complaints;
7. If complaints are received, blasting shall not resume until it has been
determined whether an adaptive blasting strategy needs to be implemented;
and
8. Providing formal notification to all sensitive receptors (including residential
and office) within 1000 feet of the Project area prior to commencing the
blasting or rock crushing operation. The notification should identify potential
noise, work hours and time frame, and contact information.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
CULTURAL RESOURCES AND ARCHAEOLOGY (Section 4.9)
CR.1 Impacts to
paleontological
resources due to
ground disturbance
as a result of
remediation
activities.
Remediation CR-1a Prior to issuance of grading permits for the project, the Applicant shall prepare a
Paleontological Monitoring and Mitigation Plan to preserve and protect any fossil
resources that may be uncovered during deep excavations at the Project Site. The
Plan shall be prepared by a Principal Paleontologist who meets SVP professional
qualification standards and shall be consistent with SVP Guidelines. The Plan shall
include, at a minimum:
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 96
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-28 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
1. Provisions for paleontological monitoring under the supervision of the
Principal Paleontologist during all excavation greater than 5 feet deep;
2. Descriptions of how salvage and/or preservation will be conducted if fossils
are encountered;
3. Standards for recording fossil localities in the field, analyzing and preparing
recovered remains in the laboratory, and reporting results;
4. Health and safety procedures to be implemented by monitors during work at
the Project Site; and
5. A curation agreement with qualified repositories for scientific research and
public education.
Monitoring shall entail the visual inspection of excavated or graded areas and trench
sidewalls. In the event that a paleontological resource is discovered, the monitor
shall have the authority to temporarily divert the construction equipment around the
find until it is assessed for scientific significance and collected, if appropriate.
Monitoring efforts may be reduced or eliminated at the discretion of the Principal
Paleontologist if, after 50 percent of the excavations are completed, no fossil
resources are encountered.
CR-1b If paleontological resources are discovered during any ground disturbing activities,
the Applicant or their agents shall immediately cease all work activities within 50
feet of the discovery until the Provisions of the Paleontological Monitoring and
Mitigation Plan (MM CR-1a) are implemented. Any required significance
evaluation or fossil recovery shall be fully funded by the Applicant and completed
under the supervision of a Principal Paleontologist who meets SVP professional
qualification standards. Work in the area of the discovery shall not resume until
authorization is received from the County or City Department of Planning and
Building.
CR-1c The Applicant shall design and implement a Worker Education Program that shall
be provided to all Project personnel who may encounter and/or alter paleontological
Attachment 1
PC1 - 97
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-29 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
resources, including construction supervisors and field personnel. No construction
worker shall be involved in field operations without having participated in the
Worker Education Program. The training shall be prepared by the Principal
Paleontologist and shall provide a description of the fossil resources that may be
encountered in the Project area, outline steps to follow in the event that a fossil
discovery is made, and provide contact information for the Project Paleontologist
and on-site monitor(s). The training may be conducted concurrent with other
environmental or safety awareness and education programs for the Project, provided
that the program elements pertaining to paleontological resources is provided by a
qualified instructor meeting applicable professional qualifications standards.
CR.2 Impacts to historical
resources at the
Project Site due to
ground disturbance
as a result of
remediation
activities.
Remediation CR-2a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permits, the Applicant shall fund and
implement a Phase III archaeological data recovery program at Features 21 and 27.
The data recovery shall be directed by a Registered Professional Archaeologist
(RPA) with expertise in historical archaeology, and shall be carried out in
accordance with a Data Recovery Plan prepared in advance by the RPA and
approved by the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building.
All artifacts and other remains shall be analyzed according to current professional
standards. A final technical report shall be prepared that describes field and
laboratory methods, results of technical analysis of recovered materials, and site
interpretations. Artifacts, records, and other associated materials shall be deposited
with an appropriate curation facility following completion of the work; the
Applicant shall be responsible for all curation costs. A Chumash tribal
representative shall monitor all excavation.
CR-2b Presently 37 features are located outside the remediation areas of impact. However,
if project design plans change to include these areas then prior to issuance of
applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall fund and implement a Phase II/III
archaeological data recovery program at Features 1, 2, 4, 6, 7-9, 12-18, 22-23, 25-26,
28-32, 34-35, 39-42, 44, 46, 48-50, 52, 53, and 55 . Without proper subsurface
testing and evaluation, the significance of each of these features remains unknown.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 98
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-30 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
Therefore, for management purposes they are assumed to embody the site’s
significant qualities. The data recovery program at these features shall use a phased
approach which first defines their significant qualities and then recovers a
representative sample. The work shall follow the “consolidated approach” outlined
in the City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program
Guidelines (October 2009 edition); the approach shall be described in detail in a
Data Recovery Plan prepared in advance by the RPA and approved by the County of
San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. The work shall be directed
by a Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) with expertise in historical
archaeology. If the Applicant’s Consultant completes a separate report on the testing
and evaluation of these features, and it is reviewed by the EIR Consultant, then
additional testing and/or mitigation may not be required for some of these features.
All artifacts and other remains recovered from these features shall be analyzed
according to current professional standards. A final technical report shall describe
field and laboratory methods, results of technical analysis of recovered materials,
and site interpretations. Artifacts, records, and other associated materials shall be
deposited with an appropriate curation facility following completion of the work; the
Applicant shall be responsible for all curation costs. A Chumash tribal representative
shall monitor all excavation.
CR-2c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, Features 58-72 shall be documented
to Level 1 standards of the Historic American Engineering Record (HAER). The
County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building shall ensure that
HAER documentation is carried out by a qualified architectural historian who meets
the Secretary of Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for Architectural
History. HAER documentation shall include a Historic Structure Report (HSR)
prepared to National Park Service HABS/HAER standards and guidelines. All work
shall be fully funded by the Applicant and approved by the County. The HSR shall
include a set of measured drawings and large format black-and-white 8-by-10 inch
archival quality prints and negatives produced by a professional photographer. The
photographs should include a minimum of twelve views, including interior and
Attachment 1
PC1 - 99
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-31 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
exterior views of the character-defining elements of the remnant tanks and
reservoirs, and existing drawings or historic views. All reports along with two sets
of prints shall be submitted to the California State Library in Sacramento and the
History Center of San Luis Obispo County.
CR-2d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall insure that
construction fencing is placed around the construction zone prior to the start of
construction to protect the remaining unevaluated resources outside the Area of
Direct Impact (ADI). Fencing shall ensure a minimum buffer of 20 feet around any
unevaluated cultural features (unless otherwise determined by a Registered
Professional Archaeologist). Areas outside the protective fencing shall be
designated as Environmentally Sensitive Areas (ESA). The fence installation shall
be monitored by the RPA to insure no impact to any cultural resources, and shall be
periodically inspected by an environmental monitor to ensure that it remains in
place throughout the duration of construction.
CR-2e Prior to completion of the grading portion of the remediation component of the
Project, the Applicant shall prepare a Cultural Resources Management Plan
(CRMP) which is integrated with the long-range Open Space Management Plan.
The CRMP shall be approved by the County in consultation with the City. The
CRMP shall include, but not limited to, specification of policies and procedures to
manage and protect cultural resources on the entire Project Site from impacts by
future projects or use of the Project Site. The CRMP preparation and
implementation shall be fully funded by the Applicant, developed by a Registered
Professional Archaeologist (RPA), and shall be made applicable to the Project Site
in perpetuity, through recordation of restrictive covenants in a form approved by the
County, in consultation with the City.
CR-2f Prior to completion of the grading portion of the remediation component of the
Project and subsequent to completion of Phase III data recovery, the Applicant shall
fund the preparation of public interpretive materials including, but not limited to, a
Attachment 1
PC1 - 100
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-32 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
small plaque and display kiosks approved by the County in consultation with the
City to be placed in an easily accessible location on the southern and northern
parcels of the Project Site, and on a website or static exhibit suitable for display at
The History Center, San Luis Obispo Public Library, and/or other appropriate public
location within the City of San Luis Obispo.
CR.3 Inadvertent
discovery of
archaeological
remains during
remediation
activities.
Remediation CR-3a The Applicant will design and implement a Worker Education Program that will be
provided to all Project personnel who may encounter and/or alter historical
resources or unique archaeological properties, including construction supervisors
and field personnel. No construction worker will be involved in field operations
without having participated in the Worker Education Program. The Worker
Education Program shall include, at a minimum:
1. A review of archaeology, history, prehistory and Native American cultures
associated with historical resources in the Project vicinity.
2. A review of applicable state and local ordinances, laws and regulations
pertaining to historic preservation.
3. A discussion of site procedures to be followed in the event that unanticipated
cultural resources are discovered during implementation of the Project.
4. A statement by the construction company or applicable employer agreeing to
abide by the Worker Education Program, City and County policies and other
applicable laws and regulations.
The Worker Education Program may be conducted in concert with other
environmental or safety awareness and education programs for the Project, provided
that the program elements pertaining to cultural resources are provided by a
qualified instructor meeting applicable professional qualifications standards.
CR-3b If prehistoric or historic-period archaeological resources are discovered during any
ground disturbing activities, the Applicant or their agents shall immediately cease
all work activities within 50 feet of the discovery and immediately notify the City or
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 101
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-33 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
the County of San Luis Obispo Department of Planning and Building. A Registered
Professional Archaeologist (RPA) shall evaluate the significance of the discovery
prior to resuming any activities that could impact the resource. If the archaeologist
determines that the find embodies the significant qualities of the Project Site or
offers previously unidentified data potential, the area of concern as determined by
the RPA shall be avoided or a data recovery plan shall be developed. Any required
testing or data recovery and/or curation shall be fully funded by the Applicant and
completed by a RPA prior to construction being resumed in the affected area. Work
shall not resume until authorization is received from the County and City
Department of Planning and Building.
CR.4 Inadvertent
discovery of human
remains during
remediation
activities.
Remediation CR-4 If potential human remains are discovered, the Applicant or their agents shall
comply with Section 15064.5 (e) (1) of the CEQA Guidelines and the Public
Resources Code Section 7050.5. All work activities shall immediately cease in the
area (within approximately 50 feet) of the discovery. A Registered Professional
Archaeologist (RPA) shall inspect the remains and confirm that they are human, and
if so shall immediately notify the County and City Departments of Planning and
Building and contact the County Coroner in accordance with Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98 and Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5. If the Coroner
determines the remains are Native American, the coroner shall contact the Native
American Heritage Commission (NAHC). As provided in Public Resources Code
Section 5097.98, the NAHC shall identify the person or persons believed to be most
likely descended from the deceased Native American. The most likely descendent,
in consultation with the County, City, and other Tribal representatives, makes
recommendations for means of treating or disposing of, with appropriate dignity, the
human remains and any associated grave goods as provided in Public Resources
Code Section 5097.98.
Based on discussions with tribal representatives, fully funded by the Applicant, and
subject to concurrence of the Most Likely Desendent (MLD), the following
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 102
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-34 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
treatments of human remains shall be considered (in order of preference):
1. Remains shall be left in place if at all possible through project redesign;
2. Remains shall be disinterred and reburied on the Project Site in a location not
subject to further disturbance;
3. Remains shall be disinterred and reburied in a location provided by the
Applicant and/or the County.
Any disinterment of human remains shall be carried out with due care and respect,
according to archaeological procedures. In situ Native American remains may be
documented with drawings, measurements, and other non-destructive methods, but
shall not be photographed or subject to destructive analysis without prior approval
of the MLD.
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (Section 4.10)
AE.1 The Project
remediation
activities could
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of the site
and its
surroundings.
Remediation AE-1a The Applicant shall ensure that graded areas for development pads that are not built
on within two years of creation of the development pads, are temporarily landscaped
or otherwise maintained as needed to cover exposed soils and maintain growth of
weeds. Weeds shall be controlled to not be unsightly.
AE-1b The Applicant shall ensure that fencing installed throughout the Project Site in order
to implement institutional controls for management of the area for wildlife habitat
shall contribute to the aesthetic character of the site and vicinity. Prior to issuance of
grading permits for sites where fencing is required, the applicant shall submit to the
County Department of Planning and Building for review and approval, in
consultation with the City of San Luis Obispo, site fencing plans. The plans shall
include: fencing types that meet the functional requirements for the intuitional
controls; fencing locations; materials and color palette consistent with City of San
Luis Obispo design guidelines; and, as needed, complementary landscape to break-
up the public view of the fencing.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 103
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-35 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.3 Asbestos exposure
risk during site
remediation
activities.
Remediation Implement mitigation measures AQ-1b and AQ-1c. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
AGRICULTURE (Section 4.15)
AR.3 The remediation
component of the
Project would
involve other
changes in the
existing
environment, such
as deed restrictions
and a land use
covenant on an
adjacent property,
which, due to their
location or nature,
could result in the
conversion of
farmland to non-
agricultural use.
Remediation Implement mitigation measures AQ-1b, AQ-2a, and AQ-2b. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 104
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-36 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.3 Construction
activities associated
with remediation
could generate GHG
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.5)
WR.2 The use of
groundwater
resources as a water
supply for
remediation could
substantially deplete
groundwater
supplies or interfere
substantially with
groundwater
recharge.
Remediation WR-2 The Applicant shall work with the City of San Luis Obispo to obtain reclaimed
water for use during the Remediation Project.
Less than
significant
WR.5 Grading and
recontouring of the
site could result in
changes to surface
water flows, thereby
increasing surface
water runoff from
the Project Site.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WASTEWATER (Section 4.6)
WW.1 The wastewater
generated from
remediation
activities could
Remediation WW-1a Prior to the discharge of any wastewater from remediation activities the Applicant
shall provide to the County a copy of the WDR from the RWQCB.
WW-1b Prior to issuance of grading permits for remediation the Applicant shall prepare a
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 105
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-37 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
result in releases to
the environment that
could impact
surface water or
groundwater
quality.
Dewatering Contingency Plan that shall be submitted to the RWQCB for review
and approval. The Applicant shall provide to the County a copy of the RWQCB
approval letter for the Dewatering Contingency Plan.
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.1 Potential health risk
due to exposure to
residual
contamination
following site
remediation for
future site uses.
Remediation HM-1 Prior to issuance of grading or other related permits authorizing initiation of the
remediation and restoration component of the project, the Applicant shall submit to
the City and County written verification from the RWQCB that the Remedial Action
Plan has been finalized and approved.
Less than
significant
HM.2 Public accident risk
associated with
truck traffic during
site remediation.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
POPULATION AND HOUSING (Section 4.12)
P/H.1 The remediation
component of the
Project may induce
substantial growth
in the area by
proposing new
businesses in the
area.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (Section 4.13)
PS/U.1 Additional truck
trips or construction
activities could
interfere with fire
protection
Remediation PS/U-1 The Applicant shall incorporate the following in the construction traffic
management plan for review and approval by the City and County Public Works
departments:
• Advance notification of emergency response providers near the Project Site of
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 106
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-38 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
emergency vehicles
response times
along Tank Farm
Road.
exact construction locations, potential lane closure schedules, and potential
alternate routes.
• In order to avoid disruption to fire protection services’ access through the area,
traffic safety procedures, including, but not limited to, flagmen and signs
controlling traffic crossing Tank Farm Road.
PS/U.2 Additional truck
trips or construction
activities could
interfere with police
protection
emergency vehicles
response times
along Tank Farm
Road.
Remediation Implement mitigation measure PS/U-1 in order to further reduce the impacts generated by
the Project. Less than
significant
PS/U.3 Construction
equipment could
potentially use
nonrenewable
resources in a
wasteful or
inefficient manner.
Remediation PS/U-3 To avoid wasteful use of gasoline or diesel fuel, construction vehicles should be
left on-site for the duration of each annual active construction season (as defined
by allowed construction timing by the various mitigation measures), and
construction vehicles shall be turned off when not in use to avoid idling.
Less than
significant
PS/U.4 Remediation
activities would
generate solid waste
requiring disposal at
landfills.
Remediation PS/U-4 Prior to issuance of grading permits, the Applicant shall submit a Solid Waste
Management Plan (SWMP) for approval by the San Luis Obispo County IWMA
(and the City of San Luis Obispo Utilities Department if the City annexes the site
prior to completion of the remediation component of the project) to maintain a
diversion rate of at least 50 percent of construction waste from reaching the
landfill. The County/City Monitor, IWMA (and the City Utilities Department if
applicable) would also monitor the Applicant’s implementation of the SWMP and
verify compliance with solid waste diversion requirements. The SWMP shall
consist of information regarding, but not limited to:
a. The name and contact information of who will be responsible for
implementing the recycling plan;
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 107
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-39 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
b. A brief description of the Project wastes to be generated, including types
and estimated quantities of each material to be salvaged, reused, or
recycled during the construction phase of this Project;
c. Waste sorting/recycling and/or collection areas shall be clearly indicated on
the Site Map;
d. A description of the means of transportation and destination of recyclable
materials and waste, and a description of where recyclable materials and
waste will be sorted (whether materials will be site-separated and hauled to
designated recycling or landfill facilities, or whether mixed materials will
be removed from the site to be processed at a mixed waste sorting facility);
e. The name of the landfill(s) where trash will be disposed of and a projected
amount of material that will be landfilled;
f. A description of meetings to be held between Applicant and contractor to
ensure compliance with the recycling plan;
g. A contingency plan shall identify an alternate location to recycle and/or
stockpile construction debris in the event of local recycling facilities
becoming unable to accept material (for example: all local recycling
facilities reaching the maximum tons per day due to a time period of
unusually large volume);
h. Ongoing documentation by the Contractor submitted with each
Building/Zoning Inspection shall report on a quarterly basis;
i. Disposal information including quantity of material landfilled, which
landfill was used, total landfill tipping fees paid, and copies of weight
tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices;
j. Recycling information including quantity of material recycles, receiving
party, and copies of weight tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices; and
k. Reuse and salvage information including quantities of salvage materials,
storage locations if they are to be used on-site, or receiving party if
resold/used off-site.
RECREATION (Section 4.14)
REC.1 The remediation Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
Attachment 1
PC1 - 108
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
Chevron Tank Farm IST-1-40 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
activities could have
a potential effect on
existing recreational
facilities and users.
significant
AGRICULTURE (Section 4.15)
AR.1 The remediation and
restoration activities
would result in the
conversion of
farmland or grazing
land to non-
agricultural uses.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
AR.2 The remediation and
restoration activities
would potentially
conflict with
existing zoning for
agricultural use or
with a Williamson
Act contract.
Remediation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 109
Impact Summary Tables-Remediation
December 2013 IST-1-41 Chevron Tank Farm Road
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS IV Impacts – Proposed Project – Remediation
Beneficial Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.5 Potential aircraft
safety hazards due to
changes in
topography of the
project site.
Remediation No mitigation required. Beneficial
Attachment 1
PC1 - 110
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Impact Summary Tables
County Development Plan
The majority of the City Development Plan impacts would also apply to the County Development Plan. All of the
Applicable City Development Plan impacts have been reproduced in the County Development Plan Impact Summary
Tables. As needed, in the description of the impact and the mitigation measures, reference to the City has been changed
to the County. In some cases the mitigation measures had to be modified to apply to the County. Impacts marked with an
asterisk (*) are applicable only to the County Development Plan.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 111
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm i December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
Page
Class I Impacts ..................................................................................................................................................... IST-3-1
Class II Impacts .................................................................................................................................................... IST-3-5
Class III Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-3-22
Class IV Impacts ................................................................................................................................................ IST-3-30
Attachment 1
PC1 - 112
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-1 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.7 Operational
activities associated
with the County
Development Plan
would generate
diesel particulate
and fugitive dust
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ.7 Implement mitigation measure AQ-6b. Significant
and
unavoidable
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.5 The addition of
Project traffic would
cause nine
intersections and
two freeway
segments to operate
at unacceptable
levels under
Cumulative
conditions.
Development T-5a South Higuera Street and Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the right-
of-way acquisition and intersection improvements to achieve LOS D
operations. These improvements include: installation of second left turn lanes
on the northbound, southbound, eastbound approaches; the addition of right
turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches; and the addition of
overlap phases on the eastbound and westbound approaches as determined by
the County and the level of impact associated with the contribution of the
County Development Project. This project shall pay an additional mitigation
amount commensurate with their additional impact beyond cumulative
conditions.
T-5b Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Calle Joaquin –The
Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of design and installation of a
northbound left turn lane added to the future improvement on the Calle Joaquin
approach, as determined by the County and the level of impact associated with
the contribution of the County Development portions of the Project however it
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Attachment 1
PC1 - 113
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-2 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
will be not be constructed as part of the Interchange project currently
underway.
T-5c South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road – Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1
buildings/development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of
the design and installation of a second westbound right turn lane with an
overlap phase concurrent with the southbound left and a second southbound left
turn lane, as determined by the County and the level of impact associated with
the contribution of the County Development portions of the Project.
T-5d South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane – Prior to the occupancy of each phase
of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the
design and installation of the extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera
Street. The AASP impact fee program contains part of the cost associated with
the Buckley Road extension, but the impact fee program needs to be updated to
reflect new project cost estimates and permitting requirements.
T-5e South Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road- The applicant shall participate
in their pro-rate share of either (1) The right-of-way acquisition, design, and
installation a second southbound through lane, second southbound right-turn
lane, and an eastbound right turn overlap signal phase concurrent with the
northbound left turn; or (2) The extension of Buckley Road to the Los Osos
Valley Road interchange (LOVR Bypass). This project is not contained in any
impact fee programs established by the County but is cumulative in nature and
the County shall add this project to traffic impact fees.
T-5f Santa Fe Road and Tank Farm Road – Mitigation measure T-3a would also
mitigate this cumulative impact.
T-5g Broad Street and Tank Farm Road - Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
Significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 114
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-3 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a northbound right turn lane, a southbound right turn overlap
phase concurrent with the eastbound left, and conversion of the westbound right
turn lane to a shared through right turn lane.
T-5h Broad Street and Buckley Road - Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a second northbound through lane and a second southbound
through lane.
T-5i Broad Street/Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of each phase of
development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the design
and installation of a second northbound left-turn lane.
and
unavoidable
Significant
and
unavoidable
None
WW.3* Discharges from the
wastewater
treatment plant
would increase
surface water flow
rates and impact
downstream
properties.
Development WW-3 Prior to recordation of a final map, commencement of tract improvements or
issuance of the first building permit for the development phase, the Applicant
shall receive a wastewater discharge permit from the State Regional Water
Quality Control Board. The Applicant shall also submit, to the County Public
Works Department for review and approval, a wastewater discharge plan for
the wastewater treatment plant that shall be reviewed and approved by San Luis
Obispo Department of Planning and Building and Public Works. The plan shall
include the method that would be used to avoid discharges from the wastewater
treatment plant that increase flows to the San Luis Obispo Creek during rain
events that could result in increased flooding. The plan shall include at the
minimum the following:
1. How creek levels would be monitored during rain events.
2. At what flow and water level in the creek would discharges to the creek be
Significant
and
unavoidable
Attachment 1
PC1 - 115
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-4 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS I Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That May Not Be Fully Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in a “statement of overriding consideration” if the project is approved in accordance with
Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measure Residual
Impact
halted.
3. The method used to hold wastewater during periods when it cannot be
discharged.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 116
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-5 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.6 Operational
activities associated
with the County
Development Plan
would generate
ROG+NOx
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ-6a Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall implement
the following mitigation measures to reduce area source emissions, where
applicable.
a. Increase walls and attic insulation by 20 percent above what is required by
the 2008 Title 24 requirements.
b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce
summer cooling needs.
c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, were applicable.
e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit
access.
f. Use double-paned windows.
g. Use sodium low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g., sodium)
h. Use energy efficient interior lighting.
i. Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e., should meet the
EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating).
j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating.
k. Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and
windows are not available.
AQ-6b Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits or lease agreement, the
Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce vehicle
emissions.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 117
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-6 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
a. Locate electrical vehicle charging station(s) in the parking lots at a ratio
required by County or City ordinance or as recommended by APCD.
b. In coordination with the City Transit Management, provide transit
demand enhancements (i.e., additional stops, shelters, phones) within the
Project impact area to meet the increased ridership demand associated with
the Project.
c. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with
location and design criteria established by the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan, with installation and design guidance provided by the
City’s Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space for
every 10 employees is considered appropriate.
d. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to bike
or walk to work.
e. The Applicant or lessee shall meet with SLOCOG’s Rideshare Program
Coordinator to develop a Trip Reduction Plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Director and APCD. The Trip Reduction
Plan shall include the following:
1) A comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program for
employees. The TDM may include: (a) private vanpool operation; (b)
transit and vanpool fare subsidies; (c) pay parking for employees; (d)
provision of subscription bus services; (e) alternative work hours; (f)
capital improvements for transit services; (g) reduction of parking fees
for carpools and vanpools; (h) Bikeway linkages to established
bicycle routes; and (i) provision of an on-site employee transportation
and rideshare coordinator.
2) Preferential carpool and vanpool parking for employees.
3) A lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips.
Attachment 1
PC1 - 118
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-7 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
4) On-site facilities for eating and convenience including refrigeration,
automatic banking, and other vending for employees.
5) Incentive programs, similar to the County Rideshare Transportation
Choices Program, to reduce employee commute trips. Programs
should be coordinated with adjacent commercial development with a
goal to achieve an Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) of 1.20 persons
per vehicle or greater.
6) The Applicant shall set aside funds equivalent to three month
enrollment in Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club for 25 percent of all
employees (a maximum of $52,230 for this project). This fund shall
be managed by APCD through a program similar to the “Flash Pass”
used for the San Luis Obispo Home Depot development. If funds are
not used for this purpose, they may be used for other incentives that
have been included in the approved Trip Reduction Plan.
f. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City and APCD to pursue a
shared use agreement to use over-supplied parking areas for a potential
park-and-ride lot. The park-and-ride lot should be away from building
entrances and as close as possible to the parking lot entrance nearest to
Tank Farm Road or fronting street. The target number of park-and-ride
spaces should be 25. The parking area should be identified with signage
and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an
official park-and-ride lot.
g. Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce
vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment.
AQ-6c Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, if emissions of ROG+NOx
with the above mitigations still exceed the thresholds, the Applicant shall secure
SLOAPCD approved off-site reductions in ROG+NOx emissions from the
Attachment 1
PC1 - 119
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-8 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
SLOAPCD to ensure that ROG+NOx emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD
daily and annual thresholds.
AQ-6d Implement a program of periodic wet-vacuum street sweeping in coordination with
APCD in order to reduce vehicle-related fugitive dust emissions.
AQ.8 Operational and
construction
activities associated
with the County
Development Plan
would generate
GHG emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development AQ-8 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits for each phase, the Applicant
shall include building efficiency improvements and/or off-site reductions in GHG
emissions to ensure that GHG emissions do not exceed the SLOAPCD thresholds.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
AQ.11* Operational
activities associated
with the County
Development Plan
WWTP could
generate odor
emissions.
Development AQ-11 Prior to issuance of building or construction permits for the WWTP, the Applicant
shall, where applicable, apply to the SLOAPCD for permits and develop an odor
Control plan in coordination with the SLOAPCD.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.2)
BIO.8 The County
Development Plan
would result in
permanent loss of
biological functions
of wetlands, native
grasslands, habitats
Development BIO-8a The final restoration plan shall include criteria that would require the restoration of
at least a 2:1 replacement ratio (4.14 acres as defined by Padre 2008c) of all
“native grasslands” habitat permanently lost in the development elements of the
project. Restored native grassland habitat shall meet standards and criteria as
defined by the County of San Luis Obispo and CDFW within the proposed
restoration of 45.2 acres of forb field habitat. Implementation of the terrestrial
habitat restoration shall follow the plan, including locations to be restored,
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 120
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-9 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
for rare plants and
animals, and other
biotic communities
considered sensitive
by federal, state, or
local policies,
statutes, and
regulations.
restoration techniques, a schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery,
success criteria, and remedial actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO-8b The function of the restored native grassland habitats shall be monitored. A Long-
Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan shall be developed and appended
to the final restoration plan. The habitat management and evaluation plan shall
include methods to determine if the restored areas are meeting success criteria per
the approved restoration plan including criteria of plant and wildlife species in
restored habitats and to compare such results to pre-Project conditions. The
complementary plan shall include surveys to monitor the occurrence of native
plants and animals in restored habitats relative to their occurrence in similar
habitats prior to remediation and development.
BIO-8c Hikers, pets, and bikers shall be excluded from sensitive habitats within the Project
Site. The final SLO County-approved restoration plan shall include a fencing plan
element with specific details on location, requirements of permanent and seasonal
exclusion zones, and type of fencing to ensure that wildlife movement is not
restricted. The fencing plan shall include information on placement of signs,
educational placards, type of fencing required, method of exclusions, and
monitoring and repair of exclusion devices, and shall include, at the least, a
description and figure of those areas (i.e., VPFS habitat, vernal pool habitat,
riparian habitat, and habitat in the process of being restored) that would require full
time exclusion.
BIO-8d The final restoration plan shall require a 2:1 replacement of the 3.71 acres of
USACE Jurisdictional Waters/wetlands, isolated waters/wetlands, and one-
parameter wetlands (for a replacement of 7.42 acres) permanently impacted by the
County Development Plan. Implementation of the wetland and habitat restoration
shall follow the plan, including locations to be restored, restoration techniques, a
schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success criteria, and remedial
Attachment 1
PC1 - 121
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-10 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO.9 The County
Development Plan
would permanently
impede migration
and dispersal of
upland, aquatic, and
semi-aquatic
wildlife species.
Development BIO-9a To reduce impacts to wildlife migration, the Applicant shall include in the
approved final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) landscape designs for planting of
native vegetation along the northern portion of the County Development Plan area.
The native vegetation landscaping shall be designed to provide wildlife species
cover and refuge during migration. The landscaping shall be designed to shield
migrating wildlife from human presence, noise, and lighting from residential and
recreational activities in the County Development Plan footprint. Due to the 2 to 25
year duration of development phase, such planting shall occur on the onset of the
development phase.
BIO-9b To reduce cumulative impacts to wildlife migration the Applicant shall include in
the final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) a fencing plan element with specific details
on location and requirements for the purpose of restricting wildlife movement
through the development area but allowing movement through the open space
areas.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
BIO.10 The County
Development Plan
has the potential to
reduce the size and
diversity of plant
and animal
populations at the
Project Site.
Development BIO-10 Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit the Applicant shall submit a lighting
plan to the County for approval. All Project lighting shall be designed to shielded
spillage of light into adjacent preserved open space areas. Any structural part of the
light fixture providing this shielding shall be permanently affixed. Outdoor lighting
for buildings shall be restricted to lights required by code for lighting building
exteriors and for safety and security needs. The lighting for the ball field shall not
be on during period when there are no activities at the fields. In no case shall the
lights at the ball fields be on during the hours of midnight and 7:00 AM. After
initial installation of Project lighting, a County-approved biologist shall conduct a
field inspection to confirm that the proper lamps have been installed and that light
spillage into Open Space areas has been minimized to the maximum extent feasible
without compromising safety or other critical night-lighting requirements.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 122
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-11 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
BIO.11* The County
Development Plan,
specifically the
wastewater
treatment plant
component would
result in short-term
and permanent loss
of biological
functions of
wetlands, habitats
for rare plants and
animals, and other
biotic communities
considered sensitive
by federal, state, or
local policies,
statutes, and
regulations.
County
Development
BIO-11a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare a
spill/discharge plan with specific measures that would prevent untreated discharge
or accidental releases, such as saline or chlorinated water and/or untreated water
during storm events into the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek to reduce
exposure risks to aquatic species located downstream of proposed discharge. The
discharge plan shall be approved by the County and shall include specific measures
such as the use of stormwater basins, a complete water sampling schedule and
methods for stormwater handling.
BIO-11b Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit the Applicant shall demonstrate to
the County that all open basins, including “polishing wetlands” or settling basins,
that would require regular maintenance and/or vegetation management, containing
any Project-related fluids shall be designed to exclude all wildlife, including birds,
bats, and amphibians.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.3 Impacts to the
City’s transit
system could result
due to increased
ridership generated
by the Project,
impacts to bicycle
and pedestrian
Development T-3a Site Access (Northeastern Parcel): Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road: Prior to the
occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant shall install a multi-
lane roundabout at the new intersection of Tank Farm Road and northern leg of
Santa Fe Road accessing the Project Site. This improvement is consistent with the
intersection control in the AASP. Also the Applicant shall extend the existing four
lane section of Tank Farm Road thru the multilane roundabout.
Transit: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 123
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-12 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
facilities could
result from network
discontinuities and
unsafe crossings;
impacts to site
access and on-site
circulation could
result from queue
spillback and the
creation of
additional conflict
points.
shall install transit facilities along Tank Farm Road to the satisfaction of the
County and City Public Works Department with direct pedestrian and bicycle
connections to buildings on the Project Site. The Applicant shall also work with
the County and SLO Transit to ensure that transit service capacity is adequate to
serve the projected demand.
Bicycle and Pedestrian: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development,
the Applicant shall, at a minimum, install the following bicycle and pedestrian
facilities: 1) a continuous Class I multi-use path along the north side of Tank Farm
Road, 2) 6.5 foot wide Class II bike lanes on the north and south sides of Tank
Farm Road between the east and west boundaries of the entire Project Site along
with appropriate transitions to existing Tank Farm Road, 3) a Class I multi-use
path between Tank Farm Road and the southern limits of the Project Site
connecting to the ‘Avila Ranch’ development project, 4) a Class I multi-use path
through the north-west portion of the property (old Chevron Collector street
location) with a provision to allow construction of a City sewer connection to the
lift station, and 5) a Class I multi-use path through the north-east portion of the site
linking the properties to the east to the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road
intersection. The precise alignment of these Class I paths shall be subject to the
approval of the County Department of Planning and Building..
T-3b Site Access (Northwestern Parcel): Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/
development, the Applicant shall redesign its major access to the northwestern
parcel so that it is consolidated with adjacent parcels to minimize the potential for
vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts and to prevent a break in the median on
Tank Farm Road. The recommended consolidated access point is proposed as a
part of Tentative Tract Map 3009 and would require coordination with other
property owners.
T.4 The proposed
construction Development T-4 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the Applicant shall submit a
construction traffic management plan that includes a revised phasing plan Less than
Attachment 1
PC1 - 124
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-13 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
phasing plan would
disrupt vehicle and
bicycle travel for an
extended duration,
and the proposed
truck routes are
inconsistent with
the County’s
Circulation
Element.
Construction
activities related to
the Project could
result in potentially
significant impacts
to roadways in the
Project vicinity due
to the potential
obstruction of
heavy vehicles.
minimizing the duration of construction. In addition to the components described
in mitigation measure T-1a, the plan shall ensure that adjacent sections of
infrastructure be modified at the same time to minimize disruption of travel. The
plan shall include proposed truck routes that do not use the Los Osos Valley Road
interchange. The construction traffic management plan shall be subject to review
and approval of the County’s Public Works Department in consultation with
County Public Works and Caltrans.
significant
with
mitigation
WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.5)
WR.8* The use of
groundwater for the
County
Development Plan
could result in
substantially
depleted
groundwater
supplies or interfere
Development WR-8a The applicant shall implement water conservation best management practices
including: selection of drought-tolerant, low water-consuming plant varieties and
use of low flow plumbing fixtures.
WR-8b The Applicant shall conduct annual monitoring of Wells 1, 2 and 3 on a semi-
annual basis to determine water levels and correlate to water production values.
The production rates shall be metered at the wells. This information shall be used
to define drawdowns. The results of the monitoring and analysis shall be submitted
to the County Public Works and Planning and Development Departments for
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 125
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-14 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
substantially with
groundwater
recharge.
review on a semi-annual basis. In the event that the analysis shows a measurable
loss of the well production rate, the Applicant shall reduce groundwater extractions
from Well 1 to eliminate the potential for groundwater interference.
WR.9* The use of
groundwater for the
County
Development Plan
could result in the
migration of
hydrocarbons from
the shallow ground
water to the deep
groundwater wells.
Development WR-9a Prior to issuance of building permits for the development Phase I of the County
Development Plan, the Applicant shall prepare and implement a sentinel
monitoring program that would include wells positioned and constructed to
specifically monitor inflowing water in the vicinity of the groundwater wells that
would provide information on any approaching petroleum-related constituents of
concern. If petroleum-related constituent of concern are detected, then an
adsorptive carbon canister system or other method approved by the RWQCB and
the County shall be installed to assure that the water from the well meets drinking
water standards.
WR-9b Upon completion for the remediation activities, the Applicant shall abandon the
existing groundwater well located in the Northwest Operations Area. The well
shall be abandoned in accordance with applicable Department of Water Resources
requirements.
WR-9c The Applicant shall not use Well #4 as a source of water for the County
Development Plan.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
WASTEWATER (Section 4.6)
WW.4* The wastewater
treatment plant
discharges would
increase pollutants
into the East Fork
of San Luis Obispo
Creek.
Development WW-4a A Registered Civil Engineer shall design the tertiary treatment system for review
and approval by the County of San Luis Obispo and State of California RWQCB.
WW-4b The tertiary treatment system shall be designed to ensure that the outlet discharge
from the treatment facility satisfies and is in compliance with meeting constituent
concentration limits outlined in the RWQCB SWQO's.
WW-4c A quarterly monitoring program will be established prior to construction. The
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 126
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-15 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
program shall provide for sampling and testing for all constituent compounds
required by the RWQCB SWQO. The testing and monitoring program shall be
reviewed and approved by the RWQCB and the County of San Luis Obispo. A
Registered Civil Engineer shall perform the quarterly reports that shall be
submitted to the RWQCB and the County of San Luis Obispo to ensure
compliance.
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES (Section 4.7)
GR.4 Construction
activities and
grading may cause
erosion-induced
siltation of nearby
waterways as a
result of ground
disturbing activities.
Development GR-4a Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall prepare
a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified
SWPPP Developer (QSD) certified professional for the development Project for
review and approval by the County. The plan shall include features meeting the
construction activities best management practices and the applicable provisions of
the erosion and sediment control best management practices (ESC-1 through ESC-
56) published in the California Storm Water Best Management Practice
Handbooks (Construction Activity) and best management practices (CD-4(2)) of
the Caltrans Storm Water Quality Handbooks, Construction Contractor's Guide
and Specifications, to ensure that every construction site meets the requirements of
the regulations during the time of construction. Further, the plan shall ensure
compliance with and enrollment under the State Water Board General Construction
Permit.
GR-4b Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall prepare
an Erosion Control Plan and Wet Weather Plan for review and approval by the
County of San Luis Obispo. The plan shall detail the best management practices
that will be used on the site to control erosion and sedimentation to be
implemented during all development activities. The plan shall include at least the
following measures unless other erosion control measures are specified in the
agency approved SWPPP:
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 127
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-16 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
a. Graded areas shall be stabilized with riprap (i.e., crushed stone) or other
ground cover as soon as grading is completed. The surface of slopes shall be
roughened during the construction period to retain water, increase infiltration,
and facilitate establishing vegetation. Tracked machinery shall be operated up
and down (parallel with) slopes to leave horizontal (perpendicular)
depressions in the soil, which run across the slope, on the contour.
b. Slope breaks, such as diversions, benches, or contour furrows shall be
constructed to reduce the length of cut- and fill-slopes, thus limiting sheet and
rill erosion and preventing gully erosion.
c. Sediment barriers shall be used around construction areas to retain soil
particles on-site and reduce surface runoff velocities during rainfall events.
Sediment barriers could include straw bales, silt fences, and gravel and earth
berms. Silt fences shall be installed per specification on slope contours in
areas where shallow overland flow is anticipated.
d. Temporary and permanent drainages shall be employed, as necessary, to
reduce slope erosion and prevent damage to construction areas. Sheet flow
across or toward a disturbed area shall be intercepted and conveyed to a low
to moderate gradient (1 to 5 percent slope) sediment basin, erosion-resistant
drainage channel, or a level, well-vegetated area. Drainages would include
swales, diversion dikes, and slope drains.
e. Water bars, rolling dips, and out-sloping roads shall be constructed as part of
new road construction to disperse runoff and reduce the erosive forces
associated with concentrated flows.
GR.5 Moderately
expansive soils
prone to swelling
and shrinking from
increased or
decreased water
Development GR-5a Expansive soils should be mitigated by the over-excavation and replacement of
non-expansive soils for all buildings and structures, as approved by the County of
San Luis Obispo. Alternatively, all construction for buildings shall use thickened
slabs, extended slab edges, and additional reinforcement to reduce negative
impacts from any expansive soil movement. Several equivalent remedial measures
may be implemented that are standard construction and mitigation measures. In
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 128
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-17 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
content could
damage proposed
structures and
infrastructure,
resulting in loss of
property and risks
to human health and
safety.
addition, capillary breaks shall be used under slabs to address the potential for
moisture transport and pumping that leads to moisture infiltration as a result of
heat and moisture gradients where buildings are sensitive to moisture infiltration.
All remedial measures, designs, and calculations shall be prepared by a registered
civil engineer, and shall be reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance
of the applicable building permits.
GR-5b The Applicant shall use low- to non-expansive soils for slab, trench backfill, and
pavement support to eliminate risk, which can be accommodated by importing
select materials. Select grading techniques could utilize the granular soils on-site
for subsequent use. Alternatively, an equivalent remedial measure to mitigate
expansive soils may be implemented where the appropriate design and calculations
prepared by a registered civil engineer, demonstrate a suitable design, and have
been reviewed and approved by the County prior to issuance of the applicable
building permits.
GR-5c Soils shall be properly compacted as specified by a registered civil engineer. The
registered civil engineer should also specify the appropriate soil-water content for
expansive soil mitigation. The compaction levels and soil-water content shall be
approved by the County prior to issuance of the applicable building permit.
GR.7 Compressible soils
that underlie the site
will be prone to
excessive
settlement that
could adversely
affect the proposed
development and
improvements.
Development GR-7 Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant shall have a
registered civil engineer prepare a geotechnical report based on the proposed
development to the magnitude of total and differential settlements and time rates
for waiting during construction. The report shall be submitted to the County for
review and approval. The report shall discuss the measures that have been taken to
ensure that the primary settlement is within acceptable limits for the proposed
development. Acceptable measures could include but are not limited to:
a. Surcharging the proposed building sites with fill for a specified time frame.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 129
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-18 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
Settlement monuments shall be required to measure the total settlement. The
results of the survey shall be presented to the County for review and approval and
should include time rate plots to demonstrate that at least 90 percent (t90) of the
primary settlement (or as determined necessary) has occurred before any further
construction of structures in the area.
b. Partial or complete over-excavation of the clay layers and replacement with gravel
drain layer and engineered fill. Settlement monuments shall be required to
measure the total settlement. The results of the survey shall be presented to the
County for review and approval and should include time rate plots to demonstrate
that at least 90 percent (t90) of the primary settlement (or as determined necessary)
has occurred before any further construction of structures in the area.
c. Support structures on deepened foundations that extend thru the soft or unsuitable
layers and derive support from suitable materials. Where necessary, the piles shall
be required to be designed to withstand negative friction as necessary. Various
foundations schemes will require specific design criteria, but are typical to these
types of mitigation measures and should follow custom and practice in the
industry.
d. Perform in-situ remedial measures, such as sand drains, to accelerate and mitigate
the anticipated settlements. Various schemes will require specific design criteria,
but are typical to these types of mitigation measures and should follow custom
and practice in the industry.
NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.8)
N.3 Construction
activities associated
with the
construction of the
County
Development Plan
could increase noise
Development N.3 Implement mitigation measures N-1a, N-1b, and N-1c. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 130
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-19 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
levels in the area.
N.5 Development
within the ALUP
single event noise
contours could
cause the
development to be
exposed to
unacceptable noise
levels.
Development N-5 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the incorporate noise reduction
measures into the development design (i.e., extra insulation or thicker walls, window
design) for all applicable land uses that would be located within the ALUP noise
contours (Tentative Tract Map, Lot 1, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and portions of 6 and 14
within the 75 dBA contour and all or most of the remaining plots within the 65 dBA
contour). Noise mitigation shall result in noise levels being at or below acceptable
levels specified in the ALUP. Noise reduction measures shall clearly be identified with
construction permit applications.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
N.6* Development
related industrial
noise from the
WWTP could
generate noise
impacts to nearby
sensitive receptors.
Development N-6 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the Applicant shall ensure the
WWTP implements noise mitigation systems on all equipment that could generate
noise levels in exceedance of the Code levels at nearby receptors. Mitigation
systems shall include, but not be limited to, noise barriers and sound walls or
buildings. Monitoring of noise levels shall be instituted to ensure that noise levels
are below the applicable codes. Follow-up noise mitigation shall be implemented if
initial measures are not fully successful in reducing noise levels to below night-
time noise levels at the eastern property line.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
AESTHETICS AND VISUAL RESOURCES (Section 4.10)
AE.2 The County
Development Plan
component of the
Project would
degrade the existing
visual character or
quality of the site
and its
surroundings.
Development AE-2 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall ensure that
all development projects are reviewed for consistency with the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Plan, the County General plan design guidelines.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 131
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-20 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AE.3 The Project would
generate a new
source of
substantial light or
glare which would
adversely affect day
or nighttime views
in the area.
Development AE-3 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant shall submit a
lighting plan and lighting operation schedule for review and approval. The lighting
plan shall demonstrate that direct views of light sources are shielded from nearby
residences. The lighting schedule shall describe the number, location and amounts
of lights, and the proposed hours of operation for the entire property. The lighting
schedule shall propose the minimum number of lights, level of illumination, and
hours of operation allowed by County codes and ordinances. The approved lighting
schedule shall become a required condition of the lease between the property
owner and any tenant on the Project Site.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
AE.4* The wastewater
treatment facility
would degrade the
existing visual
character or quality
of the site and its
surroundings.
Development AE.4 Implement mitigation measure AE-2 following the County design guidelines. Less than
significant
with
mitigation
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.6 Potential health risk
from exposure to
residual
contamination
following site
cleanup and
development.
Development HM-6 Prior to recordation of applicable tract map, the Applicant shall include deed
restrictions on development parcels identifying specific limits on trenching
activities and procedures for conducting subsurface construction activities. The
Applicant shall maintain responsibility for air quality monitoring during any
subsurface excavation activities.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
HM.8 Potential risk
associated with the
future use of
acutely hazardous
materials in the
Development HM-8 The Applicant shall include deed restrictions on development parcels limiting on-
site storage of AHMs to amounts less than the reportable quantities as currently
defined in California Health and Safety Code §2770.5, California Accidental
Release Program (CalARP) List of Substances, and California Code of Regulations
§5189, Process Safety Management of Acutely Hazardous Materials, Appendix A.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 132
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-21 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS II Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Impacts That Can Be Mitigated To Less Than Significant Levels
(Impacts that must be addressed in Findings that the mitigation measures would reduce the level of impact to insignificant
in accordance with Sections 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines)
Impact Impact
Description
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
SLOCRA safety
areas .
.
HM.10* Risk associated
with chemical spills
due to aircraft
strikes for both the
direct discharge and
polishing pond
wastewater
treatment facility
(WWTF) options.
Development HM-10 Prior to recordation of applicable tract map, the Applicant shall include deed
restrictions on the WWTF parcel limiting on-site storage of reportable quantities of
chlorine and sulfur dioxide, and requiring the use of alternative chemicals that are
not classified as acutely hazardous materials, or other non-chemical technologies
in order to achieve tertiary treatment of wastewater.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
HM.11* Risk associated
with polishing
ponds WWTP
option could affect
aircraft bird strikes.
Development HM-11 Polishing ponds shall not be allowed as part of the design of the WWTF unless the
applicant can demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the County, that engineering
methods are available and can be incorporated in the polishing pond design that
would ensure no increase in bird or other wildlife populations on the site will result
from the construction and operation of the polishing pond. Such measures could
include, but not be limited to covers over the ponds, special netting, and hazing
devices.
Less than
significant
with
mitigation
Attachment 1
PC1 - 133
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-22 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
AIR QUALITY (Section 4.1)
AQ.5 Construction
activities
associated with the
County
Development Plan
would generate
emissions that
exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Development Fugitive dust mitigation measures (see impact AQ.2) would be applicable to this phase
of the Project as per SLOAPCD requirements.
Less than
significant
AQ.9 Operational
activities
associated with the
County
Development Plan
would generate CO
emissions that
produce localized
CO Hot Spots.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
AQ.10 Operational
activities
associated with the
County
Development Plan
would generate
diesel PM
emissions that
produce localized,
elevated cancer
impacts.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Section 4.2)
BIO.12* The County
Development Plan,
specifically the use
County
Development
No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 134
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-23 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
of groundwater,
would result in
impacts to wetland
areas and VPFS by
drawing down
surface water
levels.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION (Section 4.3)
T.2 The addition of
traffic generated by
the Project would
cause one
intersection to
operate at
unacceptable levels
under Existing plus
Project conditions.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WATER RESOURCES (Section 4.5)
WR.6 Paving and
development could
result in changes to
surface water flows
thereby increasing
surface water
runoff from the
Project Site.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
WR.7 Flooding of
development
structures or
redirection of flood
flows could occur
if buildings are
built within the
100-year flood
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 135
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-24 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
plain.
GEOLOGICAL AND SOIL RESOURCES (Section 4.7)
GR.2 Seismically
induced ground
shaking could
damage proposed
structures and
infrastructure,
potentially
resulting in loss of
property or risk to
human health and
safety.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
GR.3 Existing
uncertified fill on-
site could be
subject to
hydroconsolidation
, excessive
settlement,
expansive soil
shrink and swell,
and differential
settlement and
expansion, and
thus could damage
proposed facilities,
resulting in loss of
property and risks
to human health
and safety.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
GR.6 Construction and
improvement in
areas lacking
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 136
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-25 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
suitable factors of
safety for existing
slopes could result
in gross or surficial
instability, as well
as earthquake-
induced landslides,
which could
damage proposed
structures and
infrastructure,
resulting in loss of
property and risks
to human health
and safety.
NOISE AND VIBRATION (Section 4.8)
N.4 Off-site County
Development Plan
related traffic
would generate
noise impacts to
nearby areas.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS (Section 4.11)
HM.7 Potential risk
associated with
development
within the
SLOCRA safety
areas.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
HM.9 Risk associated
with land use
changes and
aircraft wildlife
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 137
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-26 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
strikes and other
aircraft hazards.
HM.12* Potential public
risk associated
with development
within the
SLOCRA Safety
Areas.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Less than
significant
POPULATION AND HOUSING (Section 4.12)
P/H.3* The County
Development Plan
may induce
substantial growth
in the area by
proposing new
businesses in the
area.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. It should be
noted that the County Development Plan would develop commercial facilities greater than
5,000 sq. ft., requiring payment of Inclusionary Housing Impact fees or land donation to
satisfy the requirements. As a result, The Applicant would be required to satisfy the
inclusionary housing requirement by: (1) construction of employee housing or inclusionary
housing units, whether located on-site or off-site; (2) payment of housing impact fees; or (3)
donation of land. The housing impact fees are $2.11 per square foot for commercial/retail
land uses, $2.46 per square foot for commercial services/offices land uses, and $0.98 per
square foot for industrial/warehouse land uses. If employee housing or inclusionary housing
would be provided in-lieu of fee payments, the total fee amount must be calculated.
Less than
significant
PUBLIC SERVICES AND UTILITIES (Section 4.13)
PS/U.10* Build-out of the
County
Development Plan
could increase
demand for fire
protection services.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Less than
significant
PS/U.11* Build-out of the
County
Development Plan
would create an
incrementally
higher demand for
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 138
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-27 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
police protection
services.
PS/U.12* Construction and
operation of the
County
Development Plan
could potentially
use nonrenewable
resources in a
wasteful or
inefficient manner.
Development PS/U-12a If additional electrical or natural gas energy infrastructure is required to
accommodate the proposed Project, the Applicant would be required to pay a
fee to PG&E or SCG respectively, to provide additional service.
PS/U-12b To avoid wasteful use of gasoline or diesel fuel, construction vehicles should
be left on-site for the duration of each annual active construction season (as
defined by allowed construction timing by the various mitigation measures),
and construction vehicles shall be turned off when not in use to avoid idling.
PS/U-12c The Applicant shall comply, to the maximum extent feasible, with all adopted
policies of the County General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element
regarding energy consumption such as:
a. Incorporating cost-effective, renewable, energy resources into the
Project;
b. Providing passive features through site design that allows shade to
reduce unwanted heat gain, thereby reducing the need to use energy for
cooling; and,
c. Installation of energy efficient appliances, heat recovery equipment,
and building energy management systems.
Less than
significant
PS/U.13* Construction and
operation of the
County
Development Plan
could generate
significant
amounts of solid
waste.
Development PS/U-13a To maintain a diversion rate of at least 50 percent of construction waste from
reaching the landfill, a Recycling Plan for the proposed Project is to be
implemented during construction. The plan shall be submitted to the County
Public Works Department for approval prior to permit issuance, as well as
ongoing documentation from the Applicant that demonstrates compliance with
the plan. Information to be included in this plan may consist of the following:
a. The name and contact information of who will be responsible for
implementing the recycling plan.
b. A brief description of the proposed Project wastes to be generated,
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 139
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-28 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
including types and estimated quantities of each material to be salvaged,
reused, or recycled during the construction phase of this Project.
c. Waste sorting/recycling and/or collection areas shall be clearly indicated
on the Site Map.
d. A description of the means of transportation and destination of recyclable
materials and waste, and a description of where recyclable materials and
waste will be sorted (whether materials will be site-separated and hauled to
designated recycling or landfill facilities, or whether mixed materials will
be removed from the site to be processed at a mixed waste sorting facility).
e. The name of the landfill(s) where trash will be disposed of and a projected
amount of material that will be landfilled.
f. A description of meetings to be held between Applicant and contractor to
ensure compliance with the recycling plan.
g. A contingency plan shall identify an alternate location to recycle and/or
stockpile construction debris in the event of local recycling facilities
becoming unable to accept material (for example: all local recycling
facilities reaching the maximum tons per day due to a time period of
unusually large volume).
h. Ongoing documentation by the Contractor submitted with each
Building/Zoning Inspection shall report on a quarterly basis.
i. Disposal information including quantity of material landfilled, which
landfill was used, total landfill tipping fees paid, and copies of weight
tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices.
j. Recycling information including quantity of material recycles, receiving
party, and copies of weight tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices.
k. Reuse and salvage information including quantities of salvage materials,
storage locations if they are to be used on-site, or receiving party if
resold/used off-site.
PS/U-13b To achieve the minimum 50 percent reduction in solid waste disposal during the
Attachment 1
PC1 - 140
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
December 2013 IST-3-29 Chevron Tank Farm
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS III Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Plan
Adverse but Not Significant Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact Project Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
ongoing operations of the County Development Plan as required by AB 939, the
Project shall provide a plan for the disposal, storage, and collection of solid
waste material for the Project. This plan shall include the provision of adequate
space for recyclable collection bins as well as the timely collection of recyclable
material. The development of the plan shall be coordinated with the County’s
franchised solid waste collection and disposal firm, San Luis Obispo Garbage.
AGRICULTURE (Section 4.15)
AR.4 The County
Development Plan
would result in the
conversion of
farmland or
grazing land to
non-agricultural
uses.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant. Less than
significant
AR.5 The City
Development Plan
would involve other
changes in the
existing environment
which, due to their
location or nature,
could result in
conversion of
farmland to non-
agricultural use.
Development AR-5 The Applicant shall design the development for the Northwest Operations Area
such that the buildings are located near the eastern edge of the parcel. This
mitigation measure would not apply if the agricultural property adjacent to the
Northwest Operations Area has received entitlements from the City to develop
the property prior to development of the Northwest Operations Area.
Less than
significant
Attachment 1
PC1 - 141
Impact Summary Tables-County Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm IST-3-30 December 2013
Remediation and Development Project
Final EIR
CLASS IV Impacts – Proposed Project – County Development Scenario
Beneficial Impacts
Impact Description of
Impact
Project
Phase Mitigation Measures Residual
Impact
RECREATION (Section 4.14)
REC.3* The Project would
increase the County’s
recreational acreage
stock with 15 acres of
sports fields, as well
as Class I and Class
II bicycle lanes,
while not adding
residential
development.
Development No mitigation measures are required since the impact is beneficial. Beneficial
Attachment 1
PC1 - 142
REMEDIATION AND RESTORATION
The remediation portion of the Project is based on an extensive collaborative process with
resource agencies that have concurred with the applicant’s proposed remediation approach, while
taking into consideration the proposed future uses at the Project Site. Remediation will address
soil and groundwater contamination that has been identified as a potential human health or
ecological risk as agreed upon by the resource agencies participating in the Surface Evaluation,
Remediation, and Restoration Team (SERRT) process. The SERRT process was established in
2002 and involves the Regional Water Quality Control Board, County Environmental Health,
Fish and Wildlife, Air Pollution Control District, US Army Corps of Engineers and other
agencies. The SERRT focused on two areas; Human Health Risk and Ecological Risk. In
addition to preparing reports documenting human health risk ecological risk, the SERRT
prepared a summary document outlining recommendations for risk management which was
finalized on December 12, 2005. The Risk Management summary provided recommendations on
treatment and remediation levels at the site. The summary, a feasibility study and environmental
background reports were utilized to build the remediation plan while aiding in the formation of
the EIR and mitigation measures.
Remediation will be followed by restoration of wetland and rare plant habitats that would be
altered as part of the grading associated with the remediation project. The petroleum-related
material (including hydrocarbon affected soils) on the project site include oil remaining within
the vicinity of containment reservoirs at an average depth of 25 to 40 feet below ground level but
in some cases as deep as 60 feet. On the surface, oil remnants from the tank farm disaster range
from solid asphalt-like coke to low density oil that has the potential to mix with surface waters or
contaminate wildlife.
The remediation and restoration component includes several activities proposed to occur over a
two to three year period: demolition of existing buildings and reservoir remnants, excavation of
top soil and sub-surface material, site re-contouring, capping, and finally habitat restoration. Re-
contouring would be done mostly using on-site materials.
Remediation/Restoration Overview
The project description in the Final EIR provides a complete description of the remediation and
restoration proposal; however the following discussion highlights the key features.
1. Staging areas
Chevron has identified three main staging areas on-site for the remediation project. These staging
areas would include temporary stockpiling, parking, and support activities for remediation and
restoration. The staging areas are located on both sides of Tank Farm Road and would be
accessed with a temporary traffic signal.
2. Excavation
Most of the hydrocarbon contamination is found within the first four feet of the surface and is a
result of the 1926 disaster. Only the surface contamination, mostly those affected by petroleum
Attachment 2
PC1 - 143
with the risk of wildlife entrapment, are proposed to be excavated. Excavations will range up to
five feet in depth. Affected materials would be hauled off-site and disposed of at an appropriate
off-site landfill. The landfill identified in the Final EIR to receive the majority of this soil is the
City of Santa Maria landfill. Clean fill materials (most of which would be obtained on-site)
would be replaced within excavation sites and compacted. It is estimated that between 10,000 to
13,000 truck trips would be necessary to transport contaminated material from the site with
approximately 200,000 yards of material. Trucks would be in operation from 6:00 am to 7:00
PM weekdays.
3. Blasting
Much of the rock and fill material proposed for cover for the remediation project will be derived
from on-site resources. The area known as the “flower mound” north of Tank Farm Road
adjacent to the Damon Garcia Sports fields will provide a large portion of the fill and gravel. The
portion of the Flower Mound area that is located on the Project Site is approximately 55 acres.
The Applicant is proposing to excavate 350,000 cubic yards of material from this location. The
flower mound is proposed to be blasted, graded and leveled to provide gravel and fill material for
the construction of caps to secure underground hydrocarbon contamination. Due to the
composition of the rock, the Applicant is proposing to do so by blasting with directed explosive
charges. It is uncertain how much of the Flower Mound excavation will require blasting.
Processing the excavated material would include crushing with a rock crushing machine, and
may include sorting with loaders, stationary static sorting screens, and possibly washing,
depending upon what materials are required by the Project.
4. Grading
The remediation project will involve grading on approximately 136 acres of the site with
earthmoving estimates that include approximately 160,000 yards of affected soil to be removed
with approximately 560,000 yards of fill material including gravel and topsoil for restoration
component. Grading includes restoration of the former tank farm site into more of a natural
habitat, restoring landforms and drainage patterns and targeting the re-establishment of habitats.
5. Pipeline Decommissioning
Historic operations at the site included extensive crude oil pipeline and other pipelines utilized
for water supply, natural gas, and sewer lines. These lines will be removed or decommissioned in
place as part of the remediation. If lines are left in place, this would be done to avoid habitat
disruption and the lines would be drained and backfilled with material such as sand slurry or
concrete.
6. Caps
Caps are remediation design features that are proposed to serve as covers over affected materials
and barriers to separate them from potential human and ecological receptors. Based on the type
of contamination and proposed future use, alternative cap designs and depths are proposed. Two
types of caps are proposed, one to cover subterranean hydrocarbons below open space and
another type of cap below areas proposed for development. In open space areas, the caps are
designed to support re-vegetation and would be between 4 and 11 feet thick with layers of
geotextile fabric, gravel and topsoil. In areas proposed for development layers of gravel,
geotextile fabric and a structural backfill with minimum depths of 4 feet are proposed.
Attachment 2
PC1 - 144
Figure 1: Example of Proposed “Cap” to cover subterranean hydrocarbon contamination
7. Restoration
The restoration plan is designed to restore areas affected by the proposed remediation activities.
The restoration project focuses on wetland and grassland habitat restoration with a goal of
improving habitat function and value while improving hydrologic function. The Applicant has
prepared a conceptual landscape restoration plan. The proposed restoration design is centered on
the following major activities: fine grading, planting and seeding, irrigation, weed control,
maintenance, monitoring, and adaptive management.
8. Monitoring and Institutional Controls
Following remediation and restoration, the long-term monitoring and maintenance phase would
begin. Long-term monitoring is intended to ensure that remediation (e.g., excavations, cap
construction) continue to meet their remedial objectives. This is important, in that most of the
affected materials on site would remain after remediation is complete, especially in the former
reservoirs. Therefore, periodic inspection and maintenance are necessary components of
remediation. During the SERRT process it was found that the petroleum in subsurface is
immobile and natural biodegradation prevents migration of constituents. Groundwater and soil
sampling has already been occurring on this site for over 20 years. This monitoring will continue
post remediation to ensure that the remediation continues to function properly. Monitoring
activities are proposed to occur twice annually and will evaluate the caps, excavation areas and
groundwater.
Institutional controls include deed restrictions, a soil management plan and prohibition on the use
of water wells for potable water. Specific institutional controls will depend upon the degree of
public access to formerly contaminated areas but may include fencing, signs, and management
activities on-site. As required by the EIR, the property that is not subject to development will be
placed within a conservation easement and monitored by a biological monitor.
Attachment 2
PC1 - 145
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-1 3.0 CONSERVATION & RESOURCE MANAGEMENT Each ‘layer’ of understanding informs the planning response. INTENT A major objective of the AASP is the preservation and enhancement of important natural resources and open space. Physical development and resource conservation within the Airport Area are seen as inter-related strategies for maintaining a sustainable, high-quality environment for the San Luis Obispo community. The General Plan says that open space and natural resources within the City’s planning area need to be managed for long-term public benefit. The intent of this chapter is to interpret and implement City General Plan policy regarding open space and resource conservation as it applies to the Airport Area. Specific resources addressed in the plan include vegetation, wildlife, creeks, wetlands, and scenic and historic features. In the context of the Airport Area, open space lands are predominantly rural, undeveloped, and, in limited instances, natural in character. Some of these lands contain sensitive natural resources, while others have been clearly degraded and transformed by past uses. As used in the Plan, “conservation” refers to the protection, enhancement and sustainable use of the area’s natural and open space resources. The Plan is predicated on the belief that, over the long term, practicing conservation and protecting the area’s open space will make life more enjoyable for those living and working in the area. Numerous economic and intangible benefits are to be gained through the conservation of the area’s open space and natural resources. Attachment 3
PC1 - 146
3-2 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT BACKGROUND Although much of it is not currently developed, the planning area has a rich history of use. During the Spanish Mission period, the planning area was an expanse of grassland with patches of brush, meandering, willow-lined streams, and marshes and seasonal ponds. The 1800’s brought grazing to the eastern part of the area, and row crops on the nearly level, alluvial soils in the western part. These uses dominated the area until establishment of the Union Oil Company petroleum storage complex, known as the “tank farm,” in the central portion of the area during the early 1900’s. The explosion and fire in 1926 resulted in significant quantities of oil soaking into the ground. 1926 Tank Farm Disaster Thriving wetlands have developed in area’s that have been severely impacted by past oil company practices. The combination of this catastrophic event with various leaks during operation of the facility has resulted in contamination of the soil throughout much of the central area, most of it not obvious from the ground surface. As part of Chevron’s plan for remediation, this central area would be restored and enhanced as habitat area. The airport, which was originally developed as a private, grass-field facility in 1931, was acquired by the County in 1940. Paving, lights, and navigational aids were first introduced to the facility during the 1940’s as part of the war effort. Also at that time, storage and manufacturing uses began to be developed in the area. It was not until the 1980’s, however, that the majority of the airport facilities and other existing businesses were developed. At this point in time, approximately one third of the planning area appears to be fully developed. Another third is partially developed, and the remaining third has no development on it. Attachment 3
PC1 - 147
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-3 Existing open space resources in the planning area consist of land that either has not been developed, or, in the case of the UnocalChevron Chevron property, on land that was previously developed. Most of the tank farm facilities were removed from the UnocalChevron Chevron property in the 1990’s, thus much of the area has reverted to open space. Portions of the property have been leased for cattle grazing, and wetlands and grasslands are re-emerging on previously developed parts of the UnocalChevron Chevron property. In addition to those parcels that simply have not been developed, or have been only partially developed, a significant component of the area’s open space are the numerous creek corridors and wetlands that extend through the area. In the larger context, the planning area is a transitional area between urban development and rural open space. The southern edge of the Airport Area is also the southern boundary of the City’s urban reserve, and is intended to be the ultimate urban boundary for the City. Land to the south of the area is primarily in agricultural and rural uses. In accordance with General Plan policy, the City is working to establish a greenbelt along its southern boundary as a means of preventing urban sprawl into the Edna Valley, protecting natural resources and agricultural productivity, and preserving the City’s rural setting. In addition to the agricultural open space to the south, the South Street Hills and various creek corridors are significant open space resources to the north of the planning area. OPEN SPACE RESOURCES The principal natural resources to be protected include habitat areas such as creeks, wetlands and remnants of native grasslands. While some of these areas are in good condition, others have been degraded by past land use practices. Thus, the planning area affords opportunities to restore and enhance natural habitat, while also achieving other objectives. In addition to sensitive habitat areas, other open space resources include the rural character and sense of openness provided by undeveloped lands, and the scenic views of the surrounding rural lands and distinctive landforms. CREEKS As in the rest of the San Luis Obispo community, creeks are an important open space resource because they collect and carry stormwater, support riparian vegetation, provide wildlife habitat, and add visual interest to the landscape. As shown in Figure 3-1, the Airport Area is bisected by two distinct clusters of creeks and their tributaries that flow south/southwest through the area. Both creek clusters are, in fact, tributaries to the East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek, and they all converge at a point just south of the Buckley Road/Vachell Lane intersection. The east side of the planning area is traversed by Acacia Creek, Orcutt Creek, and East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek. The west side is traversed by a previously unnamed creek, referred to in this document as Tank Farm Creek. Creeks also present constraints to development due to flooding both on-site and downstream. The intent of the Specific Plan is to preserve and enhance the creeks’ positive attributes while minimizing the development constraints that result from periodic flooding. The City’s General Plan includes a number of policies that address the protection and enhancement of the City’s creeks and riparian corridors. These policies are incorporated into this Specific Plan by reference in order to emphasize the importance placed on the planning area creeks as valuable resources. East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek This important local waterway varies considerably in condition and habitat quality as it passes through the planning area. There is evidence that the reach below (i.e., west of) Santa Fe Road was realigned many years ago. However, vegetation in this section has since recovered and is in generally good condition. Most of this reach is bounded by a tall, patchy canopy of sycamores, willows, and cottonwoods, although vegetation in the southernmost section appears to have been adversely affected by adjacent agricultural activities. The creek channel contains several pools and areas with Attachment 3
PC1 - 148
3-4 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN open sunny banks. As recently as 1998, southern steelhead were observed in the pools, and the banks provided sunning areas for a large number of southwestern pond turtles. The reach upstream of Santa Fe Road (i.e., between Santa Fe and Broad Street) has been realigned and/or partially cleared more recently and is not fully recovered. The vegetation in this reach includes several large sycamores and at least two very large oaks, along with clumps of willows. The vegetation is denser and more mature on the south bank; the north bank appears to have been the bank that was most disturbed. This section of the creek corridor has also had large pieces of debris such as asphalt, concrete, and metal dumped along the bank in an effort to stabilize it. This material is unsightly, and may contribute to local turbulence and other flow problems. Whereas the reach of East Branch Creek downstream of Santa Fe Road is bounded by open space, development in the area upstream of Santa Fe Road is situated fairly close to the creek, approaching the top of bank in some cases. Acacia Creek Acacia Creek enters the planning area from the proposed Damon-Garcia Sportsfield Complex in the southeast corner of the Margarita Area. From there it flows south along the west side of the mobile home park, under Tank Farm Road, and then along the west side of Santa Fe Road to its confluence with East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek. The Margarita Area Specific Plan calls for the Acacia Creek corridor to be a generously wide (not less than 37 meters or 120 feet) corridor to accommodate wildlife movement. Although there is little woody riparian cover on the reach immediately north of the planning area, there is a mature cover of willows and exotic vegetation, chiefly eucalyptus, along the reach within the planning area. Acacia Creek offers significant opportunities for enhancement both in terms of habitat and as an open space trail corridor linking the planning area to the Margarita Area, Damon-Garcia Park and other areas to the north. Orcutt Creek Orcutt Creek also enters the planning area from the proposed park in the southeast corner of the Margarita Area, approximately 300 feet east of Acacia Creek. Orcutt Creek carries stormwater that overflows from Acacia Creek. The Orcutt Creek channel extends south under Tank Farm Road, and then along the east side of Santa Fe Road to its confluence with Acacia Creek just above the point where the latter joins East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek. Habitat value along the creek corridor is low to very low; in many areas the creek is little more than a ditch. Some riparian vegetation exists along Orcutt Creek near its confluence with Acacia Creek. Tank Farm Creek Tank Farm Creek is the name applied to the cluster of drainages that traverse the western portion of the UnocalChevron Chevron property. The creek, which enters the planning area from the north as three small tributaries, converges into a single channel on the UnocalChevron Chevron property, just south of Suburban Road. The flows from Tank Farm Creek are essential to the health of large areas of seasonal wetland and freshwater marsh located on the UnocalChevron Chevron property. The channel is highly modified, particularly the West Fork and the southernmost reach of the combined channel. WETLAND RESOURCES The Airport Area contains a number of wetland resources in addition to the creeks that flow through the area, including seasonal wetlands and areas of freshwater marsh. These wetland areas provide critical habitat for both plants and animals, including several rare or threatened species, and are considered sensitive biological communities. Wetlands also play an important role in the hydrologic system, retaining floodwaters and enhancing groundwater recharge. Attachment 3
PC1 - 149
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-5 The largest concentration of wetlands in the planning area occurs on the UnocalChevron site. In fact, much of the UnocalChevron property can be characterized as a wetland complex. Recent mapping of the UnocalChevron property as part of the Chevron EIR, recorded 69.571.79 acres of wetland communities. The gradual slopes, low elevations, and , clay soils and former tank containment and other man-made impervious surfaces allow winter rains to create substantial ponds, which are attractive to waterfowl and support several plant and animal species of concern. Some ponds and wetlands have long existed in low-lying parts of the property, while others have formed within modified drainage channels and within the berms that encircle former oil-storage tank sites. One of the unique aspects of the Unocal Chevron property is the degree to which significant natural resources have established themselves in a landscape that has been extensively modified by man. Most of the wetland areas in the Unocal Chevron property are located in swales and depressions created by past excavation for the former oil storage facilities, and it appears that the large freshwater marsh north of Tank Farm Road is at least partially the result of the damming effect of the roadway. The combination of topography, soils, and the relative lack of recent human activity has allowed the most disturbed portions of the planning area to now include some of the highest value natural resources. The wetland areas on the Unocal Chevron property vary considerably in their diversity and habitat value, with the highest quality areas generally south of Tank Farm Road and around the large wetland area north of Tank Farm Road. Some of the latter areas may be lost to site development and road widening. City wetlands policy supports the preservation of wetland areas as open space, mitigation for lost wetland areas, the restoration of degraded wetland resources, and public use of these resources consistent with sound resource management. The following goals and policies are intended to expand upon and add specificity to existing General Plan wetland policy as it pertains to the Airport Area. NATIVE GRASSLANDS Native bunch grasses supported many of the small and large herbivores and their predators, who were members of the wildlife and human communities of the Central Coast until the late 1700’s. These deep-rooted and drought-tolerant grasses were once common throughout the valleys of central and southern California. They have since been nearly eliminated from the Central Coast because of cattle grazing, introduction of European grasses, cultivation, and urban development. Native grasslands are considered sensitive habitats by the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and by the City of San Luis Obispo. Approximately 11.5 8.8 acres in the northeastern and southerly parts of the Unocal Chevron property supports grassland with a significant component of the native perennial bunchgrass, purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). This area, which appears to be less disturbed than other sections of the planning areawhich consists of a former quarry area, is known for its sparse vegetation and rocky, serpentine soils. However, it sustains one of , is the only sizable, native-dominated grassland in the Airport Area. As part of the Chevron remediation project the area known as the “flower mound” which comprises part of the grassland area in the northeast of the property is proposed to be graded and utilized for infrastructure and private development improvements. However, the restoration component of the project proposes to restore (create) equal areas of these and other habitat areas on other portions of the site, and the only significant remaining lowland native bunchgrass community within the City’s urban reserve. City General Plan policy calls for native grassland communities to be designated as open space, and protected through acquisition of easements or dedication. Attachment 3
PC1 - 150
3-6 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN RARE SPECIES HABITAT Open space resources in the Airport Area are critical to many wildlife species, including several rare species. The greatest threat to many rare species is loss of habitat. Habitat includes the places that species need to find food, to take shelter from predators and extremes of weather, to find mates, and to raise young or leave them where sufficient numbers can survive. The Airport Area is known to host four special-status wildlife species and one special-statusand plant species, although at least thirteen other wildlife species and ten other plant species have potential to be found in the area. Some of Tthe species of special concern that are known to occur in the planning area include: • Southwestern pond turtle • Southern steelhead • Red-legged frog • Monarch butterfly • Golden Eagle • Northern Harrier • Cooper;s Hawk • Ferruginous Hawk • Sharp-shinned hawk • White-tailed kite • American peregrine falcon • Burrowing Owl • California horned lark • Loggerhead shrike • • Congdon’s tarplant (spikeweed) • Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp The resources described in the preceding sections, and the policies and programs to protect and enhance them, are the foundation for habitat conservation in the Airport Area. As would be expected, the greatest potential for special status species is within the Unocal Chevron property, where the largest concentration of sensitive biological communities is located. Consequently, the Specific Plan (and the current remediation and development plans for this property) calls for the majority of the Unocal Chevron property to be maintained as an ecological preserve that will help provide for the long-term survival of rare and endangered species and the health of sensitive habitat areas that support them. In addition to protecting sensitive habitat areas, it is critical that habitat areas be connected into a contiguous, integrated system of open space. Provision of continuous open space corridors, of sufficient width to avoid disruptions by human activity along their edges, is particularly important for protecting wildlife. These corridors allow for the day-to-day movements necessary for individuals of a species to survive, and for the long-term movement that accommodates the genetic mixing necessary to maintain the vitality of a species. The planning area creek system provides the connecting corridors that will allow wildlife movement to and from the planning area. AGRICULTURAL OPEN SPACE AND THE CITY GREENBELT Agriculture is an important part of the countywide economy and rural environment. The City’s General Plan favors protection of prime and productive agricultural lands, but also recognizes that urban development has reduced, and will continue to reduce, the agricultural potential of the Airport Area. While the Airport Area has Attachment 3
PC1 - 151
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-7 Freshwater marsh north of Tank Farm Road. a history of agricultural use, and continues to include limited grazing and cultivation, years of commercial and industrial development have eliminated some of the most productive lands. Over the long term, the Airport Area is not planned for agriculture. Existing City and County General Plans designate the area for urban uses. To mitigate the loss of productive agricultural land, future development will help secure a permanent urban development boundary and prevent urbanization of agricultural lands to the south. Some owners of lands to the south of the planning area have already made long-term investments in agricultural uses, such as vineyards. The intent of the Specific Plan is to give added stability to agriculture in this area by eliminating, or at least reducing, the potential for further urban expansion. The City’s General Plan calls for establishment of a permanent open space buffer or greenbelt around the City that will prevent continued expansion of the urban area onto valuable agricultural and open space resources (Figure 3-2). The greenbelt will also help retain the community’s rural surroundings and maintain the separate identity of San Luis Obispo. Several efforts are underway to secure the greenbelt as a whole, including purchase of land or development rights from willing sellers, advocacy of continued agricultural and rural zoning, and development approvals tied to substantial open space dedications. The mechanism instituted in the Specific Plan for furthering the greenbelt objective will be through exactions on new planning area development. These exactions will be in the form of either mandatory dedication of open space lands or payment of fees in lieu of dedication. The primary target of these exactions will be to protect open space and agricultural lands south of the Airport Area and outside the City’s urban reserve line. Attachment 3
PC1 - 152
3-8 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 3-1 Planning Area Attachment 3
PC1 - 153
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-9 Figure 3-2 San Luis Obispo Greenbelt Attachment 3
PC1 - 154
3-10 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN SCENIC RESOURCES While the planning area generally lacks dramatic scenic resources within its boundaries, the relatively flat topography and absence of substantial tree cover allow for highly scenic views out from the site. The combination of pastoral agricultural lands in the foreground and distinctive peaks and ranges in the background are valuable scenic features that contribute to the unique character of the Airport Area. The South Street Hills, Islay Hill, the Davenport Hills, and the Santa Lucia Mountains and foothills are not in the Airport Area, but they are important features in establishing the character of the Airport Area. Although less dramatic, planning area features such as creeks and marsh areas also contribute to the visual character of the area. Specific Plan policy supports preservation of scenic resources and enhancement of the public’s access to these resources. The Community Design chapter (Chapter 5) includes additional discussion of the area’s visual character and design guidelines for protecting and enhancing the scenic resources. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORIC RESOURCES Prehistoric occupants almost certainly hunted and gathered in the meadows and along the streams of what is now the Airport Area. They probably took time to play and appreciate the setting, just as people do today. They also probably left clues to their habitation of the region, thought to have lasted as much as 10,000 years. In order to deepen our understanding of these original inhabitants, it is important that these clues, often in the form of artifacts, be analyzed and recorded as they are found. However, in deference to their descendants, who still live in the region, it is equally important to respect any artifacts or remains that are found. Likewise, there is a rich history in the region of early ranchers, farmers, merchants, builders and others, whose origins were in Europe, Mexico and Asia. While written history covers many of the major events and characters, artifacts also provide interest and insights into the everyday lives of those who are not named in the books. These, too, deserve recognition. A rare community of native bunch grass located on the UnocalChevron property.The area’s wetlands attract a variety of wildlife. Finally, there is the lesson of the oil company tank farm. It also is part of San Luis Obispo’s history. After being struck by lightning, the storage tanks leaked and burned and boiled over for several days in 1926. This was a major ecological disaster and is known as one of the most significant industrial disasters of its time in California history. Remnants of the old tanks can serve as reminders of both the vulnerability of our constructions and of nature’s capacity to recover through natural processes and with human aid. Attachment 3
PC1 - 155
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-11 HAZARDS RELATED TO OPEN SPACE LANDS The history and character of the planning area’s open space is inextricably tied to three potential hazards: flooding, petroleum contamination, and aircraft operations. The future conservation and use of the open space resource acknowledges the influences of these three hazards. FLOODING The relatively flat topography, the confluence of several drainage ways, and its location downstream from urban development have combined to create conditions in which large portions of the planning area flood during storm events. Historically, this flooding has restricted the amount of development that could occur in the area, but it has also been beneficial in the establishment of the planning area’s wetland resources. Waterways and facilities immediately downstream from Airport Area development may need to be modified for adequate capacity. Some properties within the Airport Area along the tributaries of San Luis Obispo Creek fall within a Special Floodplain Management Zone, as defined by the San Luis Obispo Creek Waterway Management Plan, and require special design considerations. These design criteria are listed in the City’s Drainage Design Manual. Overall, it is the intent of the specific plan to limit storm water runoff from the Airport Area to pre-development levels, consistent with the requirement of the City’s Waterways Management Plan. As described in detail in Chapter 7, each proposed development will be required to insure compliance with this water quality and flood control plan. PETROLEUM CONTAMINATION From 1910 until the early 1980s, the Chevron property was utilized for the storage of crude oil transported from the San Joaquin Valley via pipeline. Storage facilities at the Project Site included six large earthen reservoirs, ranging in capacity between 775,000 and 1,350,000 barrels, and 21 steel aboveground storage tanks, each with a capacity of 55,000 barrels. Tthe reservoirs were constructed by excavating a circular depression, which was then lined with concrete walls. The storage tanks were constructed of heavy plate steel secured with rivets. The roofs of both the reservoirs and aboveground storage tanks were made of wood. On April 7, 1926, a lightning strike ignited a fire at the Project Site. Despite suppression efforts by the facility staff, over the next four days the fire spread to the other reservoirs and to 12 of the then 15 existing steel aboveground storage tanks with a combination of burning embers and boil-overs; the heated oil flowed out of the reservoirs and onto the ground surrounding the tanks. By April 11, 1926, all but a few thousand barrels of oil had been released. Some of this oil burnt to coke and spread across the Project Site. The burning of the heavy oil during the fire had a similar effect to the refining cracking process, creating the coke. This release is considered responsible for most of the numerous surface occurrences of highly weathered and burned petroleum that cover the ground in topographically low areas of the Project Site. Past activities of the petroleum industry and the 1926 fire have resulted in extensive contamination of soil and groundwater in the planning area. The most widespread contamination is relatively immobile and appears to have minimal impact on water quality. Much of the open land with the highest existing and potential wildlife habitat value is underlain by this type of contamination. Some more localized contamination is less viscous and has a greater potential to enter and move with groundwater and surface water or to affect air within buildings constructed above it. Attachment 3
PC1 - 156
3-12 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Depending on the severity of contamination and the prospects for successful decontamination, a site can be classified as a “brownfield” site by the Federal Environmental Protection Agency, and ultimately redeveloped if the contamination is removed or adequately contained. The Specific Plan allows for some development of the former tank farm site as long as necessary approvals by all regulatory agencies, including the City, can be obtained. However, the majority of the property has been designated as open space because of the high quality of its surface natural resources and because of the airport runway protection zone which prohibits the development of structures. Petroleum contamination of the soil and the groundwater must be dealt with for both development and conservation areas as required by the policies and standards of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, the City and other agencies with jurisdiction. Beginning in 2004, a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) was prepared for the Chevron property. The HHRA was later amended in 2012 and 2013. The purpose of the HHRA was to create a baseline for the establishment of a Remedial Action Plan (RAP). Working with multiple agencies, Chevron assisted with the San Luis Obispo Tank Farm Surface Evaluation, Restoration, and Remediation Team (SERRT). This team helped to scope, review, and ratify the HHRA. In December 2007, Chevron prepared the RAP with a focus of removing the human and biological exposure paths to remaining hydrocarbon contaminants on the property. In 2013, the Regional Water Quality Control Board conditionally approved the RAP and the RAP was utilized to prepare the EIR that would allow the remediation and future development of portions of the Chevron tank farm property. AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS The County-operated airport is a key component of the Airport Area, serving both private and commercial aircraft. Even with ongoing improvements in technology and operating practices, aircraft operations will produce noise and safety concerns that affect land use in the planning area, including the open space areas. Exposure to high noise levels is not only a nuisance, but can also be harmful to health and productivity. With the many overflights of the area, risks to life and property due to accidents cannot be entirely avoided. As provided in State law, the area in the vicinity of the airport is subject to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), which is intended to minimize conflicts between airport operations and the use of nearby land. The ALUP is prepared under the direction of, and is adopted Active agriculture occupies the land just south of the planning area. by, the Airport Land Use Commission. The Airport Land Use Plan identifies aviation safety areas based on flight paths and exposure to crash risks. Those areas with the most exposure to hazards are the most restricted in terms of compatible uses. Generally, the higher Attachment 3
PC1 - 157
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-13 the exposure, the lower the intensity of use and concentration of population that is allowed. The Specific Plan is consistent with the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, designating the majority of land in the two most restrictive safety areas as Open Space. Maintaining open space uses under the airport approach and climb-out paths is intended to avoid exposure to noise and crash risk, even where the Airport Land Use Plan allows some types of development. The fact that these zones also correspond to areas with some of the highest habitat value and soil contamination reinforces the appropriateness of the designation. 3.1 CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT GOALS Goal 3.1.1: Open Space Resources Preserve and enhance open space resources in the Airport Area in conjunction with urban development. Goal 3.1.2: Habitat Quality Preserve and enhance the habitat quality, visual attractiveness, and recreational value of creeks in the planning area. Goal 3.1.3: Airport Area Wetlands Preserve and enhance Airport Area wetlands. Goal 3.1.4: Native Grasslands Preserve and enhance native grasslands in the Airport Area. Views from the south reveal the planning area’s open space context. Goal 3.1.5: Rare, Endangered and Threatened Species Protect rare, endangered and threatened plant and wildlife species that occur in the Airport Area. Goal 3.1.6: Greenbelt Secure the greenbelt in the vicinity of the Airport Area. Goal 3.1.7: Rural Character Work with the County of San Luis Obispo and area landowners to secure permanent protection of rural character of the area south of the Airport. Attachment 3
PC1 - 158
3-14 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Goal 3.1.8: Views Preserve significant views of and view corridors to surrounding features that contribute to Airport Area’s unique sense of place. Goal 3.1.9: Archeological and Historical Resources Protect archaeological and historic resources. Goal 3.1.10: Exposure to Contamination Prevent exposure of humans or wildlife to unacceptable levels of contamination. Goal 3.1.11: Surface Resources To the greatest extent feasible, seek to avoid damage to surface resource values in addressing contamination issues. 3.2 CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT POLICIES Policy 3.2.1: Riparian Vegetation Establish healthy, continuous riparian vegetation along (1) East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek from Broad Street to Santa Fe Road, (2) Acacia Creek from the northern planning area boundary to the confluence with East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek, (3) Orcutt Creek from the planning area northern boundary to its confluence with Acacia Creek, and (4) Tank Farm Creek from the planning area’s northern boundary to it’s southern boundary Policy 3.2.2: East Branch SLO Creek Riparian Corridor For the reach of East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek downstream of Santa Fe Road, protect the riparian corridor from human and agricultural activity, with an adequate buffer to protect pond turtles and steelhead along this reach, and maintain the natural character of the riparian corridor. Policy 3.2.3: Realignment of Orcutt Creek Given the limited habitat value of Orcutt Creek from the planning area’s northern boundary to Tank Farm Road, realignment of the northern-most segment may be acceptable in exchange for establishment of a healthy riparian corridor along the full length of the creek from the Margarita Area to the confluence with Acacia Creek. Policy 3.2.4: Wetlands and Buffer Areas Designate for open space use wetlands and their associated buffer areas. Islay Hill and the Santa Lucia Mountains provide a dramatic visual backdrop for the airport. Attachment 3
PC1 - 159
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-15 Policy 3.2.5: Restoring Marginal or Degraded Wetlands When reviewing plans to restore marginal or degraded wetlands, require (1) techniques for isolation, stabilizing, or removing petroleum contamination of soil and groundwater that minimize disturbance of existing wetland and other surface resource values, (2) configuration of the ground surface to retain wetland characteristics, (3) removal of invasive, non-native plants, (4) introduction of native plants, (5) methods approved by the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the City Fire Department and (6) will not create a significant attraction for large birds in consideration of airport safety. Policy 3.2.6: Expansion of Wetlands Where suitable buffers can be provided, expand wetlands into areas within the wetlands complex that are conducive to wetlands, but that do not initially meet the definition of wetlands. However, any expansion or changes to wetlands must take into account the potential increase in airport safety hazards as a result of bird strikes. Policy 3.2.7: Mitigation of Wetland Losses Utilize suitable portions of the Unocal Chevron property for on-site mitigation of wetland losses on the Unocal Chevron property and, if agreed to by the property owner, off-site mitigation of wetland losses associated with development elsewhere in the Airport Area and Margarita Area. Swales and bermed enclosures on UnocalChevron Chevron property now capture floodwaters. Policy 3.2.8: Professional Direction of Wetland Work Assure that all wetlands restoration, enhancement, and creation will be under the direction of qualified professionals. Seek the cooperation of trustee agencies, such as the California Department of Fish and GameWildlife, and obtain any necessary approvals from these agencies. Policy 3.2.9: Design of Detention Areas Design on-site drainage detention areas within the Airport Area to support wetlands characteristics, so they will be visually attractive elements of the landscape and components in a system of wildlife habitat, in addition to flood control facilities. Policy 3.2.10: Recreational Use of Wetlands Complex Recreational use of the wetlands complex and buffer areas should be limited to non-intrusive observation and study. The type and extent of public access should be restricted in order to maintain Attachment 3
PC1 - 160
3-16 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN high-quality wildlife habitat. Policy 3.2.11: Impacts Fromfrom Run-Off Minimize the water-quality impacts associated with run-off from rooftops and paved areas, due to contaminants, temperature changes, velocity changes, and sediment by providing dispersed surface drainage across areas with suitable soil and vegetation whenever feasible, instead of piped or other concentrated drainage from roofs and paved areas directly to creeks. Policy 3.2.13: Native Bunchgrass If development or remediation includes disturbance of the native bunchgrass (purple needlegrass)Preserve the native bunchgrass area on the northeast corneron the northeast corner of the Unocal Chevron property, with an appropriate open space buffer, appropriate bunchgrass communities shall be reestablished on site with a replacement ratio of 1:1, consistent with mitigation adopted with the Chevron EIR. Policy 3.2.14: Unocal Chevron Property Open Space Lands Designate open space lands on the Unocal Chevron property as a permanent ecological preserve dedicated to the preservation and enhancement of the area’s natural resources, and public environmental education. Policy 3.2.15: Continuous Open Space Corridors Provide continuous open space corridors linking open space resources within the Airport Area to resources outside of the Airport Area. Policy 3.2.16: Continuous Wetlands Development in the Airport Area should not isolate or further fragment wetlands, uplands or their associated habitat areas. Policy 3.2.17: Interrupt Flow of Contaminants At every opportunity, interrupt the pathways that allow petroleum contamination to enter the biological food chain. Techniques used to interrupt the flow of contaminants should be those that are least disruptive to habitat at the ground and water surface. Policy 3.2.18: Mitigate Loss of Ag and Open Space Land To mitigate the loss of agricultural and open land in the Airport Area, development shall help protect agricultural and open space lands to the south and east by securing protected areas at least equal to the area of new development, where on-site protection is not available. Policy 3.2.19: Protection For for On-Site Resources Airport Area properties shall secure protection for any on-site resources identified in the General Plan. These properties, to help maintain the greenbelt, shall also secure open space protection for any contiguous, commonly owned land outside the urban reserve. If it is not feasible to directly obtain protection for such land, fees in lieu of dedication shall be paid when the property is developed, to help secure the greenbelt in the area south of the City’s southerly urban reserve line. In lieu of off-site open space protection, the Unocal Chevron Tank Farm Site shall preserve the open space resources that occupy the majority of the site and provide long-term maintenance and enhancement of these resources. Attachment 3
PC1 - 161
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-17 Policy 3.2.20: Acquire Land South of Airport Utilize locally-generated acquisition funding, as well as outside grant support, to acquire fee or easement interest in lands south of the Airport in the following order of priority: • Buckley Road Area. Agricultural lands on either side of Buckley Road between Vachell Lane and Broad Street should receive the highest priority in conservation funding. There is ongoing, incremental conversion of lands from agriculture to other uses, as well as ongoing small-scale subdivision of rural properties. There are relatively few large properties in this area. Easements to secure development rights and maintain scenic character would be the primary focus of this effort, and easement acquisition is the preferred strategy. • Upper Edna Valley. The agricultural lands between Broad Street and the base of the hills to the east of San Luis Obispo are undergoing conversion from extensive agriculture to intensive agriculture, chiefly vineyards. This process creates a relatively secure greenbelt in this area; however, easement acquisition may be an important component of retaining a “critical mass” of vineyard land and preventing inappropriate development within the area that could threaten the continued viability of agriculture. The 1926 fire burned so hot that parts of the concrete storage tank foundation turned to glass. • Other Lands. Areas such as the ranches and woodland areas south of the Airport may also be targeted for fee or easement acquisition; however, these areas are not considered as vulnerable to land use changes as the aforementioned areas. Policy 3.2.21: Maintain Views of Open Space Resources The location and form of private development and of public amenities (e.g., street trees) will retain views of open space resources, such as mountains and wetlands, sufficient to provide a sense of place within the natural setting. Attachment 3
PC1 - 162
3-18 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Policy 3.2.22: Archeological and Historic Resources Treat archaeological and historic resources consistent with the Community Heritage policies of the General Plan. Policy 3.2.23: Designation of Contaminated Land Following completion of a remediation project, Ddesignate as open space undeveloped, formerly contaminated land that has significant open space and habitat values. Policy 3.2.24 City Consideration of “Changed Conditions” on the Unocal Chevron Property following remediation and restoration It is acknowledged that Unocal Chevron is has preparinged, or will be preparing, a remediation plan for the Unocal Chevron property addressing the contaminated areas on the site. The remediation plan has been reviewed by multiple agencies including:If, in the course of the review and approval process for such remediation, it is determined by the regulating agencies (:Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of fish and Game, Regional Water Quality Control Board) as part of the EIR prepared for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and development project. The EIR found that the remediation project will impact wetlands and other terrestrial habitat on the site. The EIR requires mitigation measures that provide for the replacement and restoration of wetland and terrestrial habitat on-site following the remediation project. Following completion of the restoration component of the project ongoing monitoring and maintenance of restoration activities will be required (per EIR mitigation) to ensure compliance. that: The restored wetlands and terrestrial habitat areas shall be included within a permanent open space easement. Dense vegetation lines the bunks of East Brunch of San Luis Obispo Creek between Santa Fe Road and Broad Street. 1. Physical remediation that will destroy the site as a wetland is necessary; and 2. Mitigation for such destruction is permitted to be mitigated offsite, or in another location on the Unocal Chevron property, such that the wetland and associated upland buffer values no longer exist, then the City of San Luis Obispo MAY consider proposals for changes to the Specific Plan allowing uses of the remediated site which are other than open space. Changes proposed to the Specific Plan shall be referred to the Airport Land Use Commission and shall be consistent with the Cluster Development Zone requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan (See AASP Policy 4.5.1). Attachment 3
PC1 - 163
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-19 3.3 CONSERVATION AND RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS Program 3.3.1: Management Programs Required For East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek, Acacia Creek, Orcutt Creek and Tank Farm Creek, require a management program to enhance the creek, preserve existing native vegetation, protect streamside properties from stormflows, and restore a more natural character to the banks when development is proposed. A minimum creek setback of 11 meters (35 feet) will be required consistent with the Citywide creek setback ordinance. Program 3.3.2: Limited Access As part of the development review process, limit access to the creekside environment between Broad Street and Santa Fe Road to point access near existing and future development. A continuous public trail access will not be provided between Broad Street and Santa Fe Road. A continuous public trail access will be provided between Broad Street and the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Sante Fe Road via the Damon Garcia sportsfields. Where feasible, the trail access will avoid creeks, wetlands and habitat areas and will be adjacent to existing and future development. Program 3.3.3: 50-Foot Wetland Setback Implement a 50-foot wetland setback for buildings through subdivision and development approvals and the design of public facilities. Program 3.3.4: Risk Assessment Program The City will worked with UnocalChevron, other affected landowners, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other concerned parties to implement a risk-assessment program and develop remediation preservation actions appropriate to the natural resource characteristics of each site and the level of risk at that site, with a goal of preserving the existing natural resource values to the greatest extent possible. Navigational aids mark the flight path over the UnocalChevron Chevron property. Program 3.3.5: Establish Mitigation Bank The City will work with The California Department of Fish and GameWildlife, responsible Federal officials, and administration of the County Airport, to establish a “mitigation bank” within the Unocal Chevron property to serve the mitigation needs of the Airport and Margarita Areas, consistent with the operating needs of the County Airport. Program 3.3.6: Public Access (Unocal Chevron Property) Attachment 3
PC1 - 164
3-20 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The City will work with the property owner and local conservation organizations to ensure that public access to the Unocal Chevron property is made available subject to limited to levels compatibilityle with maintaining habitat values in the area. Pedestrian and Bicycle trails and low, rural style fencing scale, transparent may be appropriate in specific locations to allow habitat viewing combined with area wide linkages consistent with the bicycle transportation plan. Program 3.3.7: Creek Restoration Standards The City will work with the California Department of Fish and Game Wildlife and responsible Federal agencies to establish standards for grading, stabilization, and revegetation of all creek channels in the Airport Area. The standards will cover plant species, planting densities, and long-term maintenance requirements and responsibilities. Willows shade the East Brunch of San Luis Obispo Creek downstream of Santa Fe Road. Program 3.3.8: Open Space Connections The City will ensure that development north and east of the Unocal Chevron property retains an open space corridor connection to the Margarita Area’s athletic fields and Acacia Creek, and on to the South Street Hills. This corridor may include recreational facilities but will be designed to allow movement of wildlife through it. Program 3.3.9: Wildlife Movement Corridors The City will maintain wildlife movement corridors south from the Airport Area, particularly from the Unocal Chevron wetlands, toward the Indian Knob area and the Davenport Hills by employing greenbelt efforts and by encouraging the County to implement these features in proposed development that occurs outside the City’s jurisdicationjurisdiction.. Program 3.3.10: Wetland Connections The City will enlarge the connection between wetlands immediately north and immediately south of Tank Farm Road to facilitate wildlife movements between the two areas. Program 3.3.11: City to Manage Open Space Lands The City will manage open space land that it acquires to protect habitat values. Program 3.3.12: Privately Owned Open Space For any extensive open space lands that the City does not acquire, the City will pursue memoranda of understanding concerning Attachment 3
PC1 - 165
CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE | 3-21 management for wildlife habitat values, beyond the minimum requirements of regulatory agencies. Program 3.3.13: Greenbelt Dedications The City will require new development in the Airport Area to dedicate land or easements in the greenbelt. Highest priority will be given to securing lands adjacent to the City’s edge. Program 3.3.14: Greenbelt In-Lieu Fee Where dedication is not feasible, an in-lieu fee will be assessed on the acreage of development, equivalent to the purchase of an equivalent acreage of open space land or easements in the greenbelt south of the Airport Area. Program 3.3.15: Urban Reserve Expansion Any projects involving minor expansions of the urban reserve shall secure open space or agricultural land adjoining but outside the new urban reserve line location. The open space or agricultural land Grazing cattle have prevented the growth of riparian vegetation along Acacia Creek. secured shall be large enough to effectively discourage additional urban development beyond the urban reserve line. It shall be secured by easement or fee ownership by the City or a qualified land conservation organization. Program 3.3.16: Historical Resources The City will work with the County Historical Society, landowners, and others to provide appropriate access opportunities and interpretive information to further understanding of historical resources, such as the oil tank remnants. Mitigation from the Chevron EIR that requires access and installation of interpretive signs shall be implemented in beginning phases of any development projects. Attachment 3
PC1 - 166
3-22 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Program 3.3.17: Activities on Open Space Lands The City will work with appropriate regulatory agencies and with County Airport administrators to ensure that the location and nature of resource management activities on open space lands within the Airport Area remain compatible with airport operations. Program 3.3.18: Expanding Wetlands Expand the existing major wetland north of Tank Farm Road to the northwest and provide a suitable upland edge, in conjunction with redevelopment of the part of the Unocal Chevron property that contained company officesAny expansion of wetlands shall be carefully evaluated for the potential to impact aircraft safety as a result of increased wildlife and bird activity and the potential for increased bird strikes..Wetlands shall only be expanded when relocated or restored as part of an area wide restoration or remediation activity. Attachment 3
PC1 - 167
LAND USE | 4-1 4.0 LAND USE Each ‘layer’ of understanding informs the planning response. INTENT The Land Use chapter sets the overall framework for the development and conservation of the Airport Area. The chapter sets forth specific land use goals, policies and standards applicable to the Airport Area, and describes the overall development program, including the types and intensities of uses for land and buildings, and the overall forms that are desired for development sites and buildings. The Land Use chapter is to be used in conjunction with the other chapters of this Specific Plan. More detailed discussion of open space and resource management issues is included in Chapter 3, community design issues are addressed in Chapter 5, information on the circulation system is contained in Chapter 6, and details relating to public utilities are contained in Chapter 7. The Land Use Map in this chapter (Figure 4-1) illustrates the physical pattern of development planned in the Specific Plan Area. Figure 4-2 4 shows the planning area zoning. Table 4.3 provides a description of the types of uses permitted for each of the zoning designations. Attachment 4
PC1 - 168
4-2 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN LAND USE BACKGROUND The Airport Area, under the County’s jurisdiction, has been urbanizing in ways that differ from the City’s development standards. The land use concept for the Airport Area Specific Plan is intended to meet multiple City objectives as the area continues to develop. While the primary impetus for the plan is to provide the necessary infrastructure and urban services that will allow the Airport Area to develop to City standards, the land use plan has been crafted to balance the opportunities for new development with other equally important community goals. The land use plan concentrates development patterns in an effort to protect rural open space areas and create a sense of place. The land use concept calls for urban development to be located primarily in the eastern and western portions of the planning area near existing development and circulation corridors. The intent of the plan is to maintain a compact development pattern by encouraging infill of undeveloped lots and redevelopment of currently developed, but underutilized properties, rather than expanding onto lands that are currently in agriculture or open space. As shown in the Land Use Map (Figure 4-1), the entire central portion of the planning area has been designated for open space. Rather than allowing development of the entire land area within the urban reserve line, the land use concept has the City “greenbelt” penetrate into the urban area, which preserves the connection to the rural landscape for more than just the properties at the periphery of the community and improves safety by maintaining open land in the immediate vicinity of the airport. In addition, Airport Area land use policy encourages the selective removal of the remnants of past industrial uses on the Chevron tank farm property as a means of re-establishing the rural character of this open space and enhancing the contrast with designated urban areas. The land use plan was developed to ensure compatibility with airport operations. Uses that have high concentrations of people or are sensitive to airport noise (e.g., low density residential, schools, hospitals, etc.) are not included in the planning area. The designated land uses (Figure 4-1) respond to the flight patterns and land use criteria associated with the airport safety areas in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Generally, the critical areas in line with the runways will be maintained as open space. Lower intensity warehousing, manufacturing, service and business park uses are designated for the less sensitive zones to the sides of the runways, and further out from the ends of the runways. As discussed above, the land use concept emphasizes the development and redevelopment of areas that already are committed to urban uses. One of the ways the plan will enhance the ability of these areas to support more productive use of both the land and the buildings will be the introduction of urban infrastructure and services. Market trends in the region and development trends in the Airport Area suggest greater and greater demand for facilities to accommodate high tech and clean industries, in addition to the manufacturing and warehouse uses that have historically occupied the area. These uses have come to dominate land use along the west side of Broad Street. The Business Park designation is intended to generate jobs that will match the skills and interest of the available workforce, and jobs that could pay employees enough to cover the generally high cost of housing in the region. By preserving the central portion of the planning area as open space, the land use plan provides a framework for development that preserves the sense of openness and ruralness that makes the Airport Area distinctive. This not only creates a rural foreground setting for new development, but also preserves view corridors to the distinctive peaks and mountain ranges that characterize the landscape. In addition, by designating lands along the Broad Street (State Route 227) and Tank Farm Road corridor as Business Park, the plan is Attachment 4
PC1 - 169
LAND USE | 4-3 encouraging higher quality development that is in keeping with this important entry to the City from the Edna Valley. One of the other principal reasons for designating the central portion of the planning area as Open Space is to be able to adequately protect and enhance valuable wetland and grassland habitat areas that exist on the Chevron property (see Chapter 3, Conservation and Resource Management for more detailed discussion). The land use plan is structured to ensure that these resources are part of an integrated open space system that is directly linked to adjoining open space resources. Specific Plan policies require preservation of these natural resources through the dedication of easements or fee simple ownership, along with enhancement in certain instances. As part of the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development project, a habitat restoration plan has been proposed. Following completion of remediation, the restoration plan will be implemented. (see Policy 4.3.6: Tank Farm Site). In order to enhance the area’s sense of place, the Community Design chapter of this plan includes design guidelines that encourage the development of buildings and facilities that are responsive to the specific landscape and climatic characteristics of the area, as well as the historic development patterns and character of San Luis Obispo (see Chapter 5). LAND USE PROGRAM The land use program for the Airport Area allows for the development of up to 1073 1088 acres (7173% of the planning area) with a mixture of Services and Manufacturing, Business Park, and Government Facilities, and public facilities that may be developed with recreation or public services. The balance of the area is to be preserved as Open Space (319 304 acres), and an existing mobile home park (7.0 acres) will be retained. Table 4.1 shows the amount of land within each land-use designation, as well as the estimated development potential at full development of the specific plan area. Table 4.1 ñ 2005 Version San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan LAND USE PROGRAM AND DEVELOPMENT CAPACITIES Land Area Floor Area at Buildout Land Use Designation Hectares Acre % Sq. Meters Square Feet Open Space 139.9 346.1317.1 23%21% n/a n/a Agriculture 31.9 78.8 5% n/a n/a Business Park 93.1 233.2257.2 15%17% 306,580 3,044,844 3,361,090 Services and Manufacturing 193.3 491.4466.4 32%31% 380,902 4,277,5924,059,792 Government 145.3 341.9 24% 6,164 66,350* Medium-density Residential 2 7 1% n/a n/a Recreation 15 1% n/a Total 606 14981483.4 100% 447,031 7,388,7867,487,232 *300,000 s.f. of floor area in aircraft hangars also proposed. While roughly three quarters of the parcels in the planning area have some development on them, many are only partially developed (i.e., major portions of a parcel are unused or underutilized). Based on review of aerial photos, approximately 350 acres, appear to be developed and fully utilized (i.e., more than three quarters of its land area is developed for urban uses). Calculations from the aerial mapping indicate that the planning area currently has approximately two million square feet of building floor area (2,226,000 sf). As would be expected given the number of storage yards and other low-density uses in the area, floor area ratios are generally quite low, ranging from less than 0.01 to 0.46. The existing uses alone do not represent the highest and best use of the area as envisioned in the General Plan and are not intensive enough to support urban services. Formatted: Not HighlightFormatted: Not HighlightFormatted: Not HighlightFormatted: Not HighlightAttachment 4
PC1 - 170
4-4 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Attachment 4
PC1 - 171
LAND USE | 4-5 RELATIONSHIP TO THE GENERAL PLAN The Airport Area Specific Plan is a refinement of the citywide land use plan prepared for the 1994 General Plan Land Use Element update. The specific plan analysis went into greater detail than did the citywide land use planning process. Meetings with area property and business owners were a part of the specific plan process. These meetings elicited insight and understanding that led to two significant refinements to the General Plan land use pattern. The first involves increasing the area of Business Park. The focus group advising staff on land use suggested that the General Plan did not provide enough land designated for business parks to stimulate creation of a business park district. It was also noted that in exchange for the additional investment in quality, developers and property owners will want more frontage exposure. The second land use refinement involved the Unocal Chevron Tank Farm property. Detailed site analysis led to more accurate mapping of sensitive plant and habitat area protected under City policy. The land use boundaries for the Unocal Chevron property in this specific plan create a contiguous open space corridor from the South Hills to open space south of the City’s urban reserve boundary. The division of land use on the Unocal Chevron property continues to provide for urban uses where sensitive resources, hazardous materials and airport safety allow it. Table 4.2 shows the relationships between General Plan land use designations, Specific Plan land use categories, and the zoning that is to be applied upon annexation. Figure 4-4 shows the proposed planning area zoning. HAZARDOUS MATERIALS Uses involving quantities of hazardous materials can pose a significant health and safety risk to persons, property, and the environment. In addition, certain land within the planning area is known to have been contaminated by past uses (Figure 4-2). The land use plan has been developed with careful consideration given to this areasthese areas. Such materials are regulated by standards enforced by the City Fire Department, City Utilities Department, RWQCB, and Department of Toxic Substance Control. These agencies should be contacted for requirements related to development adjacent to contaminated areas as well as the use, storage, handling and permitting of hazardous materials in new development. SPECIAL AREAS McChesney Field – San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport The County Airport is a key determinant of land use in the planning area. The airport is a transportation hub that makes it possible to move goods and people to and from the Airport Area (and the region) quickly and over long distances. It affects the types of land uses that locate in the area by serving as a catalyst for economic development, and by restricting uses to those that are compatible with the operational characteristics of a general aviation airport. The airport plays a prominent role in the economic development goals of the City and County. The types of uses the City seeks to attract to the area, identified in the General Plan Land Use Element and the Targeted Industry Clusters study (computer software/multimedia, light manufacturing, and business/customer service) benefit from proximity to an airport. The City General Plan envisions business parks with campus-like settings and clean industry in the Airport Area. Many of these industries will involve regular movement in and out of the area of knowledge workers, specialists, sales and marketing professionals, and valuable small components suitable for air shipping. Land uses in the airport vicinity must be regulated in order to minimize the potential for conflicts between these uses and airport operations. The primary instrument for maintaining compatibility and safety is the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) prepared and Attachment 4
PC1 - 172
4-6 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 4-2 Areas of Soil Contamination on Unocal Property Attachment 4
PC1 - 173
LAND USE | 4-7 maintained by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission. Specific Plan land uses have been planned with thorough consideration given to the ALUP. Specifically, urban uses are not proposed in areas where incompatible levels of noise can be expected, or where there is an unacceptable risk that an accident could occur. Former Tank Farm Site The Tank Farm site presents several significant opportunities and challenges. The site contains developed land, environmentally sensitive habitats, hazardous materials and soil contamination related to the previous oil storage use of the site, and highly restricted airport safety areas. In some areas, all of these conditions are present. Wise management of the resources and hazards is necessary to realize the opportunities this site can offer. At 332 acres, Tthe Tank Farm site is the largest single property in the Airport Area and it is centrally located. Because of its central location, the site is easily visible from a large number of surrounding properties. Open space land at the site can therefore become a visual resource and can contribute to airport safety, serving as an amenity for the area as a whole. Redevelopment and habitat enhancement of the site represents an opportunity to significantly affect the character of the area through the actions of a single property owner. Existing development at the Tank Farm site is of generally poor appearance and should be upgraded to contribute to the higher standard of visual quality desired for San Luis Obispo. Some parts of the site not currently developed and not affected by airport safety zones, or environmentally sensitive habitat can be developed. Some of these areas, however, are known to contain contaminated soils. Examples of successful redevelopment of similarly contaminated areas in other parts of the State and country support this concept. Table 4.2 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan LAND USE CONSISTENCY General Plan Designation Specific Plan Designation Zone Open Space Open Space C/OS-SP Public Facility Airport Facility PF-SP Business Park Business Park BP-SP Services & Manufacturing Service Commercial or Manufacturing C-S-SP or M-SP Medium-Density Residential Medium-Density Residential R-2-SP Agriculture Agriculture AG-SP In exchange for redevelopment and selective new development at the Tank Farm Site, the appearance of this visually prominent site can be improved and large areas can be enhanced to become environmental, aesthetic and safety resources for the whole Airport Area. The Chevron EIR evaluated remediation and development options for contaminated areas and found that development can be accommodated following implementation of remediation actions. Areas of known contamination are shown on the map in Figure 4-2. Areas within sensitive biological resources are shown on the map in Figure 4-3. Attachment 4
PC1 - 174
4-8 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 4-3 Sensitive Biological Resources on Unocal PropertyAttachment 4
PC1 - 175
LAND USE | 4-9 4.1 LAND USE GOALS A goal is a general direction-setter. It is an ideal future end related to the public health, safety, or general welfare. A goal is a general expression of community values and, therefore, may be abstract in nature. Consequently, a goal is generally not quantifiable or time-dependent. Goal 4.1.1: Urbanization and Resource Protection Urbanization of the Airport Area in a manner consistent with City goals for resource protection. Goal 4.1.2: Job Creation Further the City’s goals for growth management, economic development, and community character by designating land uses which facilitate and encourage the creation of high quality base-level and support-level jobs in the Airport Area. Goal 4.1.3: Compact Urban Form A compact urban form that minimizes sprawl onto surrounding agricultural and rural lands. Goal 4.1.4: Existing Buildings More productive use of existing buildings and lands that are already committed to urban uses so that existing City businesses can expand and/or relocate to more suitable locations. Goal 4.1.5: Employment Opportunities Employment opportunities appropriate for area residents’ desires and skills. Goal 4.1.6: Land Use Compatibility Compatibility with existing and proposed uses both inside and outside the Airport Area. Goal 4.1.7: Sense of Place New development that contributes to a sense of place. Goal 4.1.8: Protect and Enhance Natural Features Protection and enhancement of natural features such as creeks, wetlands, and grasslands, within a system of permanent open space. Goal 4.1.9: Airport Operations Airport Area land uses and development, including Airport Compatible Open Space, compatible, compatible with the long-term operation of the airport, and enhancing the viability of the airport as a regional transportation facility. Goal 4.1.10: Balance of Conservation and Development A balanced conservation and development program that enhances public safety, community character and natural resource values while remedying long-standing environmental and aesthetic problems. Goal 4.1.11: Agricultural Buffers Preservation of agricultural land and open space for on-going agricultural uses. This is accomplished through the provision of buffers on urban land so land use conflicts are diminished. Attachment 4
PC1 - 176
4-10 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Attachment 4
PC1 - 177
LAND USE | 4-11 4.2 LAND USE DESIGNATIONS AND ZONING The following sections describe the intent for each of the Specific Plan land use categories. Figure 4-1 establishes the land use designations for property within the Specific Plan area. Figure 4-4 establishes the zoning and Table 4.3 provides a list of uses and permit requirements, if any. 4.2.1 BUSINESS PARK Areas designated Business Park are primarily for research and development, light manufacturing, and business services that are compatible with each other and with airport operations. Activities that are supportive of, or accessory to, the primary activities may be allowed as well. The City recognizes that businesses locating in areas designated Business Park often combine product development, promotion, manufacturing, and distribution at a single facility. The Business Park designation is intended to accommodate such combinations, with the lowest level of review by the City that is consistent with maintaining community character and assuring a desirable setting for the types of businesses that are the primary reason for Business Parks. The Business Park designation is generally intended for well-designed, master-planned, campus-type developments that will contribute to community character and the City’s objective of attracting jobs that can support households in San Luis Obispo. Because of the higher quality design associated with uses in this category, Business Park uses are generally located in areas of higher visibility to the public, such as along highways (SR 227) and major arterials (Tank Farm Road). Refer to Table 4.3 for specific uses permitted in the Business Park designation. 4.2.2 SERVICE COMMERCIAL Areas designated Service Commercial are generally for storage, transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services that may be less appropriate in other commercial designations. Refer to Table 4.3 for specific uses permitted on land designated Service Commercial. 4.2.3 MANUFACTURING Areas designated Manufacturing are generally for assembly, fabrication, storage and distribution, and sales and service type uses that have little or no direct trade with local consumers. Refer to Table 4.3 for specific uses permitted in the Manufacturing designation. 4.2.4 PUBLIC FACILITY The Public Facility designation is assigned tofor the City or County-owned property associated with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and portions of the former Chevron tank farm property - McChesney Field. In addition to the airport runways, terminal, and parking that are operated by the County, there are several private businesses providing airport-related services that occupy lease sites from the County. Public Facility zoned land on the former Chevron Tank Farm property may be utilized for a range of land uses that can be found compatible within the the Runway Protection Zoneairport safety zones. The Chevron EIR considered the PF zone for the possible location of a future fire station and for the potential location of sports fields. 4.2.5 MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL The Medium-Density Residential designation is for the mobile home park that was established before preparation of this specific plan. The mobile home park may be retained as a conforming use, however, Attachment 4
PC1 - 178
4-12 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN further development of the site is not permitted by the Airport Land Use Plan. On-site buildings may be replaced with similar residential development and the property can be subdivided to allow resident ownership as long as residential density is not increased. 4.2.6 OPEN SPACE The Open Space designation is intended to preserve undeveloped or minimally developed land for preservation of natural resources and public safety. The Specific Plan designates the following specific areas for open space: • Planning area creeks: to protect and enhance habitat and recreational values; • Portions of the Unocal Chevron site: to provide for the creation of an ecological preserve and storm-water detention area, with controlled public access for non-intrusive recreation; • wetlands, native grasslands and other sensitive habitat areas; • Airport clear zones: to limit uses in the most restrictive airport safety zones to the siting of navigational aids and related equipment, and limited agricultural uses (e.g. hay-cropping, pasturage, and cultivation); Refer to Chapter 3 for more detailed discussion of Open Space issues. 4.2.7 AGRICULTURE Areas designated Agriculture are intended to encourage conservation of agricultural lands and continuation of agricultural uses and keeping of livestock where compatible with urban development. The sites designated as Agriculture in the Airport Area have historically been used for agricultural uses and are bordered by agricultural buffers on the parcels being developed with urban uses to insure compatibility between the uses. 4.3 LAND USE POLICIES Policy 4.3.1: Support for Airport Service The City will support the Airport’s continued service to the region. Policy 4.3.2: Airport Master Plan The City will support the County’s implementation of the Airport Master Plan. Policy 4.3.3: Airport Land Use Plan Consistency Airport Area development must be consistent with the standards and requirements of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan and/or Public Utilities Code Sections 21670-21679.5 (See Figure 4-5) . Policy 4.3.4: Airport Compatible Open Space The City will work with property owners to develop and implement and maintain Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) within the Airport Area, consistent with an approved ACOS plan, to insure ongoing compatibility between Specific Plan land uses and airport operations. Policy 4.3.5: Transit Service The City shall encourage public transit agencies to serve the County Airport as soon as practical. Policy 4.3.6: Tank Farm Site Attachment 4
PC1 - 179
LAND USE | 4-13 Before a substantial part of the former Tank Farm Site is subdivided or developed, the City must have approved aThe Chevron Remediation and Development project and its accompanying EIR provides for a comprehensive development and conservation plan for the entire property. This development plan shall includes mitigation measures adopted with the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project EIR and must meet with the approval of federal, state and local agencies with jurisdiction over the hazards and natural resources present, and includes: a) A detailed resource management plan to protect and enhance natural resources found on the Tank Farm Site, including sensitive species and their habitats (e.g., wetlands, riparian corridors, and native grasslands). The resource enhancement plan shall address the long-term monitoring and maintenance of habitat areas to insure protection from adjacent development and from contamination associated with previous uses of the site. b) Conservation Eeasements for the permanent protection of natural resources dedicated to an appropriate trustee agency such as the City, County, RWQCB or SLO Land Trust. c) A detailed, site-specific plan for remediation of contaminated areas associated with developing areas designated for development and habitat restoration areas where soil contamination is presentconsistent with the Remedial Action Plan evaluated with the Chevron Tank Farm EIR (2013-2014). d) An implementation plan that links development entitlements to completion of specific remediation and habitat-improvement actions. e) A mechanism, such as an endowment, for implementing the long-term monitoring, enhancement and maintenance included in the plan. Policy 4.3.7: Tank Farm Road Improvements Prior to substantial development of the Tank Farm site, UnocalChevron, or its successor in interest, must provide a tentative map with detailed preliminary design plans for improvements to Tank Farm Road adjacent to its property. The design plans will address roadway design standards provided in Chapter 6, including the roadway design, median and parkway landscaping, re-grading of the berms to open up views, re-location and replacement of chain link fencing with a more visually compatible solution, and alignment and design of the Class I paths along both sides of the road.on-street and off-street pedestrian and bicycle connections as shown in the circulation section, chapter 6. Policy 4.3.8: Approach and Climb-Out Paths Retain extensive undeveloped land under the approach and climb-out paths for all active runways. Policy 4.3.9: East Airport Area Clear Zones The City and the County will work to obtain land or development rights in the East Airport Area to maintain clear zones for the east- west runway. Policy 4.3.10 Runway Protection Zones No new development, roads or land uses shall be allowed within the Runway Protection Zone in accordance with the Federal Aviation Administration policies (including the Interim Guidance published on September 27, 2012, and the Advisory Circular 150/5300-Change 17, unless the interim guidance is replaced with future FAA policies), unless the development or land use is specifically approved in coordination with the FAA. Policy 4.3.1011: Uses Not Listed The Community Development Director will determine whether uses not listed in Table 4.3 are allowed or conditionally allowed, subject to the appeal procedures established in the Municipal Code. The Formatted: Font: Garamond, BoldFormatted: Font: Not BoldFormatted: Font: Not BoldFormatted: Font: Garamond, BoldAttachment 4
PC1 - 180
4-14 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN interpretation procedure is not used as a substitute for the amendment procedure to add new types of uses to a zone. Policy 4.3.1112: Zoning Regulations Zoning Regulations standards shall apply to the Airport Area where no equivalent standard is provided in this Specific Plan, to the discretion of the Community Development Director. Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP INDUSTRY, MANUFACTURING & PROCESSING, WHOLESALING Furniture and fixtures manufacturing, cabinet shop D A Industrial research and development D D D Laboratory - Medical, analytical, research, testing A A A Laundry, dry cleaning plant A A A1 Manufacturing - Heavy D PC Manufacturing - Light D A A Petroleum product storage and distribution D Photo and film processing lab A A D Printing and publishing A A A Recycling facilities - Collection and processing facility D Recycling facilities - Scrap and dismantling yard D Recycling facilities - Small collection facility D A Storage yard D A Warehousing, indoor storage A A D1 Wholesaling and distribution A A PC LODGING Homeless shelter8 PC PC PC Hotel, motel8 PC Attachment 4
PC1 - 181
LAND USE | 4-15 Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RECREATION, EDUCATION, & PUBLIC ASSEMBLY USES Bar/tavern D D D1 Club, lodge, private meeting hall D Commercial recreation facility - Indoor PC PC D Commercial recreation facility – Outdoor PC PC Fitness/health facility A A A1 Night club D Park, playground D Public assembly facility PC PC Religious facility8 D D2 School – Specialized education/training8 A A D Sports and active recreation facility PC PC PC Sports and entertainment assembly facility PC PC RESIDENTIAL USES Caretaker quarters A A A D Attachment 4
PC1 - 182
4-16 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP RETAIL SALES Auto and vehicle sales and rental A PC Auto parts sales, with installation A A Auto parts sales, without installation A A Building and landscape materials sales, indoor A A Building and landscape materials sales, outdoor A A Convenience store D D A1 Farm supply and feed store A D Fuel dealer (propane, etc) D A Furniture, furnishings, and appliance stores A General retail – 2,000 sf or less A1 Office-supporting retail, 2,000 sf or less A1 Office-supporting retail, More than 2,000 up to 5,000 sf D1 Produce stand Restaurant D D A Service station (see also “vehicle services”) D D A1 Warehouse stress – 45,000 sf or less gfa A Warehouse stores – more than 45,000 sf gfa D PC Attachment 4
PC1 - 183
LAND USE | 4-17 Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP SERVICES – BUSINESS, FINANCIAL & PROFESSIONAL Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP SERVICES - GENERAL Catering service A A Copying and Quick Printer Service A A D1 Day care - Adult,Child Day Care Center8 A5 A5 D1 Equipment rental A A Banks and financial services8 D A A1 Business support services A D4 Medical Service – Doctor Office8 D4 D4 Medical Service – Clinic, Lab, Urgent Care8 D4 A Office – Business and service8 D Office – Government8 A A Office – Processing8 A D A Office – Production and administrative8 A D A Office – Airport Related Services8 A A A A Office – Professional8 A Photographer, photographic studio A Attachment 4
PC1 - 184
4-18 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Food bank/packaged food distribution center D D Maintenance service, client site services A A PC Mortuary, funeral home8 D D Personal services A D1 Table 4.3 – Allowed Uses Key: A = Allowed D = Allowed by Administrative Use Permit PC = Allowed by Planning Commission Use Permit Footnotes (see end of table) Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP SERVICES – GENERAL Personal services - Restricted D Public safety facilities A Public utility facilities A A A Repair service - Equipment, large appliances, etc. A A Social service organization8 D Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance - Major A A Vehicle services - Repair and maintenance - Minor A A Vehicle services - Carwash D D Veternary clinic-hospital, boarding, large animal D D Veternary clinic-hospital, boarding, small animal, indoor A Veternary clinic-hospital, boarding, small animal, outdoor D Land Use Zoning District PF C-S M BP TRANSPORTATION & COMMUNICATIONS Airport Facilities/Expansion PC PC PC PC Ambulance, taxi, and/or limosine dispatch facility A D D Antennas and telecommunications facilities PC D D D Broadcast studio8 A6 A6 A6 Attachment 4
PC1 - 185
LAND USE | 4-19 Parking facility PC D D Refuse Hauling, Septic Tank, Portable Toilet Sewers PC D Truck or freight terminal A A6 D Water and wastewater treatment plants and services PC PC PC PC Numbered Notes to Table 4.3: 1. These activities are considered secondary uses for business parks. Within a development project site, their combined floor area shall not exceed 25 percent of the total floor area. Some are also subject to limits on individual floor area, as shown in the body of the table. Floor area limitations shall not apply to bank headquarters. 2. Use permit review shall consider that the C-S zone is primarily intended to accommodate uses not generally suited to other commercial zones because of noise, truck traffic, visual impacts and similar factors. A use permit may be approved only when the church will not likely cause unreasonable compatibility problems with existing or likely future service commercial uses in the vicinity. Use permit conditions may include measures to mitigate incompatibility. 3. In the C-S zone, nightclubs must contain a minimum of four thousand five hundred square feet of floor area. The required use permit process shall address parking, neighborhood compatibility and security issues. 4. In order to approve a Medical Service use in the C-S or BP zones, the Hearing Officer must make the following findings: a) The proposed medical service is compatible with surrounding land uses. b) The proposed medical service is located along a street designated as an arterial or commercial collector in the Circulation Element and has convenient access to public transportation. c) The proposed medical service will not significantly increase traffic or create parking impacts in residential neighborhoods. d) The proposed medical service is consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. e) The project will not preclude service commercial uses in areas especially suited for these uses when compared with medical services. f) The project site can accommodate the parking requirements of the proposed medical service and will not result in other lease spaces being under-utilized because of a lack of available parking. 5. Allowed by right only in the S-1c and S-2 aviation safety areas (as defined in the ALUP), where an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive benefit of employees. Larger facilities for employees may be approved by the Planning Commission, if allowed by the Airport Land Use Commission. 6. Broadcast studios are allowed by right except that an administrative use permit is required to permit any on-site antennas, dishes, or transmission towers; or any radio, microwave or other type of airbound transmission from the project site or any other site within the Airport Area. 7. Caretakers quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 square feet and shall not be allowed in aviation safety area S-1a or the runway protection zone, as defined in the ALUP. 8. These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan as noise-sensitive, specific sound-attenuation requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information. 4.4 DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY STANDARDS The following development standards prescribe the intensity of development in the planning area based on criteria such as parcel dimensions, building coverage, floor area ratios, employee concentrations, etc. (also see “Design Guidelines and Development Standards,” Chapter 5). The standards for the R-2 and AG zones are as provided in the City’s Zoning Regulations. Attachment 4
PC1 - 186
4-20 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4.4.1 PARCEL DIMENSIONS The minimum dimensions for land parcels under each land use designation are shown in Table 4.4. Condominiums are the preferred approach for accommodating small, individually owned business spaces. 4.4.2 BUILDING INTENSITY AND COVERAGE Building intensity is measured by “floor area ratio,” which is the ratio of building floor area to parcel area. For example, a one-story building covering one-half of its site would have a floor area ratio of 0.5, while a two-story building covering one-half of its site would have a floor area ratio of 1.0. Coverage is simply the percentage of the parcel area covered by specified features. In the Zoning Regulations, coverage limits apply only to buildings and other structures. Within this specific plan, some land use designations have coverage limits for additional features. Table 4.5 shows allowable floor ratios and building coverage standards for each land use designation. 4.4.3 EMPLOYEE AND CUSTOMER CONCENTRATIONS Maximum concentrations for employees and customers are established in the interest of airport safety. Table 4.6 shows permitted concentrations of people by Aviation Safety Area, per the Airport Land Use Plan. 4.4.4 BUILDING SETBACK STANDARDS Setbacks are the landscaped spaces between buildings or parking and property lines, whether along streets or between adjacent parcels. Table 4.7 shows setback standards. 4.4.5 PARKING REQUIREMENTS The parking requirements for development in the Specific Plan area are shown in Table 4.8. The table includes minimum and maximum parking rates. The design of parking areas is discussed in detail in Chapter 5. Table 4.4 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan PARCEL DIMENSIONS Land Use Designation Minimum Area Minimum Width Minimum Depth Maximum Depth: Width Ratio Minimum Frontage Open Space 15 ha (40 ac) 200 m (660 ft) 200 m (660 ft) None None (b) Business Park 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) (a) 30 m (100 ft) 30 m (100 ft) 3:1 15 m (50 ft) Service Commercial 840 sm (9,000 sf) 18 m (60 ft) 30 m (100 ft) 3:1 12 m (40 ft) Manufacturing 840 sm (9,000 sf) 18 m (60 ft) 30 m (100 ft) 3:1 12 m (40 ft) Airport Facility Subdivision and lease parcels are subject to approval by the County. Medium-density Residential Minimum dimensions are as provided in the Subdivision Regulations. The mobile-home park has been recognized as a long-established use. It may be converted to resident-ownership, but redevelopment of the site at an increased density is not permitted by the Airport Land Use Plan. Notes: (a) Guideline: The Business Park zone should include a range of parcel sizes above the minimum. (b) Each parcel must have access from a public road, or an access easement from a public road acceptable to the City. (c) Common Interest Subdivisions are permitted, subject to the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations. 4.4.6 BUILDING HEIGHT The maximum building height standards for the Airport Area Specific Plan are provided in Table 4.9. Chapter 5 includes important guidelines for building design with respect to building height. Notwithstanding the height restrictions provided in Table 4.9, in no case are building heights permitted to create an “obstruction to air Attachment 4
PC1 - 187
LAND USE | 4-21 navigation” as defined in the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. Table 4.5 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan BUILDING INTENSITY AND COVERAGE STANDARDS Also see Table 4.6 and Figure 4-5. Limitations on employee and customer concentrations due to airport safety are more restrictive than the standards provided below in most cases and may reduce maximum potential FAR. Design Standard Land-use Designation Business Park Service Commercial Manufacturing Maximum floor area ratio: warehousing, storage, or automated manufacturing uses 1.0 1.0 1.0 Maximum floor area ratio: all other uses .6 .6 .6 Maximum coverage y for buildings, driveways, and parking (a) 80% 90% 90% Minimum landscaped space (planted areas, water features, and hard surfaces used mainly, by pedestrians) as percentage of side site area 20% 10% 10% Table 4.6 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan EMPLOYEE & CUSTOMER CONCENTRATIONS Airport Safety Area Maximum number of Employees, Clients or Customers with Long-term Stays On Each Site Runway Protection Zones 5 per acre Aviation Safety Area S-1a 40 per acre Aviation Safety Area S-1b 50-75* per acre Aviation Safety Area S-1c 120 per acre Aviation Safety Area 2 Unlimited *Refer to Airport Land Use plan, actual maximum depends on project site distance form runway Numbers may be averaged over an entire property. Table 4.7 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan SETBACK STANDARDS Setback Distance Between: Business Park Service Commercial Manufacturing Buildings and property lines along streets (a) 5 m (16 feet) 5 m (16 feet) 5 m (16 feet) Parking lots and property lines along streets 3 m (10 feet) 1.5 m (5 feet) 1.5 m (5 feet) Buildings and property lines between adjacent parcels (b) None None None Parking lots and property lines between adjacent parcels (c) 1.5 m (5 feet) None None All Zones – Setbacks from property lines along Buckley Road All Physical Improvements ñ 4.6m (15 feet) Buildings ñ 10m (32 feet) Parking Lots ñ 8m (25 feet) Notes: (a) Uncovered sitting and eating areas may be located within setbacks, but to noise exposure are discouraged along major roads. (b) The Building Code may require separation, depending on the type of construction. (c) Parking lots covered by a common parking agreement may extend across a Attachment 4
PC1 - 188
4-22 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4.4.7 AMENITY INCENTIVES Projects in the Business Park, Service Commercial, and Manufacturing designations may be granted incentives for amenities that are not required by the Zoning Regulations or by this specific plan. Examples of such amenities are: • child or elder care facilities • bicycle or public transportation facilities, integrated with areawide systems, such as improved transit stops or bike paths • wildlife habitat restoration (beyond what may be required) • pubic plaza areas designed to allow use by the general public • public art (beyond minimum City requirements) • private recreational facilities (sports and volleyball courts) • implementation of the drainage policies listed in Section 7.1 beyond that required by the Waterways Management Plan. Such incentives are limited to the following exceptions to Development Standards, and each is subject to approval by the Planning Commission, Architectural Review Commission or Community Development Director: • Up to 10% increase in floor area ratio (for example, from 0.6 to 0.66) • Up to 20% increase in height • Up to 20% reduction in required street setback • Up to 10% reduction in required parking Table 4.8 San Luis Obispo Airport Specific Plan PARKING STANDARDS Type of Land Use Minimum Parking Rate (1 space/indicated floor area) Maximum Parking Rate (1 space/indicated floor area) Square meters Square feet Square meters Square feet Business services, research, design, manufacturing 46 500 28 300 Retail sales and personal services 28 300 46 300 Warehousing, wholesaling 140 1,500 46 500 Child or elder care for on-site workers (a) None None None None Note: (a) The parking for care facilities serving multiple employers will be determined through the required use permit, and may take into consideration loading or short-term stopping lanes on the site as well as any curbside parking spaces in the public right-of-way. Table 4.9 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT STANDARDS Building Type Land Use Category Business Park Service Commercial Manufacturing R-2 Occupied Buildings 13 meters (45 feet)* 11 meters (36 feet) 11 meters (36 feet) See R-2 zoning Non-Occupied Architectural Features 16 meters (52 feet) 14 meters (46 feet) 14 meters (46 feet) See R-2 zoning *not to exceed 3 stories Note: Notwithstanding the height restrictions provided in Table 4.9, in no case are building heights to create an “obstruction to air navigation” as defined in the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan. Attachment 4
PC1 - 189
LAND USE | 4-23 4.4.8 PROPERTY CONDITION A. All land, structures, and improvements shall be maintained in a condition that does not detract from the health, safety, and appearance of the planning area. In particular, the following conditions are prohibited: 1. Dilapidated or vandalized buildings, parts of buildings, signs, outdoor walls, fences, or landscape features such as benches and fountains. 2. Accumulation of trash or debris. 3. Accumulation of scrap materials, except at a contractors’ yard or bulk recycling facility approved and screened. 4. Dead landscape planting. 5. The proliferation of untended, weedy plants on the part of a site approved for development. B. Vehicle and equipment storage shall be regulated so that it does not detract from appearance of the planning area. The following provisions shall apply to any motor vehicle, trailer, camper, camper shell, motorcycle, motor-home, boat, aircraft, or similar conveyance: 1. Off-street parking or storage shall be on a dust-free, all-weather surface. 2. Modifying, servicing, repairing, restoring, assembling, disassembling, or wrecking shall be conducted within an enclosed building, except where approved and screened as provided in this chapter 3. Parking, storing, or placing such a conveyance, or any part of such a conveyance, which is disabled, unregistered, or inoperative, shall be within an enclosed building, except where approved and screened. 4.5 DETAILED AREA PLAN FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH AIRPORT OPERATIONS The Land Use Chapter of the Airport Area Specific Plan has been prepared in consultation with the Airport Land Use Commission and its policies are intended to insure on-going compatibility between development in the Airport Area and airport operations. There is a mutually beneficial relationship between economic development in the Airport Area and the continued operation and expansion of the SLO County Regional Airport. This relationship is balanced by the need to insure the safety of both people who live and work in the area as well as aircraft passengers and pilots. To help insure that this balance is maintained, this Specific Plan includes goals, policies and programs to guide decision makers. Figure 4-5 illustrates how the safety policies of the Airport Land Use Plan will be met, although the Airport Land Use Plan and not Figure 4-5 set the actual standards. Figure 4-5 is simply provided to illustrate the effect of those standards. Policy 4.5.1 Cluster Development Zone The AASP shall meet the open space requirements of the ALUP, and the area shown in Figure 4-5 shall be maintained in a manner that qualifies the area as a Cluster Development Zone (CDZ), to the approval of the Airport Land Use Commission. Attachment 4
PC1 - 190
4-24 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Table 4.10 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan CLUSTER DEVELOPMENT ZONE Land Area Land Use Designation Acre % Open Space and Agriculture 425 37% Business Park 233.2 20% Services and Manufacturing 491.4 42% Medium-density Residential 7 1% Total 1156.6 100% Policy 4.5.2 Airport Compatible Open Space Per the requirements of the ALUP, Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) shall be maintained consistent with ALUP policies. TheThe following areas are included as ACOS zones: 1. The agricultural buffer along the southwest boundary of the Avila Ranch property, 2. The ACOS zones north and south of Tank Farm road as depicted in figure 4-6. and the Airport Area shall be maintained as Airport Compatible Open Space, per the requirements of the ALUP. Figure 4-5 Airport Compatibility (Maximum Non- Residential Density) Formatted TableAttachment 4
PC1 - 191
LAND USE | 4-25 Figure 4-6 Airport Compatible Open Space areas on the Chevron Tank Farm property Attachment 4
PC1 - 192
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-1 6.0 CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION Each ‘layer’ of understanding informs the planning response. INTENT The transportation and circulation system for the Airport Area is designed to utilize the existing roadway system as much as possible, with the addition of arterials, collectors, and local streets as needed to serve individual development areas. The system also includes trails for non-vehicular circulation to connect various planning subareas to each other and the rest of San Luis Obispo. The circulation plan encourages preservation of the area’s rural character, and promotes transit use, bicycling and walking as convenient modes of transportation for commuting and recreation. The circulation plan enhances connectivity with adjacent areas, where feasible, to reduce traffic impacts on major streets. Consistent with City goals and objectives relating to community character, roadway design standards incorporate special rural features that enhance the openness of the area, take advantage of views, and provide simple, functional streets. CIRCULATION BACKGROUND/SETTING The transportation system serving the Airport Area is comprised of the roadway system, transit and public transportation, and alternative modes including carpooling, bicycling, and walking. Several major transportation routes provide access to the study area: Highway 101, Prado Road, Broad Street (Highway 227), South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road and Los Osos Valley Road. Highway 101 is the primary regional transportation route serving San Luis Obispo and surrounding communities. In the vicinity of the Airport Area, access to and from Highway 101 is provided at four interchanges, South Higuera Street, Los Osos Valley Road, Prado Road and Madonna Road. From these interchanges, a system of streets collect Attachment 5
PC1 - 193
6-2 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN and distribute traffic to and from the Specific Plan area. The South Higuera Street interchange is the designated truck exit accessing the industrial areas in southern San Luis Obispo. A unique challenge in the Airport Area is the fixed layout of arterial streets and their “divergence” from the center of the City as they head towards the south county. This divergence requires longer lengths of improvements to accomplish connectivity, mobility and access improvements than on similar arterials located closer to the center of town. This results in higher costs for infrastructure development per development unit than in other areas and is further complicated by the large amount of open space located in the midst of the AASP adjacent to needed roadway improvements. The plans strives to balance this issue and pass on appropriate levels of improvements to the specific plan area without overly burdensome requirements. Public transit serving the study area is provided by SLO Transit, the City of San Luis Obispo’s transit agency, and the San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Agency (RTA), the countywide intercity transit agency. Both agencies provide fixed-route bus service within San Luis Obispo, however, SLO Transit provides most of the bus routes and stops within the Airport area. Amtrak provides regional rail service in San Luis Obispo, with a station located downtown just south of the community’s central business district and north of the Airport Area. While the City of San Luis Obispo has a relatively comprehensive bicycle system, the Specific Plan area is on the outskirts of the system and is not fully served byhas limited access from existing bicycle lanes or paths. Bicycle lanes are located along South Higuera and Broad Streets, with minimal-width lanes provided along Tank Farm Road. 6.1 CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION GOALS The transportation and circulation system for the Airport Area should provide safe and convenient mobility and access to all modes of transportation. The transportation system should be balanced with interconnected streets, transit routes, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, and open space recreational areas without with limited gaps or barriers. Despite the services/manufacturing and business park orientation of the land use plan, and the large geographic area of the Airport Area, the transportation system should encourage the use of, and provide facilities for, alternatives to the single-occupant vehicle. At the same time, the Specific Plan must recognize the need to serve regional and citywide traffic and freight on its street system. Goal 6.1.A: Safely Accommodate Increased Traffic Develop a circulation system for the Airport Area that safely accommodates increased traffic associated with the Specific Plan, cumulative development at the south end of town, and southern San Luis Obispo County, while preserving views and the area’s rural agricultural character. Attachment 5
PC1 - 194
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-3 Table 6.1 San Luis Airport Area Specific Plan PRIMARY CIRCULATION SYSTEM & FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATIONS Street Extent Functional Classification Tank Farm Rd. Broad St. South Higuera St. Parkway Arterial Santa Fe Rd. North of Tank Farm Road Realigned and extended to Prado Rd. extension Commercial Collector Santa Fe Rd. South of Tank Farm Road - Realigned and extended from Buckley Rd. to Prado Rd. extensionTank Farm Road Commercial CollectorLocal Commercial Sueldo North of Tank Farm Rd. to Sueldo Local Commercial Unocal Local Sueldo South of Tank Farm Rd. to HindSueldoSuburban Road Local Commercial Buckley Rd. Broad St. Vachell Lane with extension to South Higuera St. Arterial South Higuera St. Prado Rd. to Buckley Rd. extension Arterial Broad St. (SR 227) Prado Rd. extension to Buckley Rd. Highway/Regional Route Prado Rd. Broad St. to US 101 Highway/Regional Route Prado Rd. Madonna Rd. to US 101 Parkway Arterial Goal 6.1.B: Connectivity Create a circulation system that maintains and improves access and connectivity between the Airport Area and adjacent areas such as the Margarita Area, the Edna-Islay Area, the Los Osos Valley Road area and the South Higuera area. Design Specific Plan roadways to provide adequate connection for all modes of traffic, including freight to, between US 101 and HWY 227. Goals 6.1.C: Transit Provide convenient and effective transit service to planned residential, industrial and commercial areas along with an interconnected bicycle transportation system fully connected to the rest of the City and region. , The transit system should that supports the Airport Area’s employersemployer’s efforts to meet the City’s Average Vehicle Ridership (AVR) goals. Goal 6.1.D: Comprehensive Bikeway and Pedestrian System Complete a series of Class I trails throughout the area as soon as possible to encourage commuter use and an alternative to driving. Develop a comprehensive and connected bikeway and pedestrian system that connects the area’s employment centers to the broader community, promotes alternatives to the single occupant automobile, and enhances the public’s enjoyment of the community’s open space resources. Goal 6.1.E: Truck Routes Establish designated truck routes within the Airport Area that augment and connect with the regional routes established in the General Plan and are designed such that unnecessary truck intrusion into adjacent neighborhoods or arterial streets are minimized. 6.2 CIRCULATION AND TRANSPORTATION PLAN 6.2.1 CIRCULATION SYSTEM CLASSIFICATIONS The primary circulation system within the Airport Area consists of major streets Class I trails that pass through and connect the Airport Area to the surrounding city and countys. The primary circulation system is interconnected with a system of secondary access streets and a network of bicycle and pedestrian paths. The primary vehicular circulation system in the Airport Area consists of highways, parkway Attachment 5
PC1 - 195
6-4 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN arterials, arterials and collector streets as shown in Figure 6-1 and in Table 6.1. While serving the Specific Plan land uses, some of these streets are also have a regionally significant role functioning as thoroughwaysthroughways serving citywide and countywide travel demand. As shown in Figure 6-1, only portionsnot all of these streets are located within or adjacent to the planning area’s boundaries. Streets outside of the Airport Area, while not subject to the Specific Plan design standards, are also a critical element of the primary circulation system since they provide access to the area and the regional street infrastructure. For example, the circulation system in the Margarita Area to the north of the Airport Area includes proposed street improvements, such as the Prado Road extension between Broad Street and South HigueraUS 101 and beyond Street, thatStreet, which will serve as important components of the Airport Area’s ciculationcirculation system to and from the freeway. A unique challenge is to design the AASP arterial and collector street system to meet the access, mobility, safety and vehicle classification needs of the area without over-designing the facilities. Cross sections and traffic control techniques proposed in this document have been designed to minimize street impacts yet also provide safe and efficient space within the right of way to develop complete streets for all users. Access management along the arterials plays a vital role in keeping street widths narrow and not requiring extra traffic control locations within the planning area. 6.2.2 LOCAL STREETS AND ACCESS The One major objective of the Airport Area’s primary circulation system is to provide general mobility to, and through, the area with limited, but direct, access to development areas. A secondary circulation system of local streets and a system of off-street trails is intended to provide internal circulation and access to individual properties. In order to provide flexibility in individualfor private development design, the secondary circulation system is not fully established in the Specific Plan. In order to be responsive to ownership and market conditions, the secondary system will be planned and implemented as development projects occur in accordance with the Specific Plan design standards. Therefore, as individual projects are proposed within the Specific Plan area, additional dedications for roadways and trails may be necessary to provide adequate connectivity to adjacent parcels and activity centers, or to otherwise meet the goals and standards provided in the Specific Plan. Unless noted, local streets shown in Figure 6-1 are already constructed or planned. Attachment 5
PC1 - 196
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-5 Attachment 5
PC1 - 197
6-6 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 6.2.3 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS The Circulation Element of the San Luis Obispo General Plan defines the City’s vision for a transportation infrastructure that will meet the projected growth within the southern portion of the city, including the Airport Area. When the General Plan was updated in 1994 to include annexation of the Airport Area, a number of transportation improvements were identified in the Circulation Element that will be necessary to support the City’s growth, as well as the overall increase in local and regional traffic throughout the Airport Area. These improvements address facility needs both inside and outside the planning area in response to demand created by growth in the entire south end of the City and unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County. As an implementing mechanism of the City’s General Plan, the Airport Area Specific Plan identifies a primary circulation system and functional roadway classifications that are consistent with the San Luis Obispo General Plan Circulation Element (November 1994). An exception to consistency with the circulation element is the addition of a new commercial collector through the Unocal Chevron property connecting Tank Farm Road with the Prado Road extension in order to better spread east-west traffic between Prado Road and Los Osos Valley Road. Planning area development also requires a number of additional, more detailed, improvements (e.g., street extensions and widenings, roundabouts, signalization, etc) in order to accommodate projected development. In addition to improvements required within the Airport Area, there are a number of other General Plan-specified circulation improvements outside the planning area that will be needed to accommodate projected growth. Table 6.2 summarizes these necessary improvements. The Chevron EIR identifies many of these improvements as cumulative citywide transportation mitigations. . 6.2.4 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE CIRCULATION Consistent with the City’s emphasis on accommodating alternative modes of travel, the AiportAirport Area includes a pedestrian and bicycle circulation system that complements and augments the planning area’s vehicular road system. The concept is to create a system of pedestrian and bicycle facilities that not only connect the planning area internally, but also contributes to the creation of an integrated regional multi-use trails system. This system will link the planning area to the major destination points in the unincorporated areas as well as other origin and destination points within the City. The emphasis in the design of the system is to enhance its use by minimizing conflicts with vehicular circulation as much as possible. The proposed pedestrian and bicycle circulation plan provides an extensive and continuous system that allows for the safe and efficient movement of pedestrians and bicyclists for both commute and recreational purposes consistent with the policies of the General Plan. The circulation system incorporates two levels of pedestrian and bicycle facilities: street-related and non-street-related. Pedestrian circulation will be accommodated by: • Street design standards that include sidewalks on both sides of the street for all most classifications of streets within developed areas, and off-street, multi-use paths along streets adjacent to open space areas, and; • A network of multi-use, Class I facilities aligned along area creek corridors that will connect to the street system within the planning area as well as existing and proposed facilities outside of the Airport Area. Attachment 5
PC1 - 198
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-7 Table 6.2 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Intersections Location Improvements Prado Road/ South Higuera intersection Add lanes per EIR, to the approval of the Public Works DirectorAdd lanes as shown in MASP Tank Farm/ South Higuera intersection Add lanes per EIR, to the approval of the Public Works Director Tank Farm Road/ Broad Street intersection Add lanes per EIR, to the approval of the Public Works Director Los Osos Valley Road/ US 101 SB & NB Ramp Widen LOVR bridge and improve ramps as shown in Project Study Report Aero Drive/ Broad Street intersection Signalize, if necessary, and add lanes as shown in EIR to the approval of the Public Works Director Tank Farm/ Santa Fe Road intersection Install roundabout and add lanes as shown in EIR to the approval of the Public Works Director Tank Farm/ Unocal Collector/Sueldo intersection (Chevron Collector) Signalize, if necessary and add lanes as shown in EIR to the approval of the Public Works Director Prado Road/ Broad Street intersection Signalize and, add lanes as shown in MASP and NB dual left turn lane Prado Road/ Santa Fe Road intersection SignalizeInstall Roundabout and add lanes as shown in MASP Buckley Road/ South Higuera Street intersection Add lanes per EIR, to the approval of the Public Works Director Table 6.2 (cont’d) San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan CIRCULATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS Roadways Location Improvements Prado Road between existing terminus and Broad St. Extend new roadway to Regional Highway standards, including medians and landscaped parkrows parkways (Refer to Margarita Specific Plan for typical cross section) Prado Road between existing terminus and So. Higuera St. Modify street as much as possible within existing right-of-way to Regional Highway standards (Refer to Margarita Specific Plan for typical cross section) Santa Fe Road from south of Tank Farm to Prado Rd. Extend new roadway to Commercial Collector standards (see Figure 6-10) Santa Fe Road from Hoover Avenue to Tank Farm. Realign new roadway to Commercial Collector standards (see Figure 6-11) Sueldo (Western Unocal Chevron property) between Tank Farm and Hind Extend new roadway to Commercial Collector standards (see Figure 6-10) Hind Road between existing terminus and Prado Road Extend new roadway to local standards (see Figure 6-11) Prado Rd. from So. HigeraHiguera to US 101 interchange Widen to Regional Highway standards – 4 lanes – with medians and sufficient right-of-way reserved for 6 lanes (Refer to Margarita Specific Plan for typical cross section) Broad Street from Buckley Rd. to Tank Farm Rd. Widen to Arterial standards with medians (see Figure 6-5) Tank Farm from So. Higuera to Unocal Collector, and from Santa Fe to Broad St. Widen to Arterial standards – 4 lanes minimum (see Figure 6-6) Tank Farm from Santa Fe to Unocal Collector Widen to Arterial standards 2 lanes minimum, preserve for 4 (see Figure 6-7) Buckley Rd. from Vachell Lane to So. Higuera St. Extend new roadway to Arterial standards for undeveloped areas (see Figure 6-9) Note: Reference Figure 6-2 for the type of bikeways that must be included in the street’s design Attachment 5
PC1 - 199
6-8 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Example of a Buffered Class 2 bike path The Bicycle Transportation Plan proposes a comprehensive system of on-street and off-street bicycle facilities. This Plan is consistent with, and expands uponsupplementary to, the adopted citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan, providing connections to existing and planned bicycle facilities outside of the Airport Area. Through a combination of east-west on-street bicycle lanes and north-south on- and off-street facilities, bicyclists will be able to access any part of the Airport Area, enjoy the area’s open space and natural resources, and access facilities in the surrounding areas. The ultimate alignment of some of the Cclass I bike paths south of Tank Farm Road will need to be determined as part of the plans to remediate and restoredevelop the Chevron property. However, the AASP Bicycle Plan (Figure 6-2) illustrates conceptual alignment. The Bicycle Transportation Plan, illustrated in Figure 6-2, is comprised of three types of bicycle facilities: • Off-street Class I multi-use paths that parallel creeks and riparian corridors, • On-street Class II bicycle lanes on arterial and collector streets, and; • A combination of off-street paths adjacent to streets and on-street bicycle lanes. Attachment 5
PC1 - 200
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-9 Attachment 5
PC1 - 201
6-10 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Class 1 Paths The City updated its Bicycle Plan in November 2013. As such, the Bicycle Plan should be used as the guiding document for bicycle and pedestrian facilities in the AASP area. Two of the primary north-south bicycle facilities are Class I paths that parallel the Acacia/ East Branch of SLO Creek and Tank Farm Creek riparian corridorslink Damon Garcia Sportsfields with Tank Farm Road and Prado Road with Tank Farm Road and points southward. The Acacia/East Branch of SLO Creek path begins on Broad Street at Rockview Place. The citywide Bicycle Transportation Plan identifies this location for a future undercrossing of Broad Street. Until the undercrossing is implemented, the bike path will connect to the east side of Broad Street via an at-grade crossing at the Rockview Place/Broad Street intersection. The Acacia Creek path extends south (west of the riparian corridor) and crosses the Prado Road extension via an undercrossing. The property south of Prado Road is the City’s Damon-Garcia Sports Fields Complex. The sports fields construction provides athe precise alignment of the path through this area. South of the sports fields, the path parallels the west side of the riparian corridor or an alternative alignment could include linking to Santa Fe Road through the Chevron property. At Tank Farm Road, the path will connect to the Class I trail along the north side of the roadwayTank Farm Road and will allow access to a path that will ultimately connect to the Avila Ranch property at the south end of the Chevron property. The Acacia/ East Branch of SLO Creek path will cross Tank Farm Road at the relocated and signalized roundaboutintersectionintersection with Santa Fe Road. South of Tank Farm Road, the path will parallel Santa Fe Road and then continue south along the east side of the creek across the county-owned airport clear zone property to a point that is near the south edge of the Unocal Property. The path will then bridge the creek and extend south along the west east side of the creek to Buckley Road. An alternative route for this Class I path extends from the realigned section of Santa Fe Road south of Tank Farm Road extending through the open space in the Chevron property and linking through the Avila Ranch property to Buckley Road. From the southern boundary of the Specific Plan area the path allows bicycles to travel east to Broad Street or West along Buckley Road to reach the Bob Jones Trail head near the Octagon Barn. can take one of two alternative alignments: • Continue south along the west side of the creek to the Class I path parallel to the north side of Buckley Road, cross Buckley Road at an uncontrolled mid-block crossing connecting with the eastbound Class II bike lane on Buckley Road and the planned Class I path that will parallel the north side of the East Branch of the SLO Creek in the area south of Buckley Road; or Divert west along property lines to intersect a future local street with bicycle lanes (as shown in Figure 6-2) connecting to an intersection with Buckley Road and the Class I path parallel to the north side of the road. An uncontrolled intersection crossing connecting with the eastbound Class II bike lane on Buckley Road and the planned Class I path parallel to the north side of the East Branch of the SLO Creek. This alternative requires amending the City’s adopted Bicycle Circulation Plan. Tank Farm Creek - The Tank Farm Creek path begins south of Tank Farm Road where the creek passes under the road. A combination of bicycle lanes on Tank Farm Road and an off-street path parallel to Tank Farm Road connect the Tank Farm Creek path to the Unocal Collector providing north-south continuity. South of Tank Farm Road, the path continues southwesterly parallel to, and west of, the creek. Where the creek crosses under Buckley Road, the path diverts west to a controlled crossing at the intersection of Buckley Road/Vachell Lane. At the Vachell Lane/Buckley Road intersection, Attachment 5
PC1 - 202
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-11 the path will connect to bike lanes on Buckley Road including a western connecton to South Higuera Street. Other Class I Paths - Tank Farm Road, within the open space area between the Unocal CollectorSueldo and Santa Fe Road, has a parallel Class I paths on both sidesthe north side of the road (see Figure 6-8). Alternately, aThe 2013 City Bicycle Plan calls for the addition of a Class I facility also on the class one path may also be placed on the south side of Tank Farm Road. Buckley Road, between Broad Street and Vachell Lane has a Class I path along its north side (see Figures 6-8, 6-9 and 6-10). Due to the proximity of Tank Farm Creek to Buckley Road in the area east of Vachell Lane, the Class I path may need to cross Tank Farm Creek and connect to the path along the west side of the Creek via a freespan bridge over the creek where vegetation removal will be minimized, rather than paralleling Buckley all the way to Vachell Lane. Detailed alignment studies will need to be conducted to determine the best alignment. Class II Bicycle Lanes Bicycle lanes are required on arterial and collector streets within the Airport Area. As shown in Figure 6-2, Class II bicycle lanes are located on all of the major streets within and connecting to the Airport Area including Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road, Santa Fe Road, Prado Road, Unocal Local, Vachell Lane, Broad Street, and South Higuera Street. Buckley Road, between Broad Street and Vachell Lane, will have a Class II bicycle lane in the eastbound direction, complementing the Class I path proposed on the north side of Buckley Road (see Figures 6-2, 6-7 and 6-8). Attachment 5
PC1 - 203
6-12 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 6.2.5 Truck Transportation With the services/manufacturing and business park orientation of the Airport Area’s land use plan, truck transportation is essential to the area’s economic viability. For traffic safety, noise and capacity considerations, trucks must be routed on roads that are designed for larger vehicles using the City’s established truck routes. The Circulation Element of the General Plan establishes truck routes on South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road, Broad Street and Prado Road and its extensions between Broad Street and Madonna Road. Trucks along Los Osos Valley Road between Highway 101 and South Higuera are discouraged due to the potential conflict with the single driveway locations for the Los Verdes Townhomes project. Presently, Prado Road and Tank Farm Road are proposed designated truck roads serving the Specific Plan Area. The proposed truck transportation routes for the Airport Area adds Buckley Road (arterial) from South Higuera Street to Broad Street and Santa Fe Road (commercial collector) from Buckley Road to Prado Road as designated truck routes. Buckley Road, with its extension to South Higuera Street and street design standards, is a logical augmentation of the General Plan truck route map as it will serve primarily industrial/business park land uses, and reduce truck traffic on other more heavily used streets. Santa Fe Road connects the three east-west truck routes within the Airport Area and serves industrial/business park land uses. 6.2.6 Scenic Roadways The General Plan Circulation Element establishes policies related to scenic roadways and identifies those existing roadways that are considered important scenic resources. The policies are intended to ensure that development along these roadways does not detract from their scenic value, and that view corridors should be enhanced. Within, and in the vicinity of, the Airport Area the General Plan Attachment 5
PC1 - 204
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-13 identifies South Higuera Street, Tank Farm Road, Broad Street, Buckley Road, and Vachell Road as having high to moderate scenic value. The Community Design chapter presents goals, guidelines and standards to preserve significant views and view corridors through sensitive planning of the location and form of development. These overall goals and policies are relevant to the transportation system. A significant utility undergrounding project for Broad Street (from Orcutt Road south to the Airport) has wasbeen identified and a joint effort by the County and City is under way for its completion has been substantially completed, which is anticipated to be in 2007. 6.2.7 Transit Plan Transit service to the Airport Area is a critical element of the transportation and circulation plan. The policies of the General Plan circulation element support the need to develop and expand transit to, and establish transit service standards for, new development areas. The General Plan requires expansion of transit service to meet its goals of increasing all in-city trips in San Luis Obispo to 8% by the year 2010 over the current base usage of about 6% to 7%. With the employment-intensive land uses proposed for the Airport Area, there is potential for increased levels of transit ridership. With a capacity for over 10,000 employees in business park and services/manufacturing land uses, the Airport Area has the potential for substantial transit ridership. About 95% of the non-residential land use in the Airport Area is within a 1/4-mile walk of an arterial or collector street, the maximum walking distance for the average transit rider. More than half of the developable land use in the Airport Area could be within 1/4-mile of a transit stop (when optimally sited), corresponding to about 1,000 to 2,500 riders per day. 6.2.8 Proposed Transit routes The City last updated its Short Range Transit Plan in 2009. The 2009 SRTP proposed modification in the southern area of the city based upon assumed growth that was projected prior to the recession after 2008. As such, the possible transit route modifications discussed in that document will likely not occur in the fashion anticipated. The City is working with RTA to develop a joint SRTP for the central county area (2014-15) that will help determine the best routings and agency to provide services in the area. The following briefly discusses the 2009 SRTP within the area. It is important to note that the SRTP is only a 5 year planning document and may not show all routes that may be necessary upon buildout. Service to and from SLO Airport may be more efficiently and economically served by RTA. Actual route implementation and location will be determined by the City of San Luis Obispo in consultation with SLOCOG, RTA and the county as the Airport and Margarita areas develop. The 2009 SRTP recommended the following route modifications to the Airport Area in the near-term time frame (dependent on development occurring): • Modification of Route 1 to create a loop that runs from the Downtown to Broad Street then Orcutt to Laurel Lane then return along the same route to Downtown. Extend to Foothill area to reduce transfers. • Modify Route 2 for better access along Higuera and extend to Cal Poly to reduce transfers in Downtown • Modification of Route 3 to create a loop that runs from the Downtown to Johnson Avenue, Orcutt Road, Tank Farm Road and Broad Street to access SLO Airport and then return along the same route to Downtown. Attachment 5
PC1 - 205
6-14 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN • Create a new cross town route (along Tank Farm Road, Broad Street Orcutt and Johnson to reduce transfers in Downtown and reestablish service along Broad Street resulting from Route 3 realignment. • Routing in the MASP would be determined when Prado Road Extension is completed and when/if Santa Fe Road has been extended to Prado. The development of the Airport Area transit plan assessed three options of transit service expansion: • Extension of existing SLO-Transit routes serving southern San Luis Obispo; • Creation of a new north-south route connecting the Airport and Margarita areas to the downtown; and • Creation of east-west circulation loops serving southern San Luis Obispo and connecting to the existing north-south routes and to the downtown transit hub. While each option has advantages and disadvantages, the third option is proposed as the best transit plan to serve the development areas for the following primary reasons: • Separate east-west transit routes will not degrade existing routes by increasing their service areas and average rider trip length; • An east-west route serving southern San Luis Obispo can provide shorter headways between buses, and improve the ability for timed transfers with existing north-south routes; • Provides an attractive and direct connection between the Specific Plan employment centers and the downtown, and • Connects residential, retail and employment uses at potentially higher frequencies for short mid-day trips for everyday errands. While creating a new east-west route appears to be the best future transit route to serve the area, actual route implementation and location will be determined by the City of San Luis Obispo as the Airport and Margarita areas develop. Amendments to this the routes could include using the future Prado Road connection to Broad Street to allow better connection with residential General Plan amendment projects currently being considered by the City. Figure 6-3 illustrates the proposed transit planshows protential routes as they are depicted in the 2009 SRTP. and its relation to existing SLO-Transit routes and bus stops. East-west circulation is divided into two loop routes serving the west and east sides of the Specific Plan area, with a route overlap within the Margarita AreaMargarita Area, and the downtown transit hub. A timed transfer point between the routes would be located within the Margarita Area. The west side loop serves: • The Prado Road corridor from Madonna Road and the San Luis Marketplace to the Margarita Area main street; • Madonna Road from Prado Road to Los Osos Valley Road; • Los Osos Valley Road from Madonna Road to South Higuera Street; • South Higuera Street from Los Osos Valley Road to Prado Road, and South Higuera Street to the downtown transit hub. The east side loop serves: • The Prado Road corridor from the Margarita Area main street to Santa Fe Road (this route may need to be modified/relocated if existing residential General Plan amendment projects along Broad Street and Orcutt Road are adopted); • Santa Fe Road from Prado Road to Buckley Road; • Buckley Road from Santa Fe Road to Broad Street; • Broad Street from Buckley Road to Tank Farm Road, including service to the airport; • Tank Farm Road from Broad Street to Santa Fe Road; and Attachment 5
PC1 - 206
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-15 • Broad Street to the downtown transit hub. These two routes serve the maximum amount of developable land proposed in both the Airport and Margarita areas. Connections to existing SLO-Transit routes (Routes 2, 3 and 63) can occur on South Higuera Street and Broad Street, or at the downtown transit hub. Further, the proposed west side route can connect with Routes 4 and 5 on Madonna Road. The South Higuera Street bus stops provide connections to the regional CCAT transit system. RTA currently serves the area by local access (Route 10) along lower Higuera Street (hourly) and US 101. This route is not anticipated to change much in the near-term however, RTA has identified the need to reduce stops along this route to address delays. Coordination between RTA and SLO Transit routes and service to the area will be reviewed as part of the joint SRTP effort. Service and Capital Requirements Servicing these routes will require four buses (two for each route) assuming twenty-minute headways and a forty-minute cycle time. Bus stops should be located approximately every quarter mile or as determined by the City. Bus stop installation of pullouts, shelter and other appurtenances will be the requirement of adjacent development and should be installed on both side s of arterial and collector streets in the AASP. 6.3 CIRCULATION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION PROGRAMS Program 6.3.A: Truck Routes Amend the Circulation Element to expand the City’s truck route network to include Sante Fe Road from Buckley Road to Prado Road (extended) and Buckley Road between South Higuera and Broad Streets. Program 6.3.B: Transit Plan Implement theAs part of the next SRTP update, revised the Airport Area transit plan when based upon anticipated development in the Airport and Margarita areas combined reach ain a manner and level that can support transit service. Transit service will be incrementally implemented (in terms of hours of operation and frequency) consistent with development and, roadway phasingextensions without endangering state transit funding and farebox recovery requirements. The City shall anticipate development and, subject to available transit funding, extend service into the growth areas prior to demand developing. monitor and evaluate the level of development within a 1,000 foot walking distance around the proposed transit routes and potential bus stop locations. When development levels reach transit-supportive densities of 50-60 employees per acre and 7-15 dwelling units per acre, and logical road connections have been completed, portions of the transit plan should be incrementally implemented to serve areas with these densities. Modifications to the transit plan may be approved by the Public Works Director, if conditions warrant modification to the proposed system or implementation of a different system, without amendment of this Specific Plan. Program 6.3.C: Transit Capital Improvement Funding Capital costs associated with providing new buses to serve the Airport Area will be partially funded by citywide TIF contributions for planning area development. as determined by the Airport Area finance plan. In addition to State and Federal grants, oOn-site transit improvements such as transit stop facilities will be the responsibility of adjacent landowners when they develop their properties. Program 6.3.D: Transfer Points Attachment 5
PC1 - 207
6-16 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Establish a timed transfer point on Margarita Road within the Margarita Specific Plan Area, and consider potential transfer points within the South Higuera Street corridor (either at Prado Road or Tank Farm Road), the Madonna Road corridor (at the Prado Road intersection between Central Coast Plaza and San Luis Marketplace), and on the Broad Street corridor (at Tank Farm Road). Program 6.3.E: Joint Bus StopServices Work with Central Coast Area Transit (CCAT) RTA to establish a joint bus stop on South Higuera Street for CCAT’s Routes 9 and 10, serving the region north and south of San Luis Obispo. This stop should be located at or near the intersection of South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road.service in the AASP that promotes transit use. Program 6.3.F: Bicycle Transportation Plan Amend the City’s Bicycle Transportation Plan (and vice versa) to include the proposed Airport Area facilities. Program 6.3.G: Development Review Requirements In order to mitigate air, noise and traffic impacts associated with development of the Airport Area Specific Plan, ensure private development participation in the implementation of the plan by requiring the construction of on-street bicycle lanes as part of development street frontage improvements, and require development to dedicate and construct off-street paths where their alignments are within private property. Require development adjacent to bus stops to construct turnouts and bus stops (including shelters) conforming to the bus stop standards in SLO Transit’s Short Range Transit Plan. Project may be require to construct intersection and other street improvements in proportion to their development size and location. Program 6.3.H: Creek Setbacks Class I bicycle paths adjacent to riparian corridors should be located outside of setbacks required to protect creekbanks and riparian vegetation. A vegetative buffer shall be provided on the creek side of paths and berms to ensure visual access to riparian corridors while controlling pedestrian and bicycle access. Program 6.3.I: Class I and Class II Bicycle Lanes Class I bicycle paths and Class II bicycle lanes shall be constructed, signed and marked to meet or exceed the minimum standards established by the California Department of Transportation Highway Design Manual and the City of San Luis Obispo design standards. Class 1 Paths should be a minimum of 3.6 meters121 feet in width with 2’ shoulders, except in hillside areas where grading would cause visual impacts or along creeks where space is limited. The Director of Public Works can approve narrower paths where topographical features or other limiting features do not allow standard width installations. In these areas, paths may be 2.581010 feet meters wide or narrower, but should be at least 1.8 meters6 feet wide but may require additional design features for safety reasons. Class II bicycle lanes shall be designed in accordance with the City Bicycle Plan and should be 2 meters6 to 7 feet in width as shown in roadway cross sections, with appropriate pavement markings, buffer areas and signs. Program 6.3.J: Intersection Crossings Where Class I paths cross the major streets, i.e. Tank Farm Road, Santa Fe Road, and Buckley Road, the path should be aligned to intersections (as shown in Figure 6-2) so that pedestrians and bicyclists use intersection crossings. These points provide connections between Class I paths and Class II on-street bicycle lanes. Attachment 5
PC1 - 208
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-17 Program 6.3.K: Public Bikeway Construction The City or County will implement Class I and II bikeways that are not adjacent to development or are in the unincorporated area outside of the Specific Plan area (e.g., along Buckley and Santa Fe Roads, and along the East Branch of San Luis Obispo Creek south of Buckley Road) as part of their Capital Improvement Program. This provision does not reduce the possibility that development may need to complete these segments as part of their individual environmental review assessment. Program 6.3.L: Transit Facility Requirements As part of the development review process, the City will require new development to provide for transit facilities along or adjacent to the project frontage. Such facilities include but are not limited to transit stops, shelters, pads, pull-outs and informational kiosks, as determined to be necessary by the Public Works Director. 6.4 DESIGN GUIDELINES AND STANDARDS The guidelines and standards that follow are more specific interpretations of how the circulation plans discussed above are to be applied to roadway design as development occurs in the Airport Area. The format in this chapter uses goals, guidelines and standards to provide design direction. Goals are statements of a desired end state, and are intended to provide a general overall direction to landowners, developers, city staff, and decision-makers. Guidelines refer to methods or approaches that may be considered towards achieving goals. Typically, guidelines are general, and often qualitative in nature. They are open to interpretation depending on specific conditions and results of technical analysis, and are intended to leave significant discretion as to how they are satisfied. Guidelines should be followed unless an alternative design would better implement the goals and policies of the plan. Standards, on the other hand, set forth finite actions or requirements that must be fulfilled when designing and constructing transportation facilities. The standards established in this Specific Plan are intended to augment San Luis Obispo’s engineering design standards. 6.4.1 REGIONAL HIGHWAY Regional highways are State-owned and maintained facilities intended to carry higher volumes of traffic, interconnect the specific plan area to adjacent communities as well asand serve as primary freight routes. Regional highways are significant in that they connect different parts of the region and accommodate substantial through traffic. As State facilities, regional highways are subject to the standards established by the California Department of Transportation and the Highway 227 Task Force Plan (2003). Goal: 6.4.1 Improve Broad Street (State Route 227) as an urban arterial conforming to State design standards. Guidelines A. Regional highways have landscaped medians and parkrowsparkways. B. Regional highways have bicycle lanes as part of the local and regional bicycle transportation system. C. Intersections on regional highways have turn pockets within the median. D. Regional highways have sidewalks on both sides of the street separated from travel lanes with tree-lined parkrowsparkways. E. Access in controlled through access management programs, intersection locations are minimized and managed for safety and efficiency. Attachment 5
PC1 - 209
6-18 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Attachment 5
PC1 - 210
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-19 Formatted: Font: GaramondAttachment 5
PC1 - 211
6-20 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 6-4 Key to Roadway Cross-Sections Standards Figure 6-4 illustrates the section of Broad Street to which the following standards apply. 6.4.1.1 Broad Street shall be widened to four lanes from Buckley Road to the current four lane segment. Broad Street, from Buckley Road to Orcutt Road, shall have a minimum right-of-way of 33.2108-meters feet containing a 4.314-meter foot wide outside lane, and a 3.712-meter foot wide inside lane in each direction. Each side of the road shall have a 26-meter feet bike lane, vertical curbs, a 26-meter foot landscaped parkrow parkway and a 1.55-meter foot sidewalkas shown in Figure 6-5. Additional right of way may be necessary at intersections that need additional turn lanes. The length of Broad Street from Buckley Road to Orcutt Road shall have a 516-meter foot wide landscaped median, with 0.62-meter foot shy distance between the face of the median curb and inside travel lanes, as shown in Figure 6-6. if required by Caltrans, and class II the 26-meter foot bike lanes. may be replaced with 2.48-meter foot shoulders with parking prohibitions. 6.4.1.2 Right foof way on Broad Street shall be preserved to accommodate future widening to six lanes from Prado Road to Tank Farm Road along with appropriate transitions north of Prado. Broad Street, from Prado Road to Tank Farm Road shall initially be developed with the cross sections identified in Additional wideningIncreasing lanes along Broad Street to six lanes of Broad Street should only be implemented when level of service thresholds are exceeded as established in the City Circulation Element. When changes are made to Broad Street or any other arterial, the City should give equal consideration in project design to bicycle and pedestrian travel along the corridor. Figure 6-5 Regional Highway-Typical Broad Street Cross Section 6.4.1.3 Access along Broad Street should be controlled where possible with the number of driveways limited or shared with adjacent properties. Turn locations should be strategically located to promote street efficiency, traffic safety and also accessibility to adjacent properties. At street intersections and key driveway intersections, a 3.612-meter foot wide turning pocket shall be installed in the median. A “median nose”, a minimum of 1.24 meters feet wide, shall be retained adjacent to turning pockets. This Formatted: Font: Bold, ItalicAttachment 5
PC1 - 212
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-21 turn pocket width may be reduced at locations where right of way constraints restrict the ability to attain desired street width. 6.4.1.4 On-street parking is not permitted on Broad Street south of Orcutt Road. 6.4.2 PARKWAY ARTERIALS Parkway arterials are high-capacity facilities intended for mobility for all modes of travel. Typically, these streets link different areas of the City, and are oftencan be regionally significant corridors carrying through traffic due to their connectivity. The main intent of the Parkway Arterial design is to promote mobility as well as have more planting both in the median and on each side of the road. Goal 6.4.2: Install landscaped medians (concrete perimeter curbs, irrigation systems and tie-ins to the water distribution system) and parkways either by landowners at the time they develop their properties or improve streets, or, if a fee is paid by the developer, by the City as part of a coordinated Capital capital Improvements improvements Programprogram. Guidelines A. Parkway arterials have landscaped medians and parkways buffering pedestrian facilities from traffic. B. Parkway arterials provide bicycle lanes, and are an important part of the City’s bicycle transportation system. C. The number of intersections arenumber of intersections is limited to maintain capacity, and direct property access from parkway arterials is discouraged. D. In order to maintain the open, rural character of the two-lane section of Tank Farm Road, the landscaping should be more informal and natural in character. Plantings should generally maintain a low profile that preserves views of adjacent open space. Informal clustering of native tree species should be provided, consistent with maintaining key views. Low maintenance vegetation should be used. Figure 6-6 Parkway Arterial – Conceptual Typical Urban Tank Farm Road Cross-Section (4 lanes) Standards 6.4.2.1 Tank Farm Road is designated a parway parkway arterial and will have a continuous, four-lane, urban cross-section. 6.4.2.2 Tank Farm Road shall have a minimum right-of-way of 30.496108 metersfeet containing four 3.511 or 12 meterfoot travel lanes, two 2-meter6 or 7-foot bike lanes separated from the travel lane with a 2 foot wide Attachment 5
PC1 - 213
6-22 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN marked buffer zone and a 4.4-meter14-foot raised and landscaped median.as depicted in Figure 6-6. Medians shall be constructed with 0.6-meter2-foot shy distance between face of curb and inside travel lanes. Each side of the road will have 1.6-meter5-foot tree-lined parkrows parkways between the curb and 1.8-meter6-foot wide pedestrian paths (Figure 6-6). Right-of-way at intersections will varyies depending on additional turn lane requirements, and transitions and bicycle and pedestrian facilities. from two to four lanes. 6.4.2.3 On-street parking is not permitted on Tank Farm Road. 6.4.3 ARTERIALS Arterials are intended for mobility for all modes of travel. These streets interconnect major activity centers and residential areas of the Citycity. Arterials maintain limited access, but allow more intersections and direct land access than parkway arterials. Buckley Road is the only arterial in the planning area vicinity. As shown on Figure 6-5, the south side of Buckley Road will continue to be located in the unincorporated area. Thus, the County will continue to have some responsibility for maintenance and improvements to Buckley Road, unless both sides of the street are annexed. The Specific Plan provides design standards for enhancing Buckley Road because it will play a significant role in establishing the character of the area as it builds out. The City should work with the County to establish consistent design roadway standards for Buckley Road to design a compatible and seemlessseamless roadway appearance between the two jurisdictions. Based upon the land uses contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan, the The proposed improvements are not required proposed to accommodate projected traffic, but are also recommended primarily to provide continuous pedestrian and bicycle facilities south of the planning area, and to enhance the visual character of the roadway. Turn lanes will be necessary at intersections and driveways to maintain safety along the corridor. The County is encouraged to implement these design standards when overseeing road improvements and other development outside the City limits but adjacent to the planning area and Buckley Road. Improvements to Buckley Road adjacent to the Avila Ranch as well as the extension of Buckley Road will be the responsibility of Avial Ranch when it develops. Goal 6.4.3: Improve Buckley Road to arterial standards while maintaining a street character consistent with the area’s rural setting. Guidelines A. In developed areas, arterials Buckley Road shall have landscaped medians and parkrows parkways buffering pedestrian facilities from traffic. B. Arterials provide bicycle lanes and are an important part of the City’s bicycle transportation system. C. The number of intersections is limited to maintain capacity, and direct property access from arterials is discouraged but may allowed subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. Attachment 5
PC1 - 214
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-23 Figure 6-7 Arterial – Typical Ultimate Buckley Road Cross-section in Developed Areas D. Low maintenance native vegetation permitted and encouraged. Standards Figure 6-5 7 shows the locations of the various cross-sections discussed below. 6.4.3.1 Buckley Road shall be extended as a two-lane rural arterial from its current western terminus at Vachell Lane to South Higuera Street consistent with Figure 6-7. A continuous two way left turn lane may not be required for the entire reach of this extension but turn lanes shall be provided for driveways and intersections as required by the Director of Public Works. Timing of extension will be based on achieving traffic volumes and conditions that justify the improvements or when the intervening properties between Vachell Lane and South Higuera Street are redeveloped. Setbacks shall be provided on both sides of the road to allow for expansion to a four-lane roadway if future traffic volumes and conditions justify additional lanes. 6.4.3.2 Adjacent to development, Buckley Road shall have a two-lane cross-section and a minimum right-of-way of 25 80 meters feet comprised of two 4.615-meter foot travel lanes, one 2-meter6 foot bike lane in eastbound direction, a 4.6 meter15 foot wide multi-use trail in the west-bound direction, and a 4.414-meter foot two-way left turn lane. Each side of the road will have a 1.6-meter5-foot planting area between curb and pedestrian facilities (Figure 6-7).be consistent with Figure 6-7. The roadway shal be design to minimize impact to adjacent creeks and open space where possible. Setbacks shall be provided on both sides of the road to allow for expansion to a four-lane roadway if future traffic volumes and conditions justify additional lanes. 6.4.3.3 On road segments adjacent to undeveloped areas, Buckley Road shall have a two-lane cross-section as consistent with shown in Figure 6-8, and a minimum right-of-way of 35.6100 meters feet comprised of two travel lanes, bike lanes, and swale drainage. On the north side of Buckley Road in undeveloped areas, outside of the 9-meter20 foot graded shoulder, there shall be a 4.6-meter12-foot wide multi-use path. Setbacks shall be provided on both sides of the road to allow for expansion to a four-lane roadway if future traffic volumes and conditions justify additional lanes. 6.4.3.4 On-street parking is not permitted along Buckley Road. Attachment 5
PC1 - 215
6-24 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN A Figure 6-8 Arterial – Typical Buckley Road Cross-Section in Undeveloped Areas. 6.4.4 COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL COLLECTORS Collector streets function to collect traffic from local streets and fronting property and channel the traffic to arterial streets. Collector streets have lower design speeds than arterial streets, and require less right-of-way. Collector streets have fewer limitations on intersections and driveways than higher order streets. The number and length of collector streets should be minimized to retain the rural character of the Airport Area. Goal 6.4.4: Establish a system of collector streets that connect arterials and local streets. As part of that system, extend Santa Fe Road north to the Prado Road extension and introduce a new collector through the property property west of the Chevron property from Tank Farm Road to the Business Park area in the Margarita Arealinking with Sueldo Street. Formatted: Font: GaramondAttachment 5
PC1 - 216
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-25 Guidelines A. Design commercial and industrial collector streets to accommodate larger freight transportation vehicles and buses. B. Minimize the number and length of collector streets by providing the most direct connection possible between local and arterial streets. B.C. Roundabouts are an acceptable form of intersection traffic control on collector streets with other collector streets and local streets, but must be designed to accommodate trucks and buses. C.D. In commercial and industrial areas with substantial truck traffic and numerous driveways, collector Collector streets should include a center left turn lane. D.E. Specific guidelines for commercial and industrial collectors with center turn lanes include: 1. The City should restrict direct access to collector streets to adjacent streets and major driveways in order to minimize traffic conflict and promote capacity of the collector facility; and 1.2. Landscaping and roadway design shall be install so as not to reduce visibility at driveways and intersections below safe design standards. 2. Center turn lanes are required on streets exceeding a projected 5,500 vehicles per day and where driveway and intersection frequency is 4 per mile or greater; and 3. Center turn lanes are encouraged on all collector streets projected to be below 5,500 vehicles per day and at major driveways to adjacent parcels; and Attachment 5
PC1 - 217
6-26 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 4. At the approach to intersections and driveways on Santa Fe Road and the Unocal diagonal collector. 5.3. Collector streets should have landscaped parkrows parkways and pedestrian facilities on both sides of the street. Standards 6.4.4.1 Commercial and industrial collectors (not shown as a diagram in this plan) without center turn lanes,lanes shall have a minimum right-of-way of 18 meters60 feet containing two 3.5 meter113 foot travel lanes and two 2-meter6-foot bike lanes. Each side of the road will have 2-meter 7-foot tree-lined parkwaysrows between the curb and a 1.5-meter5-foot wide sidewalk, as shown in Figure 6-9 unless an alternative cross section is approved by the Director of public Works.. (Need to add figure 6-9) 6.4.4.2 Commercial and industrial collectors,collectors with turn lanes/median (except Santa Fe north of Tank Farm Road) shall be consistent with Figure 6-11. shall have a minimum right-of-way of 29.4 meters92-feet containing two 3.5 meter11-foot travel lanes, and two 2-meter6-foot bike lanes. Each side of the road will have 2-meter6-foot tree-lined parkrows parkways between the curb and a 1.5-meter5-foot wide sidewalk, as shown in Figure 6-12. This cross-section shall be used on the Unocal Collector (Sueldo collector) and on Santa Fe Road. Figure 6-10 shown interim improvements that are acceptable until the ultimate design shown in Figure 6-11 is warranted. 6.4.4.3 On-street parking is not permitted on Santa Fe, and the Unocal CSueldo collector Roadroad., and on other typical other cCommercial and iIndustrial roads collectors unless may include parking if additional right of way (and appropriate transition) is provided by adjacent development subject to approval of the Director of Public Works. Figures 6-11 through 6-13 detail typical commercial and industrial streets with and without parking. 6.4.5 LOCAL STREETS Local streets provide direct access to fronting property and channel the traffic to higher order streets. Local streets have the lowest design speeds and are intended for low traffic volumes. Local streets outside of industrial areas can have narrow travel lanes and can be designed to slow traffic with traffic calming measures such as curb extensions, on-street parking, textured pavement at crosswalks, and roundabout intersections. Local streets serving industrial areas that anticipate truck traffic should have wider travel lanes (minimum 4.2-meters143-feet) and only traffic calming features that are consistent with appropriate truck and emergency vehicle turning radiidesign. Goal 6.4.5: Develop a system of interconnecting local streets to provide local property access, accommodate trucks, and encourage walking and bicycling in an attractive environment. Guidelines A. Local property access should be provided from local streets, rather than higher order streets. Attachment 5
PC1 - 218
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-27 B. Encourage walking and bicycling along local streets by providing a safe and attractive pedestrian environment, and by minimizing traffic volumes and speeds. C. Local streets do not require bike lanes, but could be established as Class III bicycle routes. D. On-street parking is encouraged on local streets but is not required. . Standard 6.4.5.1 Local streets shall have a minimum right-of-way of 20.467 meters-feet containing two 4.2-meter14-foot travel lanes and two 2.5- meter8-foot parking lanes. Each side of the road will have 2-meter6-foot, tree-lined parkrows between the curb and a 1.5-meter5-foot wide sidewalk, asbe consistent with Figure 6-12. shown in Figure 6-11. 6.4.6 LANDSCAPED MEDIANS Landscaped medians are included in the standards for Regional Highways, Parkway Arterials, and Arterials. Medians may be required along Santa Fe Road and the Unocal Collector Road depending on adjacent development driveway spacing and whether roundabouts are used as intersection traffic control. Medians serve many safety and capacity functions, and may provide space for utilities such as street lighting. Landscaping within medians increases the buffer between opposing travel directions, reduces glare from oncoming headlights, and provides an attractive corridor for driving, bicycling and walking. Landscaped medians meet the scenic roadway policy to enhance the scenic value of such corridors. The type of plantings in medians, as well as the care and maintenance of plantings, is important for the long-term viability of landscaped medians. Figure 6-11 Typical Local Commercial/Industrial Cross-Section Goal 6.4.6: Create properly designed medians and parkways with long-term maintenance responsibility established at the time roadway is developed. Guidelines A. As part of immediate or near-term activities and with input from the ARC and the Tree Committee, the City should prepare a detailed landscape plan for all medians and parkways within designated corridors. B. Property owners are required to install permanent landscaped medians (concrete perimeter curbs, irrigation systems and tie-ins to the water distribution system) at the time of development and road construction. B.C. Attachment 5
PC1 - 219
6-28 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN C.D. The City will perform on-going maintenance of median landscaping and irrigation systems. Reclaimed water should be used for irrigation purposes where available. D.E. Existing development projects that do not meet the proposed parkway standards because development originally occurred in the County, or was developed under an interim annexation agreement, will not be required to redevelop their property frontages unless additional right-of-way needs to be dedicated and improved in conjunction with future development, the property substantially redevelops and a new landscape plan is required for the property or a public improvement project is undertaken to retrofit the existing street. In order to provide a consistently designed frontage in such areas, the City may consider parkway improvements as a future capital improvement program. 6.4.7 INTERSECTIONS AND DRIVEWAYS Goal 6.4.7: Provide an access management program regulatory framework for intersection spacing, roundabout locations, intersection modifications and driveway design that will contribute to an effecientefficient, safe and multi-modal transportation system. Driveway Design The design of driveways, including turning radii, width, number of driveways per property, percentage of frontage utilized by driveways, thickness, and materials shall at a minimum conform to the City’s engineering standards, zoning code, and other standards in this Specific Plan. Access control is necessary in the AASP area to promote circulation and reduce roadway widths. Driveway Design Guidelines A. In commercial and industrial areas, driveway designs should accommodateshould accommodate all types of vehicles that may access a site. B. Alternative or decorative paving material is encouraged in the construction of driveways, as approved by the City. C. Driveways should be consolidated wherever feasible. D. Reciprocal access and shared driveways should be encouraged where feasible to maintain carrying capacity of adjacent streets and reduce traffic conflicts. E. Driveway throat depths on adjacent development should be kept clear from conflicts (such as cars backing up from adjacent parking spaces or drive aisles) for a minimum of 6.0 m (20’).20 feet. On major project driveways this throat depth should be increased accordingly to reduce the likelihood of queingqueuing on the adjacent street system. Intersection Modifications As development occurs within the Airport and Margarita Areas and throughout the City, traffic levels at existing street intersections will increase and along with it congestion, traffic conflicts and delay. To maintain acceptable traffic flow, intersection modifications will be needed. Intersection Modification Guidelines A. The intersection lane configurations developed for the Specific Plan should be used as a minimum to guide the requirement for additional right-of-way and roadway reconstruction needed to make future intersection modifications that meet required LOS standards of the Circulation Element. Attachment 5
PC1 - 220
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-29 B. An intersection will warrant modification when the average delay at the intersection exceeds Level of Service “D” as determined by applying the most current methodology sanctioned by the Transportation Research Board (TRB)consistent with the City’s traffic Impact Study guidelines, as required by the Circulation Element of the City or as part of adjacent property redevelopmentdevelopment. RoudaboutsRoundabouts Roundabouts are a desirable form of intersection control in the Specific Plan area, and their use is strongly encouraged at select locations along arterial streets, and especially on collector and local streets. Roundabouts generally provide more capacity than two-way or all-way stop controlled intersections and signalized intersections without turn bays. Single-lane roundabouts have capacities as high as 2,400 vehicles per hour, compared to 1,300 to 1,800 vehicles per hour for stop-sign-controlled intersections, and 3,500 vehicles per hour for signalized intersections. Roundabouts are designed on a case-by-case basis reflecting the unique characteristics of the intersection, design vehicles, traffic volumes, and capacity needs, thus, there is no single prototypical roundabout. It is intended that the strategic use of roundabouts in the Specific Plan area will defer the need for higher levels of traffic control. The following design guidelines illustrate general provisions and minimum design parameters for roundabouts. Candidate locations to be considered at the time of development should include the followingfor roundabouts include the following (Figure 6-1): • Santa Fe Road intersections with local streets, located north and south of Tank Farm Road; and • The intersection of Sueldo at tank Farm Road • The intersection of the proposed local road (connetiong Industrial Way to tank Farm) connection at Tank Farm Road west of Broad Street • Unocal Chevron property diagonal collector intersections Formatted: HighlightAttachment 5
PC1 - 221
6-30 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN with local streets. Other Intersections that are good candidatesthat will include for interim roundabouts (until traffic volumes using the intersection exceed 3,700 entering vehicles per hour) include (Figure 6-1): • Prado Road at Santa Fe Road and UncocalUnocal diagonalthe Sueldo collector street; • Prado Road at local and collector street intersections within the Margarita Specific Plan area; and • Tank Farm Road at Santa Fe Road and UncocalUnocalSueldo diagonal collector street. Roundabout Standards 6.4.7.1 Roundabouts may be used asshould be considered an alternative form of unsignalized intersection control on collector or local streets in the Specific Plan area. Roundabouts are to be designed using the latest versions of guidelines established by the Federal Highway Administration and Caltrans. Two such document s include: “Roundabouts: An Informational Guide (2000)” and the State of California Department of Transportation “Design Information Bulletin - #80-01.” Roundabout design shall be to the approval of the Public Works Director. or utilize State of California current standards. 6.4.7.2 Proposals for roundabouts within the Specific Plan area shall require a capacity analysis and feasibility study, and are subject to review and approval by the City Engineer. 6.4.8 PEDESTRIAN AND BICYCLE FACILITIES Establishing a successful multimodal circulation system is dependent on providing a safe and functional environment for modes of travel other than the automobile. While past business park and service/manufacturing designs typically have paid little attention to pedestrians and bicyclists, the guidelines and policies in the Specific Plan and City Circulation Element encourage significant integration of these modes to mitigate the Specific Plan’s trip generation and traffic impacts on the area’s circulation. Goal 6.4.8: Encourage a safe, comfortable, convenient, and attractive pedestrian circulation system and develop a system of facilities that supports bicycle use in the planning area for commuting and recreation. Pedestrian-Friendly Streets Establishing significant pedestrian activity in the planning area and promoting accessing to the transit system is dependent upon creating streets that are safe, attractive, comfortable and convenient for the pedestrian. The pedestrian components of the street extends primarily from the vehicle travelway to the edge of the right-of-way, but also includescomponents of the street extend primarily from the vehicle traveled way to the edge of the right-of-way, but also include portions of the traveled way where pedestrians need to cross. The elements that comprise the pedestrian environment include the sidewalk, on-street parking, street trees and buffer landscaping, street lights, signs, intersection crossings and restrictions, and public transit facilities. Pedestrian Friendly Guidelines Attachment 5
PC1 - 222
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-31 A. As part of facility planning and design, seek to provide a continuous, inter-connected travel corridor for pedestrians that serves the same destinations as automobiles. B. As part of the development review process, seek to provide convenient pedestrian access to commercial and industrial buildings from the street frontage. C. As part of the development review process, provide convenient pedestrian connections to transit and between land uses and transit facilities. D. As part of facility planning and design, provide street trees and other landscaping in the parkway between street and sidewalk to provide: separation from the travelway, climatic control, and aesthetic enhancement. E. As part of the development review process, in commercial and residential areas where pedestrian traffic is anticipated at night, require pedestrian-scale lighting along public and private walkways and paths. F. Encourage on-street parking on all local streets to provide separation between pedestrians and travel lanes. G. As part of facility planning and design, consider special paving treatments at intersection crosswalks to aesthetically enhance and separate the pedestrian system from the vehicular travelway. H. As part of the development review process, require development to provide continuous sidewalk improvements or off-street paths along all street corridors, and close gaps in the existing pedestrian system. Standard 6.4.8.1 The minimum width of all sidewalks and pedestrian paths are as shown in the right-of-way cross-sections for each street type (Figures 6-5 through 6-11). Bicycle Facilities Providing a safe, convenient and attractive bicycle circulation system is considered to be an important amenity that will enhance the proposed commercial development, reduce vehicle trips and increase the community’s appreciation of the open space resource. Bicycle Facilities Guidelines A. Ensure that clear and convenient connections are made between Class I, Class II and Class III bicycle facilities. B. Encourage developers to provide connections from new development sites and the planning area street system to the Class I corridors. C. During the development review process, require all Class I trail corridors within the planning area to be dedicated to the City as a condition of project approval. D. Place a high priority on completing key linkages between the City’s existing system and the proposed Airport Area and Margarita Area bicycle systems. Key linkages include, Damon Garcia Sportsfields, the intersection of Santa Fe and Tank Farm Roads, Prado Road and the associated Open Space, Creek Corridors, Avila Ranch and Buckley Road. E. In order to encourage bicycle use by planning area employees, new development shall include secure bicycle parking and changing and showering facilities on site. F. A signage system should be incorporated into the bicycle system, that identifies the bicycle corridor, key connections and destinations, and provides safety warnings at intersections. The signage system should be designed to be in scale with pedestrian and bicycle use, and in keeping with the rural character of the area. Attachment 5
PC1 - 223
6-32 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Standard 6.4.8.2 Class I bicycle/multi-use trails shall have a minimum 3.511 to 12 foot meter cross-section, 2’ shoulders and shall be designed to meet or exceed minimum standards set by the California Highway Design Manual. Trails will be designed to support City maintenance vehicles, to the approval of the Public Works Director. 6.4.9 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT Transportation Demand Management (TDM) is a set of strategies, measures and incentives to encourage people to walk, bicycle, use public transportation, carpool or use other alternatives to driving alone in a car. TDM measures produce greater mobility from existing transportation systems, maximize the efficiency of the current transportation infrastructure, improve air quality, boost economic efficiency, save energy, and reduce traffic congestion. TDM measures are generally targeted towards employee commutes at the workplace end of the trip. Goal 6.4.9: Maximize the use of Transportation Demand Measures at the employer level. Guidelines A. Because the Airport Area will generate a concentration of employment, TDM measures need to play an important role in reducing travel demand. Proposed measures that would be most effective in the Airport Area include: 1. Vanpool-carpool preferential parking 2. Increase in van pools and reduced van pool fares 3. Construction of dedicated bike lanes and off-street paths that provide contiguous connections to the rest of the City 4. Amend city codes to provide incentives for TDM measures in new development projects 5. Transit subsidies for employees for both City and regional transit systems 6. Encourage, and provide infrastructure for, telecommuting 7. Increase compressed work schedules 8. Cash incentives to employees who enter into agreements to leave their cars at home and use other means to commute to work 9. Require employers to join the existing County “Transportation Choices” program or form a Transportation Management Association (TMA). 10. Require large employers and/or TMAs to develop alternative commute programs that include guaranteed rides home, carpool and vanpool matching services, information and marketing resources for commute alternative (websites), financial incentive programs for use of alternative modes, changing and showering facilities, flexible work schedules, compressed work weeks, and telecommuting options. One of the critical elements of a successful TDM program is the availability of frequent and high-quality transit services. Implementation of the transit plan (Section 6.2.7) will provide transit service to the Airport Area at the same level of service currently experienced along the South Higuera and Broad Street corridors. An advantage of employers forming a TMA is the ability to augment public transit with private shuttle buses at a relatively low cost to employers. Attachment 5
PC1 - 224
CIRCULATION & TRANSPORTATION | 6-33 Standards 6.4.9.1 Require employers with 25 or more employees to develop voluntary TDM programs that have the capacity to achieve the General Plan’s program of an average vehicle ridership (AVR) of 1.60 or greater. 6.4.9.2 Require employers with 25 or more employees to designate an in-house transportation coordinator that provides information and assistance in planning and establishing transportation options for employees. 6.4.9.3 Require employers with 25 or more employees to develop TDM programs and submit to the City for approval and monitoring. 6.4.9.4 Any employer of 25 or more employees establishing a worksite within the Airport Area will be required to submit to the City plans for a voluntary Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. At a minimum, the plan must include the following information and measures: • An estimate of the employer’s base year average vehicle ridership (AVR); • Designation of a transportation coordinator from the employee pool; • A new hire packet of commute alternative information; • Participation in SLO Transits Flash Pass Program and making transit information available to employees; • A guaranteed ride home program; • Ridematching assistance either in-house matches or through an outside organization such as the Ride-on Transportation Management Association; and • Preferential carpool and vanpool parking. 6.4.10 Timing of Improvements All traffic mitigation measures, taken as a whole at full build out of the Airport Area, assure compliance with the Circulation Element LOS D policy. However, due to the fact that the rate and exact development patterns within the Airport Area cannot be predicted, no fixed implementation schedule of overall traffic mitigation measures can be determined. Therefore, and although not anticipated, development projects within the Specific Plan area may cause a temporary cumulative trafictraffic level of LOS E to be reached prior to public improvement project being undertaken. Individual development projects within the Specific Plan area will need to construct adjacent street, bicycle and transit improvements as part of their development. For larger Specific Plan Fee public projects, the City shall, on a bi-yearly basis or as needed, review LOS levels and make recommendations for use of accumulated Airport Area traffic impact fees toward new CIP projects to address the higher LOS levels and assure ultimate LOS levels are achieved with ultimate build-out development of the Airport Area. The City may shall require that individual improvement projects be constructed by private adjacent development within the Specific Plan area to advance the necessary improvement and seek a reimbursement agreement, as necessary for future fee accumulation. Attachment 5
PC1 - 225
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-1 7.0 UTILITIES & SERVICES Each ‘layer’ of understanding informs the planning response. INTENT The General Plan calls for the annexation and development of a number of areas in the southern part of the City’s urban reserve, in addition to the Airport Area. These areas include Margarita, Orcutt, Irish Hills, and Dalidio areas. In order to fully provide for the build-out of the Airport Area and these other areas, master plan studies for the water, sewer, and drainage systems were prepared in conjunction with the Airport Area Specific Plan. The sewer and water system master plan studies addressed the entire citywide sewer and water systems including the treatment facilities, transmission and collection pipelines, and pumping stations and other related system improvements. Chapter 7.0 provides a regulatory framework for those improvements required to accommodate the development program for the Airport Area. Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 6
PC1 - 226
7-2 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN 7.1 STORM DRAINAGE DRAINAGE SYSTEM OBJECTIVES As discussed in Chapter 3, Conservation & Resource Management, a number of creeks flow through the planning area, where flooding is a regular occurrence. The on-site flooding and the potential for increased downstream flooding have restricted development in the area. When considering how to address storm drainage in the area, a number of objectives were identified for the drainage improvement plan. These include: • Use the City’s Drainage Design Manual and Waterways Management Plan as the basis for all detention requirements in the Specific Plan area. • Provide a method for flood protection consistent with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Regulations. • Maximize the opportunity for environmental enhancement of stream corridors and stormwater detention and conveyance facilities. • Minimize capital expenditures. • Provide opportunities for multiple-use of storm drainage facilities. DRAINAGE SYSTEM CONCEPTS Initially, an area-wide drainage solution was envisioned for the Airport Area. This solution was referred to as the Storm Drain Master Plan and relied on significant creek channel modifications to keep storm flows within existing creek channels, modified natural channels, and in man-made by-pass channels. A regional detention basin south of Buckley Road was proposed to detain water and prevent downstream flooding. After this solution was developed, the City’s Waterways Management Plan was approved, which includes a Drainage Design Manual with standards for on-site storm water detention. Once it became evident that the costs of the original Storm Drain Master Plan were prohibitive, the Storm Drain Master Plan was revised to allow for on-site detention of storm flows, consistent with the Drainage Design Manual. DRAINAGE SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS The following proposed improvements and development requirements comprise the revised Storm Drain Master Plan:New development projects and the incorporate of the Chevron Remediation and Development project will enhance the drainage capacity of the region while enhancing natural habitat. All projects in the region will: 1. Remove and replace existing Acacia Creek Bridge at Tank Farm Road with a standard Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge. 2. Remove and replace existing East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge at Santa Fe Road with a standard Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge. 3. Remove and replace the existing Tank Farm Creek culvert facilities at Tank Farm Road with a standard Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge. 4.1. Apply the requirements of the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines to proposed development within the Airport Area. 5.2. Apply the requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan, Drainage Design Manual to proposed development within the Airport Area. These proposed improvements, along with implementation of existing City-wide ordinances and requirements are expected to provide 100-year flood protection and provide for environmental Formatted: HighlightAttachment 6
PC1 - 227
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-3 enhancement of stream corridors. The analytical methods outlined in the Waterway Management Plan, Drainage Design Manual shall be used to assist in the future design of flood control improvements. The Waterway Management Plan is available through the Public Works Department and incorporated into this Specific Plan by reference. DRAINAGE SYSTEM POLICIES Policy 7.1.1: Encourage BMP’s The City will encourage Best Management Practices for drainage when reviewing all development proposals. The use of bio-swales for conveying storm water on-site through open channels is particularly encouraged for their efficacy and natural, aesthetic quality. Policy 7.1.2: Creek Corridor Enhancement As part of the development review process for sites that are crossed by one or more creek corridors, the City will require creek corridor enhancement consisting of: • Removal of non-native vegetation. • Removal of obstructions that impede storm flows and that are detrimental to aquatic species. • Establish additional riparian vegetation. Policy 7.1.3: Off-Site Improvements PermissablePermissible When detention requirements cannot be fully met on-site, off-site improvements of creek corridors is permissablepermissible, consistent with the requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan and Drainage Design Manual. Policy 7.1.4: Porous Paving Encouraged The use of porous paving to facilitate rainwater percolation is encouraged. As a condition of project approval, the City will require parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas, where practical, to use one or more of the following measures to reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge: porous paving; ample landscaped areas that receive surface drainage and that are maintained to facilitate percolation; drainage detention basins with soils that facilitate percolation. Policy 7.1.5: On-Site Detention Basins and Creek Corridors Detention basins will be owned by the subdivider, a property owners’ association, or a major nonresidential parcel owner, and will be maintained by an owners’ association or a special district. Ownership and maintenance of minor waterways will be the same, with a City easement for open space and, where trails occur, public access. Policy 7.1.6: Developer’s Responsibility Developers are responsible for drainage facilities serving their parcels, including needed facilities through adjoining properties. Where facilities serve more than one parcel, developers may form benefit districts or establish reimbursement agreements. Policy 7.1.7: Design Review The design of detention and conveyance facilities will be subject to City approval as subdivisions are reviewed, and will be based on runoff studies and recommendations by qualified professional engineers. Policy 7.1.8: Design of Detention Facilities Detention facilities will be compatible with natural features and the desired neighborhood character. Shallow basins with curvilinear Attachment 6
PC1 - 228
7-4 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN sides, adjacent to waterways, are acceptable, while steep-sided, rectangular basins are not. Use of detention areas for habitat protection and enhancement, or for appropriate recreation, is encouraged. Additional design guidelines for drainage are found in Section 5.21 of this Specific Plan. Policy 7.1.9: NPDES All drainage facilities must comply with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II permit requirements. The City of San Luis Obispo has a set of standards for Post Construction runoff control that must be implemented by property owners as they develop. Policy 7.1.10: Developer’s Costs Developers will contribute to the cost of implementing the Storm Drain Master Plan and in some cases may be required to perform the work and then be reimbursed. Additional information on costs can be found in Sectionin Section 8.4.7 of this Specific Plan. Policy 7.1.11: Incentives Exceptional implementation of drainage design policies makes a project eligible for development incentives as described in Section 4.4.7 of this Plan. 7.2 WATER Development in the Airport Area can occur only if adequate water supply is available. Both the existing water supply and the City’s capacity to treat it are limited. While existing water is available, new sources will be needed before build-out of the Airport Area occurs. Increasing demand will stress the capacity of the existing sources to reliably deliver desired water quantities. Therefore, it is important that the City continue to pursue additional water sources to meet General Plan buildout demands. In addition, treatment for potential new surface water supplies will require conventional treatment, which could require that the raw water conduit capacity and conventional treatment capacity be increased to accommodate projected citywide growth. If City water supplies are not supplemented in time to serve maximum buildout of a property in the Airport Area, on-site water supplies may be used. If on-site supplies are not sufficient to serve the maximum development of a property otherwise possible, the property should be developed to allow for subsequent buildout of the property when additional city supplies become available. Based on the proposed land uses, the average daily water demand for the Airport Area at build-out is projected to be 1,234 gallons per minute or 1.8 million gallons per day, excluding water demands from the airport (Water System Master Plan, dated October 2000, by Boyle Engineering). The maximum daily water demand is estimated to be 2,468 gpm (3.6 MGD). This increase in demand represents approximately 60% of the projected total citywide increase in water demand at build-out of the entire General Plan area. Approximately 13% of the increase in citywide demand would be due to the Margarita area, and the remaining 27% would be due to growth in other parts of the city. The Airport Area will be served by the existing Edna Saddle Pressure Zone. The primary water service to this pressure zone is from a 20-inch diameter transmission main that carries water from reservoirs located to the north of the city. The 4-million gallon Edna Saddle storage tank, which is located to the north of the Margarita and Airport areas, provides operational, emergency, and fire flow storage for the area. It also provides water to the airport via a metered service to its private water system. Water will be delivered to the Airport Area through a grid of 12-inch diameter mains: three traversing east-west, which are generally connected at the Los Osos Valley Road, Tank Farm Road, and Prado Attachment 6
PC1 - 229
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-5 Road alignments, three north-south mains connecting to the existing 16- and 20-inch transmission mains to the north. The exact locations of these mains will likely change somewhat to follow future planned roadways, but their general configuration should remain similar to that shown in Figure 7-1. These grid mains are necessary to allow the transport of water within and across the area to supply fire flows. The interior distribution mains will be based on the final land use designation and related fire flow demands as determined by the Uniform Fire Code. These pipes will range between 8 and 10 inches, depending on fire flow demands and the looping configuration. A 0.2-MG reservoir is also recommended for the Edna Saddle Zone to be located in the southwest part of the city near the Prefumo Canyon area. This tank will increase fire flows in this immediate area. Additional demand for water supply is likely because at the time of adoption, the City’s facility master plans did not cover the area south of the 1994 URL (Avila Ranch properties) or east of the airport (Morabito/Burek and Senn/Glick properties). As a result, site specific studies are required before the review and approval of development projects in these areas (Figture 7-1). Policy 7.2.1 Engineering Feasibility Study (Water) Before specific project review and approval of projects in the area east of the airport and south of the 1994 URL, the project proponent will submit a detailed engineering assessment of the project’s water demand and an assessment of the ability of the City’s infrastructure system to handle the project in question. The scope of the study shall be to the approval of the Public Works Director and the Utilities Director. 7.3 WASTEWATER .3 WASTEWATER At build-out, the Airport Area is projected to generate wastewater flows of approximately 656,100 gallons per day (gpd). The Airport Area is divided into two wastewater catchment areas. Wastewater generated in the southwest portion of the area will flow to the Calle Joaquin Lift Station, while the remainder flows to the Tank Farm Lift Station. Wastewater from the southeastern portion of the Airport Area flows to Tank Farm Lift Station located 1 1/3 miles west of the intersection at Tank Farm Road and Broad Street via a 18-inch trunk line running westerly down Tank Farm Road. The lift station serves the entire southeastern portion of the City and eliminated the Rockview, and previous Tank Farm Lift stations. The Tank Farm Lift Station also serves a portion of the Margarita and entire Orcutt areas. Backbone facilities to meet future wastewater generation to the Calle Joaquin Lift Station will require approximately 550 feet of new gravity sewer, replacement of the lift station and 2,300 feet of new force main. These improvements are expected to be completed in 2015. The Calle Joaquin Lift Station discharges to the Laguna Lift Station, which was replaced in 2013. Increased flows from the Airport Area and other annexation areas will require the expansion of the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). When the City’s flows approach design capacity, the City will expand advanced treatment facilities such as the cooling towers, filters, and disinfection processes.At build-out, the Airport Area is projected to generate flows of approx-imately 745,000 gallons per day (gpd). This represents 52% of the total new flow generated by General Plan build-out. The Airport Area is divided into two catchment areas. The southwest portion of the area will flow to the existing Howard Johnson Lift Station, while the south-east portion will flow to a new Tank Farm Lift Station Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 6
PC1 - 230
7-6 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Backbone facilities for flow to the Howard Johnson Lift Station will require approximately 6,500 feet of new 8-inch pipe at full build out and will connect to existing sewers. The Howard Johnson Lift Station, which discharges to the Laguna Lift Station, is recommended for re-placement in the next several years. The Laguna Lift Station was replaced in 2002. Flow from the southeastern portion of the Airport Area will flow to a new Tank Farm Lift Station located 1 1/3 miles west of the intersection at Tank Farm Road and Broad Street via a new 16-inch trunk line run-ning westerly down Tank Farm Road. The new lift station will serve the entire southeastern portion of the City and eliminate the Rockview, Fuller, County Airport and existing Tank Farm Lift stations. The new Tank Farm Lift Station will also serve a portion of the Margarita and Orcutt expansion areas. Increased flows from the Airport Area and other annexation areas will require the expansion of the City’s Water Reclamation Facility (WRF). When the City’s population exceeds 50,000 or flows approach design capacity, the City will need to expand advanced treatment facilities such as the cooling towers, filters, chlorination and Dissolved Air Flotation Thickening processes. Policy 7.2.1 Engineering Feasibility Study (Wastewater) Before specific project review and approval of projects the project proponent will submit a detailed engineering assessment of the project’s wastewater generation and an assessment of the ability of the City’s infrastructure system to handle the project in question. The scope of the study shall be to the approval of the Public Works Director and the Utilities Director. Before specific project review and approval of projects in the area east of the airport and south of the 1994 URL, the project proponent will submit a detailed engineering assessment of the project’s wastewater generation and an assessment of the ability of the City’s infrastructure system to handle the project in question. The scope of the study shall be to the approval of the Public Works Director and the Utilities Director. 7.4 ENERGY Electricity and natural gas distribution will be provided by the two State-regulated private utilities that serve the region, with facilities extended into the area as it develops. Although there are no area-wide plans for on-site wind, geothermal, solar or biomass energy production, development of such energy resources should be encouraged where feasible and consistent with the Conservation and Open Space Element. Energy efficiency and solar opportunities will be fostered by State building standards, citywide solar exposure standards and development review procedures, and incentives and advice offered by the utility companies. 7.5 TELECOMMUNICATIONS Local line-connected telephone and television services are provided by City-franchised private companies, thatcompanies that will extend their facilities into the area as it develops. The expanding range of broadcast (including satellite) services will be available for the Airport Area to the extent they are available throughout the San Luis Obispo area. 7.6 FUTURE HIGH-SPEED DATA ACCESS All new structures that will accommodate people shall have one 50-millimeter (2-inch) conduit connected with an underground system to facilitate future installation of a high-speed, high-capacity data supply system. 7.7 UNDERGROUNDING Undergrounding overhead utilities is important to enhancing the visual quality of the area and establishing a signature image for the Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 6
PC1 - 231
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-7 Airport Area. Such enhancements will, in turn, contribute to higher property values, which will be important for financing proposed infrastructure improvements. All new development shall be served on-site with underground power, telephone, and cable communications lines. All new development shall be responsible for undergrounding of existing overhead utility lines along that development's frontage or constructing underground utility lines along new roadways concurrent with the construction of new roadways. 7.8 PHASING AND COORDINATION Development of individual ownership areas may occur as components of the overall infrastructure phasing scheme. To ensure that later projects build upon systems that are properly located and sized when installed by earlier projects, extensions of streets and utility lines will need to be coordinated among owners, the City, and utility companies. The initial projects may need to provide interim utility solutions, if the permanent systems cannot be made available at the time of development. Such interim systems must be consistent with the planned permanent systems. 7.9 PUBLIC SAFETY 7.9.1 FIRE PROTECTION The San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (SLOFD) provides emergency and non-emergency fire and protection services in the City. Emergency services include fire response, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, and public assistance. Non-emergency services include fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code investigations, arson investigations, and public education. Additionally, the SLOFD is a member of a countywide team that responds to hazardous materials incidents throughout the County. As of January 2005 the SLOFD operates 4 fire stations and has a firefighter/ population ratio of approximately one (1) firefighter per 1000 residents. The Headquarters Fire Station (FS#1) also houses the administrative offices, the Fire Prevention Bureau, maintenance shop and training facility, which are strategically located on the Broad Street corridor. Fire Stations #3 and #4 are located adjacent to the Airport andAirport and Margarita areas. County Fire Station #21, which is located on the runway, provides for airport crash fire rescue services. This station also provides emergency response services for a rather large rural area. The City currently maintains a mutual aid agreement with Calfire to allow this station to respond to matters within the airport area. If the residential, commercial, industrial service, and open space uses proposed by the Airport Area and Margarita Area specific plans are added to the fire department’s existing work load without also adding staff, a significant reduction in existing service levels would result. The Department’s fire suppression staffing level is currently set at 13. At this level, Station #3 is typically staffed with 3 personnel. Upon annexation, the Department’s minimum staffing level may need to be increased. In addition, because of increased population and the increased potential hazards of the industrial area, the City may need to add additional inspectors to augment existing staff. In 2013, the Chevron EIR evaluated development and annexation of the Chevron property and therefore evaluated the potential for fire department staffingoperational needs. The EIR concluded that the majority of the Airport area is not within the City’s desired 4-minute response time. However, this response time may be enhanced by the completion of circulation improvements including the completion of Prado Road, Santa Fe Road, and the widening of Tank Farm Road. However, theEven with these improvements planned for the future, the EIR concluded that the following mitigation is necessary in orderto achieve the City’s policy objectives for response time (Safety Element Policy 10.3). to accomodate development of the Chevron property: Attachment 6
PC1 - 232
7-8 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN These mitigation measures are incorporated into the AASP as follows: Policy 7.9.1: Adequate Fire Suppression Services and Facilities The City shall provide adequate fire suppression services and facilities to the Airport Area, consistent with the Safety Element of the General Plan, by completing area transportation improvements, co-locating City fire services with existing CAL-Fire facilities located on Broad Street, and/or establishing a permanent facility within the Airport Area. Policy 7.9.2: Fire Station Location and Site Dedication The ApplicantDuring the first phase of development of the Chevron Tank Farm site, property that is suitable for the development of a new fire station shall be deeded to the City, to the approval of the Fire Chief. shall deed to the City property at the Project Site that the City could use for the development of a public fire station. Policy 7.9.3: Interim Safety Improvements Until a permanent facility is developed that enables the City to achieve its response time objectives, new development in the Airport Area may be required to finance other improvements that will contribute to alleviating current deficiencies, as identified in the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Master Plan (2009). This policy will be implemented on a case by case basis through conditions of approval when project specific fire and life safety impacts are identified. Development shall only be approved when the City deems that adequate fire suppression services and facilities, consistent with adopted travel time standards, are available, or will be made available concurrent with development at the Project Site. If, at time of development it is determined that the development site is outside of adequate response time zones, feasible options to enhance emergency access to the development sites may include but are not limited to the following: Completion of transportation improvements that improve emergency services travel time to proposed development sites. Co-location of City fire services with existing CALFIREfacilities located on Broad Street. Establishment of fire facilities within a closer proximity to the development site that meet or exceed adopted travel time standards. Developer/Applicant financing of other improvements that will contribute to alleviating current deficiencies as identified in the SLOFD Master Plan. 7.9.2 POLICE PROTECTION The San Luis Obispo Police Department provides a variety of law enforcement and community services. The Department consists of 90 employees, 62 of which are sworn police officers. This results in a ratio of about 1.4 officers-per-1000 residents. However, the City of San Luis Obispo is an employment center, so the daytime population of the City’s urban area increases by about 30,000 people per day over its resident population. Thus, the officers-per-resident ratio can be a misleading descriptor of service level. The Department is divided into two police bureaus, with a Police Captain commanding each. The Operations Bureau consists of a Patrol Services Division, a Traffic Safety Unit, and a Situation Oriented Response Team, and Neighborhood Services. The majority of the Operations Bureau resources are devoted to patrol services and traffic safety. The Neighborhood Services Division frequently responds to conflicts that arise between nonresidential and residential Formatted: Font: GaramondFormatted: Font: Garamond, BoldFormatted: Font: GaramondFormatted: JustifiedFormatted: Font: Garamond, BoldFormatted: Font: GaramondFormatted: JustifiedFormatted: Font: Garamond, BoldFormatted: JustifiedFormatted: Font: BoldFormatted: Font: Garamond, BoldFormatted: Font: GaramondFormatted: JustifiedFormatted: Font: GaramondFormatted: Justified, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: 1, 2, 3, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.25" + Indentat: 0.5"Formatted: Justified, Numbered + Level: 1 +Numbering Style: a, b, c, … + Start at: 1 +Alignment: Left + Aligned at: 0.5" + Indent at: 0.75"Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 6
PC1 - 233
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-9 land uses, or different types of land uses in close proximity to one another. The Administrative Services Bureau consists of Administrative Services Division, Investigative Division, Communications Division, Records Unit, and Information Services Unit. This bureau provides services essential to law enforcement in the City and the effective use of the Operations Bureau resources. The City Police Department currently provides mutual aid responses to the Airport Area. Annexation and new development made possible by City services will increase the Department’s workload. A small police substation/work area may be needed with urbanization of the area. Additionally, the City’s adopted Safety element establishes response performance standards for “recurrent” types of emergencies. The Police Department has set a 30-percent available time objective for patrol response. (“Available time” is the fraction of total time that a patrol unit is not previously assigned or otherwise unavailable for response to a new emergency call for service.) The Department is currently at or below this 30-percent available objective much of the year. This annexation will drive the need for additional personnel and equipment to maintain this performance standard. The number of personnel will be determined at the time of annexation based on development and calls for service in the area. Attachment 6
PC1 - 234
7-10 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Figure 7-1 Water Distribution System Formatted: JustifiedFormatted: Number of columns: 1, Forceequal column widthFormatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 16 ptFormatted: CenteredAttachment 6
PC1 - 235
UTILITIES & SERVICES | 7-11 Figure 7-2 Waste Water Collection System Formatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 16 ptFormatted: CenteredFormatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 16 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Arial, 16 ptAttachment 6
PC1 - 236
7-12 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Attachment 6
PC1 - 237
FINANCING | 8-1 8.0 PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING Each ‘layer’ of understanding informs the planning response. INTENT This Public Facilities Financing Plan (“PFFP”) has been prepared to evaluate the ability of land uses proposed in the City of San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan to fund required public facilities. This chapter describes the approach and major findings of the PFFP. Additionally, because development in the Margarita Area Specific Plan is expected to occur concurrently with that in the Airport Area, the PFFP also incorporates the land uses and infrastructure facilities needs for the Margarita Area. In summary, this PFFP does the following: • Summarizes the proposed land uses and estimated phasing assumptions for the Airport and Margarita areas. • Summarizes the public facilities required to serve the Airport and Margarita areas. • Summarizes the costs of required public facilities and allocates the costs to the proposed land uses based on a benefit rationale. • Outlines the phasing of public facilities needed to keep pace with projected development. Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 7
PC1 - 238
8-2 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN • Considers a combination of impact fees, debt financing and developer contributions to fund public facilities as they are needed. • Identifies the total one-time burdens (impact fees) and potential annual burdens (annual special taxes) proposed to be assessed to fund the improvements. • Discusses future steps associated with implementation and administration of the financing plan. The PFFP represents the culmination of a cooperative process that involved public and private participants with interests in the Airport and Margarita areasarea. The PFFP may serve as a blueprint to guide individual development applications and ensure that future development conforms to the financing strategy outlined in the plan. As the Airport and Margarita areas develop, the timing and mix of costs and funding sources may change. The assumptions and results in the PFFP are were originally based on year 2003 estimates and future results could be differentwere most recently modified in 2014 in conjunction with the Chevron remediation and development project. In 2014 it was found that anticipated development eligible to provide financing for infrastructure had substantially decreased since 2005. Additionally, the cost and scope of required infrastructure has substantially increased. However, rRegardless of the extent to which the proposed financing mechanisms are used, or other financing mechanisms are introduced later in the Airport and Margarita areas, the feasibility of the overall burden has been evaluated in detail and a range of financing options has been contemplated to ensure feasibility. The analysis shows that the Airport and Margarita areas, incorporating the estimated future development mix and facilities costs from the backbone infrastructure master plans, are feasible proposals from a financial standpoint. Ultimately, the marketplace will determine whether the impact fees are competitive and whether the infrastructure, services and other amenities provided by the City are of great enough benefit to foster development in the Airport and Margarita areas under City jurisdiction. 8.1 CITY FINANCING POLICIES As part of developing the financing strategy employed in this PFFP, a review of the City’s financing policies was conducted. The City’s 20103-05 15 Financial Plan sets forth the following policies: 8.1.1 GENERAL FINANCING POLICIES • Transportation impact fees are a major funding source in financing transportation system improvements. However, revenues from these fees are subject to significant fluctuation based on the rate of new development. Accordingly, the following guidelines will be followed in designing and building projects funded with transportation impact fees: a.The availability of transportation impact fees in funding a specific project will be analyzed on a case-by-case basis as plans and specification or contract awards are submitted for City Manager or Council approval. b. If adequate funds are not available at that time, the Council will make one of two determinations: Defer the project until funds are available. Based on the high-priority of the project, advance funds from the General Fund, which will be reimbursed as soon as funds become available. Repayment of General Fund advances will be the first use of transportation impact fee funds when they become available. • The City will use the following criteria to evaluate pay-as-you-go versus long-term financing in funding capital improvements: a. Factors Favoring Pay-As-You-Go Financing: Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5", Nobullets or numberingFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5", Firstline: 0.5"Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Justified, Bulleted + Level: 1 +Aligned at: 0.25" + Indent at: 0.5"Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 ptFormatted: Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5"Formatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt,BoldFormatted: Font: BoldFormatted: Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt,BoldFormatted: Font: BoldAttachment 7
PC1 - 239
FINANCING | 8-3 1.Current revenues and adequate fund balances are available or project phasing can be accomplished. 2. Existing debt levels adversely affect the City's credit rating. 3. Market conditions are unstable or present difficulties in marketing. b. Factors Favoring Long Term Financing: 1.Revenues available for debt service are deemed sufficient and reliable so that long-term financings can be marketed with investment grade credit ratings. 2.The project securing the financing is of the type, which will support an investment grade credit rating. 3.Market conditions present favorable interest rates and demand for City financings. 4. A project is mandated by state or federal requirements, and resources are insufficient or unavailable. 5. The project is immediately required to meet or relieve capacity needs and current resources are insufficient or unavailable. 6. The life of the project or asset to be financed is 10 years or longer. • Development Impact Fees - Development impact fees should be created and implemented at levels sufficient to ensure that new development pays its fair share of the cost of constructing necessary community facilities. Debt Financing - The City will consider the use of debt financing only for one-time capital improvement projects and only if, a. Project’s useful life will exceed the term of the financing. b.When project revenues or specific resources will be sufficient to service the long-term debt • 1) the Airport and Margarita area’s useful life will exceed the term of the financing and 2) the Airport and Margarita areas specific revenues or resources will be sufficient to service the long-term debt. • Recurring O & M Costs - Debt financing will not be considered appropriate for any recurring purpose such as current operating and maintenance expenditures. • Capital Improvements - Capital Improvements will be financed primarily through user fees, service charges, assessments, special taxes, or developer agreements when benefits can be specifically attributed to users of the facility. 8.1.2 LAND-SECURED FINANCING POLICIES • Public Purpose - There will be a clearly articulated public purpose in forming an assessment or special tax district in financing public infrastructure improvements. This should include a finding by the Council as to why this form of financing is preferred to other funding options such as impact fees, reimbursement agreements or direct developer responsibility for the improvements. • Reserve Fund - A reserve fund should be established in the lesser amount of: the maximum annual debt service; 125% of the annual average debt service; or 10% of the bond proceeds. • Value-to-Lien Ratio - The minimum value-to-lien ratio should generally be 4:1. This means the value of the property in the district, with the public improvements, should be at least four times the amount of the special tax debt. The City may consider allowing a value-to-debt ratio of 3:1, but the Council would make special findings in this case. • Capital Interest - Decisions to capitalize interest will be made on a case-by-case basis, with the intent that if allowed, it should improve the credit quality of the bonds and reduce borrowing costs, benefiting both current and future property owners. Formatted... [1]Formatted... [2]Formatted... [3]Formatted... [4]Formatted... [5]Formatted... [6]Formatted... [7]Formatted... [8]Formatted... [9]Formatted... [10]Formatted... [11]Formatted... [12]Formatted... [13]Formatted... [14]Formatted... [15]Formatted... [16]Formatted... [17]Formatted... [18]Formatted... [19]Formatted... [20]Formatted... [21]Formatted... [22]Formatted... [23]Formatted... [24]Formatted... [25]Formatted... [26]Formatted... [27]Formatted... [28]Formatted... [29]Formatted... [30]Formatted... [31]Formatted... [32]Formatted... [33]Formatted... [34]Formatted... [35]Attachment 7
PC1 - 240
8-4 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN • Maximum Burden - Annual assessments (or special taxes in the case of Mello-Roos or similar districts) should generally not exceed 1% of the sales price of the property, and total property taxes, special assessments and special tax payments collected on the tax roll should generally not exceed 2%. • Special Taxes - Assessments and special taxes will be apportioned according to a formula that is clear, understandable, equitable and reasonably related to the benefit received by, or burden attributed to, each parcel with respect to its financed improvement. Any annual escalation factor should generally not exceed 2%. • Special Tax District Administration - In the case of Mello-Roos or similar special tax districts, the total maximum annual tax should not be less than 110% of the annual debt service. Where applicable, these City policies have been incorporated into the financing strategy in this PFFP. 8.2 LAND USE ASSUMPTIONS 8.2.1 LAND USES The Airport and Margarita areas comprise over 1,450 acres zoned for residential, commercial, industrial, and open space. While the Airport Area will develop mainly as commercial/industrial, the Margarita Area, when fully developed, is expected to include approximately 900 residential units in addition to 69 acres of business park and 3 acres of retail. Table 8.1 shows a breakdown of the residential and commercial land use components in the Airport and Margarita areas. The estimated nonresidential building capacity in the Airport and Margarita areasarea is approximately 83.3 4 million square feet. In 2001, the Airport and Margarita areas had approximately 1.9 million square feet of commercial development and another 0.2 million square feet that had been approved or was awaiting approvals for development. This suggests that future developable commercial/industrial square footage in the Airport and Margarita areas is just over 6.3 million. Of this 6.3 million square feet of future building space, approximately 5.4 million square feet are assumed will develop in the Airport Area. 8.2.2 LAND USE ABSORPTION ESTIMATES Based on historic development trends in San Luis Obispo, the City’s Community Development Department originally estimatesd that on average, approximately 70 to 80 residential units and 100,000 square feet of commercial/industrial building space will would develop annually. Based on these current absorption assumptions, the residential portion of the Margarita Area should build out in approximately fifteen years and the commercial/industrial acreage in the Airport and Margarita areas will fully develop in about thirty-four thirty years. The land use absorption estimates used in the PFFP illustrate one potential development scenario. Because of the inherent uncertainty associated with market conditions and evolving events, it is emphasized that this absorption scenario is for planning purposes only so as to provide an indication of Airport area feasibility. It should not be relied on as a forecast of future events, or for any other purpose other than as an illustration. Actual development in the Airport area most likely will not follow the smooth development pattern incorporated in the PFFP analysis but instead will go in cycles. Formatted: HighlightComment [PJD1]: Need to update Formatted: HighlightFormatted: JustifiedFormatted: JustifiedAttachment 7
PC1 - 241
FINANCING | 8-5 Table 8.1 LAND USE SUMMARY FOR RESIDENTIAL & NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES IN THE MARGARITA AREA & AIRPORT AREA SPECFIC PLANS (updated 20143) (1) Includes 56 single family units and 127-multi-family units (2) Undeveloped Land in the Airport Area does not include 55,000 square feet of potential development on land designated for government facilities nor 314 acres designated for open space (3) The total developed square footage (and associated acreage) shown for the Airport Area Specific Plan includes 2.7 million square feet of existing or approved for development building space on privately-owned properties; this figure, however, does not include approximately 325,000 square feet of building space on county-owned land. (4) The total potential square footage of CS undeveloped land (and associated acreage) does not include approximately 796,000 square feet of development that has been approved under County jurisdiction but has yet to be developed. These entitled projects are not anticipated to contribute to impact fees used to complete infrastructure in the area. The land use absorption estimates used in the PFFP illustrate one potential development scenario. Because of the inherent uncertainty associated with market conditions and evolving events, it is emphasized that this absorption scenario is for planning purposes only so as to provide an indication of Airport and Margarita areas feasibility. It should not be relied on as a forecast of future events, or for any other purpose other than as an illustration. Actual development in the Airport and Margarita areas most likely will not follow the smooth development pattern incorporated in the PFFP analysis but instead will go in cycles. 8.3 COST ESTIMATES AND ALLOCATION 8.3.1 SUMMARY OF COST ESTIMATES The total of transportation infrastructure and planning costs for which the Airport and Margarita areasarea areis responsible is estimated to be approximately $27.723.9 million. Costs for the individual backbone facilities were taken estimated by private consultants utilizingfrom the separate master plans developed by the City’s engineering consultantsconceptual plans for infrastructure improvements. Comment [PJD2]: Chart updated Comment [PJD3]: Needs update Formatted: JustifiedAttachment 7
PC1 - 242
8-6 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN It is important to note that the $27.723.9 million amount does not include the costs for 1)1) land acquisition associated with roadway infrastructure improvements, 2) portions of the Unocal collector and Santa Fe Road public improvements that will be paid for entirely by adjacent development ,development, and 3) intract and other improvements which individual project developers will fund as their specific projects develop. The City will require that fronting property owners dedicate roadway right-of-way since these property owners will benefit most from improving the roadway. Property owners fronting the extension of Sueldo Road (formerly the Unocal collector) and Santa Fe Road will be required to fund a portion of the roadway infrastructure improvements for these road sections. 8.3.2 ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY With input from the City and its consultant engineers, the backbone facility costs were allocated among the various land uses that will benefit from the improvements. To conduct this analysis, a benefit rationale was developed for each facility category. Allocation factors or benefit units were selected, and fair share allocations were assigned to the land uses. Table 8.2 shows the allocation factors used to allocate the cost of the backbone facilities to the benefiting land uses. The following policies and criteria were utilized to assign benefit to the Airport and Margarita areas: • New development must mitigate impacts it creates on public facilities and it is fully responsible for the costs of the required mitigation. The City’s General Plan states that the City may choose to contribute to certain facilities that it deems will provide community-wide benefits. • Assigned benefit is based on a proportional benefit analysis using allocation factors that were determined either by the engineers or City staff that worked on the master plans. • Roadway infrastructure costs are allocated to the areas which benefit from these improvements. Prado Road improvements, a portion of the cost of Prado Interchange, and intersection improvements at Prado and South Higuera are allocated to future development in the Margarita Area since this area will benefit from these improvements. • Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road and Broad Street improvements are allocated to future development in the Airport Area since this area primarily will benefit from these roadway improvements. Table 8.2 COST ALLOCATION FACTORS • The City will require property owners whose land adjoins roadways to dedicate the right-of-way for improvements; therefore, roadway land acquisition costs are not included in the transportation infrastructure costs. Formatted: HighlightFormatted: JustifiedComment [PJD4]: Still relevant? Attachment 7
PC1 - 243
FINANCING | 8-7 • Currently, roadways in the Airport and Margarita areasarea area are operating operate at an adequate level of service. The roadway proposed improvements proposed in the Airport and Margarita areas specific plans will ensure that an adequate level of service is maintained as properties in the Airport and Margarita areas develop. Since the roadway improvements will benefit future development in the Airport and Margarita areas, the cost of these improvements is allocated to them and not the existing development in the Airport and Margarita areas. Based on these assumptions, infrastructure costs were allocated to land uses in the Airport and Margarita areas. Table 8.3 shows the cost allocation for each facility category as well as the total cost allocated to each land use. It should be noted that the infrastructure costs provided in Table 8.3 include only that portion of the total cost that will be allocated to properties in the Airport and Margarita areas. 8.3.3 INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING As previously discussed, development of the Airport and Margarita areas will require approximately $27.7 million in public facilities that will be funded by properties in the Airport and Margarita areasarea. Due to the lack of existing infrastructure networks in these two areasthis area, a considerable amount of backbone infrastructure is required up-front, before development occurs within the Airport and Margarita areas. Infrastructure projects are identified as phased according to specific infrastructure phasing intervals. These intervals are defined in Table 8.4. Table 8.5 provides a breakdown of facility costs for each of the separate phases of development. As illustrated in the table, $10.5 million, or about 50% of the infrastructure costs allocated to the Airport and Margarita areas, require funding prior to any development taking place. An additional $5.3 million ismillion is needed in Phase 2, and $8.4 million is required in Phase 3. Within the first 15 years of the estimated 34-year development time line, approximately 85% of the total funding for the Airport and Margarita area Specific Plans area is required. This clearly presents a funding imbalance since fee revenue will be collected over the 34-year life of the Airport and Margarita area specific plans. While some development impact fee revenue will be available to fund a small portion of Phase 1 facilities, sufficient impact fee revenue will not be available to fully fund the first phase infrastructure nor will fee revenues keep up with major facility cost components in subsequent phases. Either public debt financing or developer financing will be needed to close the funding shortfalls and generate lump-sum proceeds to keep up with facility demands. Therefore, the Airport Area/Margarita Area Public Facilities Financing Plan incorporates a combination of Airport and Margarita area specific plans impact fees, land-secured debt, assumed grant funding, and developer financing to fund the required facilities. 8.3.4 WATER FACILITIES In 200220123, the City adopted updated citywide water fees and area-specific water add-on impact fees. The area-specific water add-on fees were developed to fund the specific water facilities that would be required in the Airport and Margarita areas. These facilities include only the backbone water pipelines that will serve the Airport and Margarita areas and do not include in-tract pipelines at specific developments or water mains that will be required to tie into the water system; these types of facilities will be funded directly by the developers when they are ready to develop. Funding for the expansion of the City’s water treatment plant will come from the citywide water impact fee. The citywide water impact fee is, effective September 1, 2004July 1, 2012, $16,51817,092 per 1” meter and the area-specific water add-on fee is $1,5281,907 per 1” meter (see Table 8.7). The citywide water fee pays for water supplies and treatment facilities required to serve new development and as such must be paid by development in addition to the Airport and Margarita area-specific Formatted: Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5"Comment [PJD5]: Needs update Comment [PJD6]: update Comment [PJD7]: update Attachment 7
PC1 - 244
8-8 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN water add-on fee. The water impact fees will be collected at building permit issuance or possibly at some other time, as specified by the City. The City anticipates that 1.5 million square feet of the existing 1.9 million square feet of developed and/or approved building space will tie into the water system over a 30-year period. Approximately 0.4 million square feet of developed space is in the Fiero Lane Water District and is not expected to connect to the City’s water system. Of the remaining 1.5 million square feet, approximately 0.5 million square feet of development has already paid interim impact fees to the City. Table 8.3 COST ALLOCATION SUMMARY *These fees are an estimate. Annual fees are set by resolution of the City Council and are updated annually. Existing development requesting to tie into the City’s water system will be required to pay the Airport and Margarita area-specific water add-on fee and the citywide water impact fee. 8.3.5 WASTEWATER FACILITIES The cost of the Airport and Margarita area specific plans’ portion of the water reclamation facility upgrade will be funded through the citywide wastewater impact fee. The collection system pipes, which will connect individual developments to the backbone system are considered to be an in-tract improvement and therefore will be financed by the individual developers. Development in the Airport and Margarita areas will be required to pay the citywide wastewater impact fee, which is, effective September July 1, 20042012, $68,860553 per 1” meter and the area-specific wastewater add-on fee is $1,4923,664 per 1” meter (see Table 8.7). Revenue from the citywide wastewater fee will fund capacity improvements at the water reclamation facility and therefore all development in the Airport and Margarita areas will be required to pay this fee in addition to the Airport and Margarita area-specific wastewater add-on fee. The City expects that the existing and/or approved 2.1 million square feet of building area in the Airport and Margarita areas will eventually tie into the City’s sewer system. Approximately 0.5 million square feet of development has already paid interim impact fees to the City. The City anticipates that most of the remaining 1.6 million square feet of developed building space will tie into the wastewater system over a 30-year period. Existing development requesting to tie into the City’s sewer system will be required to pay the Airport and Margarita area-specific wastewater add-on fee and the citywide wastewater impact fee. 8.3.6 TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES Road and bikeway improvements required for the Airport and Margarita areasarea are estimated to cost $27.7 million. This amount reflects thebased on costs associated with improvements for Prado Road, Tank Farm Road, the extension of Sueldo (formerly the Unocal Collector), Santa Fe Road Extension and Buckley Road Formatted: HighlightFormatted: HighlightAttachment 7
PC1 - 245
FINANCING | 8-9 Extension. Transportation costs include 9 intersections that were identified for improvements through the Chevron EIR in 2013. Also included is the Airport Area’s share of bike path costs and Margarita Area’s share of the cost for the Prado Interchange and intersection improvements at South Higuera and Prado. Costs have been increased by approximately 4.1%, based on the two-year increase in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics consumer price index for all urban consumers all cities average, to reflect cost increases since the original PFFP was completed in 2001 and will continue to reflect changes in the CPI. Table 8.5 ESTIMATED INFRASTRUCTURELAND USE SUMMARY BY PHASINGE As previously mentioned, the City will require that roadway right-of-way be dedicated by the adjoining property owners and as a result, land acquisition costs are not included in the transportation infrastructure costs. Future development in the Margarita Area will benefit from the improvements to Prado Road (including the Prado Road creek crossing) and the intersection at South Higuera Street. Therefore, costs associated with these improvements, about $10.1 million, have been allocated only to future development in the Margarita Area. Additionally, based on a prior study, the City estimates that future development in the Margarita Area is responsible for 13%, or $2.9 million, of the $22 million Prado Interchange. The total cost of the aforementioned improvements, approximately $13 million, is allocated among all future development in the Margarita Area based on the trip generation factors shown in Table 8.2. Future development in the Airport Area will primarily benefit from the improvements to Tank Farm Road, the Unocal Collector, Santa Fe Road Extension and Buckley Road Extension and therefore, existing development in the Airport Area is not allocated these costs. Costs include roadway improvements and median landscaping and irrigation for Tank Farm Road. The original PFFP did not include the Buckley Road Extension and assigned the Unocal Collector and Santa Fe Road Extension improvement costs to the fronting property owners. The total cost of these roadway improvements is approximately $5.5 million and is allocated solely to future development in the Airport Area. Additionally, $2.0 million in bikeway costs is are allocated to the Airport Area (similar improvements in the Margarita Area will be built as part of specific development projects). Utility line undergrounding for Tank Farm Road and Broad Street will be funded through the City’s Rule 20A program. In the original PFFP, undergrounding costs were to be funded by development in the Airport Area. Additionally, the cost of constructing medians on Broad Street, south of Prado Road, will be funded by the City through grants, STIP and TEA funds. In the original PFFP, the Broad Street median cost was proposed to be funded by development in the Airport Area. In addition to the Airport and Margarita areas transportation impact fee, future development in the Airport and Margarita areas will also Formatted: JustifiedComment [PJD8]: Update based on Goodwin Formatted: JustifiedFormatted: HighlightFormatted: HighlightFormatted: HighlightAttachment 7
PC1 - 246
8-10 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN be required to pay the citywide transportation impact fee, (see Table 8.7). Revenue from this fee funds transportation projects which provide a citywide benefit and therefore development in the Airport and Margarita areasarea will be required to pay this impact fee in addition to the Airport and Margarita area-specific transportation impact fee. All traffic mitigation measures, taken as a whole at full build out of the Airport Area, assure compliance with the Circulation Element LOS D policy. However, due to the fact that the rate and exact development patterns within the Airport Area cannot be predicted, no fixed implementation schedule of overall traffic mitigation measures can be determined. Therefore, and although not anticipated, certain projects may cause a temporary traffic level of LOS E to be reached. The City shall, on a bi-yearly basis or as needed, review LOS levels and make recommendations for use of accumulated Airport Area transportation impact fees toward new CIP projects to address the higher LOS levels and assure LOS levels consistent with the Circulation Element are achieved with ultimate build-out of the Airport Area. The most recent assessment of the LOS levels was completed in 2014 as part of the Chevron EIR. 8.3.7 Storm Drainage Facilities Future development in the Airport and Margarita areas will be required to provide on-siteprovide fair share funding towards regional drainage 8.3.8 SPECIFIC PLAN COSTS Funds have been advanced by the City to pay consultants’ costs associated with preparing the specific plans and other analyses to support development of the Airport and Margarita areas. These costs total $717,000 and have been allocated to all future development in the Airport and Margarita areas on a per-acre basis. The existing development in the Airport and Margarita areas is not included in the cost allocation. The cost allocation for this item ranges from $125 per 1,000 square feet of office floor area to $205 per the same amount of service commercial floor area (Table 8.7).Table 8.7 represents the cost allocation for this item. 8.4 FINANCING METHODS 8.4.1 MELLO-ROOS COMMUNITY FACILITIES ACT OF 1982 The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (the “Act”) [Section 53311 et. seq. of the Government Code] was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982 to provide an alternate means of financing public infrastructure and services subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978. The Act complies with Proposition 13, which permits cities, counties, and special districts to create defined areas within their jurisdiction and, by a two-thirds vote within the defined area, impose special taxes to pay for the public improvements and services needed to serve that area. The Act defines the area subject to a special tax as a Community Facilities District. A CFD may provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or other tangible property with an estimated useful life of at least five years. A CFD may also finance the costs of planning, design, engineering, and consultants involved in the construction of improvements or formation of the CFD. The facilities financed by the CFD do not have to be physically located within the CFD. Formation of a CFD authorizes a public agency to levy a special tax on all taxable property within the CFD in the manner prescribed in the formation documents. Property owned or irrevocably offered to a public agency may be exempted from the special tax. Mello-Roos special taxes are collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes, unless otherwise specified by the agency. Special tax revenues may be used to pay debt service on bonds sold to provide funding for the construction or acquisition of public capital facilities. Attachment 7
PC1 - 247
FINANCING | 8-11 Special taxes may also be used to pay directly for facilities and public services. Formation of a CFD can be initiated by: • A motion by the legislative body (the City Council); • A written request signed by two members of the City Council; or • A petition filed with the clerk signed either by ten percent of the registered voters residing within the proposed CFD, or owners of ten percent of the land area within the proposed CFD. Within 90 days of initiating the proceedings to form the CFD, the City Council would adopt a resolution of intention to establish a CFD and a resolution of necessity to incur bonded indebtedness, and determine a date for a public hearing on the formation of the CFD. The hearing must be not less than 30 days or more than 60 days from the date the resolution of intention was adopted. At the public hearing, if the City Council makes a decision to proceed with formation of the CFD, a resolution of formation, a resolution to incur bonded indebtedness, and a resolution calling for elections to authorize special taxes and the issuance of bonds, will be adopted by the City Council. If the City Council decides to proceed with establishing a CFD, it must submit the levy of the special tax to the qualified electors of the proposed CFD in the next general election or in a special election to be held at least 90 days, but not more than 180 days, following the close of the public hearing. However, these time limits may be waived with the unanimous consent of the qualified electors. As required by Proposition 13, two-thirds of the voters casting ballots must support the tax if it is to be imposed. However, if there are fewer than 12 registered voters residing in the proposed district, the vote shall be by the landowners of the proposed CFD, and each landowner shall have one vote for each acre or portion of an acre of land owned within the CFD. There are two limitations on the amount of financing available from a CFD. The first is the value-to-lien ratio. “Value” is considered to be the appraised value of the property, including entitlements and improvements in place on the date the CFD bonds are to be sold. The value of improvements to be constructed with bond proceeds is included in the value calculation. “Lien” refers to the proposed Mello-Roos bond issue, as well as any other public debt secured by the property. Senate Bill 1464, which became effective January 1993, requires a minimum value-to-lien ratio of 3:1. The City’s policy is 4:1, but may also allow 3:1 in some cases. The second restriction on the amount of financing available from a CFD is the total effective tax rate (“ETR”) paid by a homeowner or property owner in the CFD. The ETR consists of the basic one percent ad valorem property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus overrides from voter-approved bonded indebtedness and non-ad valorem taxes, assessments and parcel charges (expressed as a percentage of market value). There is no legal limit, but a maximum ETR of two percent of market value has developed as a standard for residential development in many areas throughout the State; the City has adopted this standard as one of its financing policies. It is thought that ETRs higher than two percent may lead to market resistance by prospective home buyers, or potential “taxpayer revolts” by overburdened homeowners. The maximum supportable ETR for a given project should also consider the maximum tax rates paid by homes in competing projects in the area and, based on the strength of the real estate market, the demand for homes in general. Commercial/industrial projects often support higher ETRs, as the property owner is able to spread the tax burden among many tenants and, therefore is less sensitive to a higher ETR. Attachment 7
PC1 - 248
8-12 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN Table 8.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING MATRIXINFRASTRUCTURE COSTS BY PHASE competing projects in the area and, based on the strength of the real estate market, the demand for homes in general. Commercial/industrial projects often support higher ETRs, as the property owner is able to spread the tax burden among many tenants and, therefore is less sensitive to a higher ETR. 8.4.2 IMPACT FEES Attachment 7
PC1 - 249
FINANCING | 8-13 Impact fees are monetary exactions (other than taxes or special assessments) that are charged by local agencies in conjunction with approval of a development project. Impact fees are levied for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of a public facility, improvement, or amenity that benefits the project. The collection of impact fees does not require formation of a special district; instead, a fee program is implemented by a public agency’s adoption of a resolution or ordinance. Impact fees are paid by builders or developers, typically at the time a building permit is issued. The public facilities funded by impact fees must be specifically identified, and there must be a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the type of development project and the need for the facilities, the need to impose a fee, and the portion of the facilities cost allocated to the development project, pursuant to Section 66000 et. seq. of the Government Code. While developer fees cannot typically be leveraged (i.e., provide security for bonds or other debt instruments), fees can be used in conjunction with debt financing to help retire bonds secured by other means (e.g., land). In this case, developer fees can generate supplemental revenues to reduce future special taxes or assessments, or free up tax increment or other revenues for alternative uses. Developer fees can also be used to generate reimbursement revenue to property owners or public agencies who have previously paid more than their fair share of public improvement costs. 8.4.3 DEVELOPER FINANCING In many cases, developers fund facilities or dedicate land as a means of mitigating the impact of their developments. For example, the City may impose, as a condition of development, construction of a facility that is needed, such as a roadway. Once the roadway is constructed and accepted by the City, fee credits equal to the amount of the cost of the facility or the cost of the facility as estimated in the capital improvement plan, can be issued to the developer. The developer can then apply them to offset fees imposed on his development or enter into a reimbursement agreement for any constructed facility that is oversized. 8.5 RECOMMENDED PROJECT FINANCING STRATEGY 8.5.1 OVERVIEW The financing strategy for funding infrastructure serving the Airport and Margarita area is a combination of community facilities district debt financing, impact fees specific to the Airport Area, citywide impact fees, transportation grants and developer funding and land dedications. Additionally, funding from the City and the Orcutt Area will be required for storm drainage facilities constructed in the Airport and Margarita areas. Table 8.6 summarizes the facilities required and the infrastructure funding sources for the Airport and Margarita areasarea. Airport Area The recommended financing strategy for the Airport Area’s share of its allocated infrastructure costs is a combination of Airport Area impact fees and developer land dedication and local roadways construction funding. In addition, payment of citywide water, wastewater, and transportation impact fees will be required. The Airport Area Project impact fees, shown in Table 8.7, will fund the Airport Area’s share of the water, wastewater, transportation, storm drainageinfrastructure and specific planstorm drainage costs. Owners of properties fronting Tank Farm and Broad Street will be required to dedicate road right-of-way. In addition, owners of properties fronting the extension of Sueldo Road (formerly the Unocal collector) and Santa Fe Road will be required to dedicate right-of-way and fund the portion of the improvement of these roads that they benefit directly from. Existing and/or approved Attachment 7
PC1 - 250
8-14 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN development in the Airport Area, which has not already paid interim impact fees to the City, will also be required to pay Airport Area and citywide water and wastewater impact fees when it ties into the City’s water and wastewater systems. Margarita Area The City expects that construction of Prado road will be set as a condition of development in the Margarita Area. Initial development will be required to construct the roadway and will then receive fee credits, which can be used against the Margarita area-specific transportation impact fees. Reimbursement agreements between developers and the City may also be entered into on a case-by-case basis in which the developers would be repaid for any facilities that are oversized. Another financing strategy, as shown in Table 10, for the Margarita Area’s share of its allocated infrastructure costs would fund these facilities costs through a community facilities district. Based on the bond and special tax assumptions outlined in Table 11, the Margarita Area CFD would fund approximately $13.0 million of transportation improvements and specific plan costs. If CFD bond funding is used, development in the Margarita Area will not pay Margarita Area project-specific impact fees for transportation facilities or the specific plan (except for parks) but would still be required to pay the citywide water, wastewater and transportation fees and the add-on impact fees for water and wastewater. The citywide impact fees fund facilities that provide community-wide benefits and therefore, development in the Margarita Area must contribute to its fair share of the costs. The Margarita Area will be required to dedicate and/or pay impact fees toward parkland and park improvements, as well as impact fees imposed by other agencies such as the school district. Land dedications for Prado Road will also be required from fronting property owners. Other Financing Options The financial imbalance caused by the need to fund the majority of infrastructure costs upfront while development in the Airport and Margarita areas area is expected to occur over a thirty-year period poses a challenging situation for the City. While the CFD proposed for the Margarita Area will fund a portion of these upfront costs, others still may require funding. Several options are available to the City to address these funding shortfalls. The City will, on a case by case basis, review the funding shortfall as it occurs and determine the appropriate solution at that time. Several funding options available to the City are discussed below. Forming one or more community facilities districts in the Airport Area will provide upfront funding for infrastructure facilities in the initial stages of development when much of this is needed. A CFD could incorporate all the undeveloped Airport Area or simply portions of the Airport Area, such as the properties on the east or west side of the Airport Area. The CFD(s) could be formed when properties in the Airport Area are ready to develop and could finance facilities that would otherwise be funded through Airport and Margarita area impact fees. Another potential funding option would be to impose, as a condition of development, a requirement that a developer construct a required facility and then receive credits in the amount of the construction cost. The developer could then apply these credits against his development impact fees. This approach is used frequently by public agencies when facilities are needed before development can proceed. A third option would be to delay construction of all nonessential infrastructure until the required fee revenues or other funding are collected. This approach, however, may not be feasible in many cases. The City could also provide the necessary funding and then get reimbursed as impact fee revenue is collected. This could be accomplished by borrowing from other City capital improvement Attachment 7
PC1 - 251
FINANCING | 8-15 funds and then repaying, with interest, the fund when impact fee revenues are collected from the Airport and Margarita areas. 8.5.2 IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS Airport Area The bottom section of Table 8.7 shows illustrates the Airport and Margarita area specific plans impact fees both with and without the incorporation of a CFD and the citywide impact fees for the Airport Area. Because the financing strategy has not assumed that a CFD will be formed in the Airport Area Specific Plan, impact fees will be imposed for all the facility categories on future development in the Airport Area. The sums of the impact fees in the Airport Area range from $904 to $4,990 per 1,000 square feet of building space. Citywide impact fees will also be imposed on future development in the Airport Area. The City may wish to establish one capital facilities account for the Airport Area and pool the separate Airport Area Specific Plan impact fees. This would preclude the necessity of interfund borrowing between separate infrastructure facility accounts. The City will still be required to justify the separate impact fee components within the consolidated Airport Area Specific Plan impact fee as required by the Mitigation Fee Act, also known as AB 1600. The impact fees presented in this PFFP are subject to change as cost estimates and assumptions are refined, or if the City makes policy decisions that affect the plan. 8.6 IMPLEMENTATION AND ADMINISTRATION The Airport and Margarita areas are anticipated to build out over an extended period. During this time, there are likely to be changes in land use plans, facility standards and design, cost estimates, and other assumptions that are incorporated in this financing plan. The PFFP and City finance policies are designed to accommodate such changes, while maintaining the security of bond holders. The impact fee component of the PFFP will be put into effect by adoption of a fee ordinance by the City Council. Pursuant to this ordinance, fees will be collected by the City, deposited into the designated account(s), and used to fund improvements in the Airport and Margarita areas. In addition, a Mello-Roos Community Facilities District will be formed to provide a mechanism for debt issuance to generate lump-sum funding for facilities in the first phase of development and potentially later phases. Following is a brief summary of certain tasks that will be required to implement the PFFP. 8.6.1 UPDATES AND REVISIONS The PFFP should be updated each time there is a significant change in facility plans, land use plans, or infrastructure cost estimates. When these items are revised, there will be a corresponding change in the fair-share cost allocation to each type of land use anticipated within the Airport and Margarita areas. The Airport and Margarita area specific plans impact fees must also be adjusted to maintain a nexus between facilities being funded and land uses paying such fees. 8.6.2 INDIVIDUAL PROJECT APPLICATIONS AND DEVELOPER REIMBURSEMENTS When an individual project is submitted to the City for processing and approval, the facilities required to serve that project must be Table 8.7 AIRPORT AREA/MARGARITA AREA PROJECT SPECIFIC & CITYWIDE IMPACT FEES Attachment 7
PC1 - 252
8-16 | SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (1) Excludes Park Improvement Fees in the Margarita Area. (2) In addition to the Airport/Margarita Area project specific impact fees, new development in the Specific Plan areas will also be subject to citywide and Airport/Margarita Area add-on impact fees are effective as of September 1, 2004. (3) Water and wastewater impact fees are based on meter six for non-residential uses determining “equivalent dwelling units.” For example, a ¾ inch meter is equivalent of one single-family residence (EDU); a one-inch meter is two EDU’s; a two-inch meter is 6.4 EDU’s; and a three-inch is 14 EDU’s. *These fees are an estimate. Actual fees are set by resolution of the City Council and are updated annually. identified. Due to the incremental nature of public facility phasing, it is likely that certain projects will be required to oversize improvements to accommodate future development. By comparing the project’s assigned fair share of facility costs to the costs of Comment [PJD9]: Fomer table: needs updating. Formatted: Font: 12 ptAttachment 7
PC1 - 253
FINANCING | 8-17 improvements required to allow the project to proceed, the City will be able to calculate an equitable reimbursement to the developer paying for oversized improvements. The City will likely enter into an agreement with the developer to effect such a reimbursement. 8.6.3 ACTION ITEMS FOR THE CITY Prior to commencement of development in Airport and Margarita areas, the City will need to adopt a fee ordinance or resolution implementing the fees. The initial ordinance will reflect fees based on the information provided in this PFFP. Fees may be adjusted in future years to reflect actual costs, updated infrastructure cost estimates, changes in the amount of property anticipated to develop, and other factors. In addition to specific fees for the Airport Area, the Airport and Margarita areas will be subject to citywide fees as well as fees levied by other public agencies. Pursuant to section 66006 of the Government Code, the City will establish a capital facility account(s) for collected fees. Establishment of this account(s) will prevent commingling of the fees with other City revenues and funds. Interest income earned by fee revenues in these accounts will be deposited in the accounts and applied to facility construction costs. Within one hundred eighty days of the close of each fiscal year, the City will make information pertaining to each account [as required by Section 66006 (b)(1)] available to the public and will review this information at a regularly scheduled public hearing. It is clear from the analysis presented that debt financing will be required to close funding gaps created by the fee program. Development on certain properties in the Airport and Margarita areas cannot begin until certain backbone facilities are funded and constructed. Action items associated with implementing such a funding mechanism are discussed further below. Formatted: HighlightAttachment 7
PC1 - 254
Page 3: [1] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [2] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:22:00 PM
Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5"
Page 3: [3] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [4] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [5] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [6] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:22:00 PM
Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5"
Page 3: [7] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [8] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:22:00 PM
Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5"
Page 3: [9] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [10] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [11] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:22:00 PM
Justified, Indent: First line: 0.5"
Page 3: [12] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:24:00 PM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt, Bold
Page 3: [13] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:24:00 PM
Font: Bold
Page 3: [14] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [15] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:22:00 PM
Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5"
Page 3: [16] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [17] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [18] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [19] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [20] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Attachment 7
PC1 - 255
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [21] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [22] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:48:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [23] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:49:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [24] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:49:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [25] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:49:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [26] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:49:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [27] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 1:24:00 PM
Justified, Indent: Left: 0.5", No bullets or numbering
Page 3: [28] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 9/13/2013 11:48:00 AM
Justified
Page 3: [29] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Indent: Left: 0.5"
Page 3: [30] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [31] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [32] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [33] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [34] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 5/7/2014 11:43:00 AM
Font: (Default) Garamond, 12 pt
Page 3: [35] Formatted Dunsmore, Phil 9/13/2013 11:48:00 AM
Justified
Attachment 7
PC1 - 256
AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN
Administrative Draft
APRIL 23, 2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 257
Airport Area Specific Plan
San Luis Obispo, California
Public Facilities Financing Plan
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................... i
1. INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................ 1
2. PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND COST ESTIMATES ...................... 4
3. FINANCING STRATEGY: ALL PAY-AS-YOU-GO FUNDING ............................ 7
4. ALTERNATE FINANCING STRATEGY: CFD FUNDING AND NET FEES ......... 12
5. DESCRIPTION OF FINANCING ALTERNATIVES .............................................. 16
6. IMPLEMENTATION PLAN ............................................................................... 20
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A: PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TABLES: NO CFD FUNDING
APPENDIX B: CFD AND NET BURDEN ANALYSIS TABLES
Attachment 8
PC1 - 258
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan i April 23, 2014
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PURPOSE OF REPORT AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
This report is a comprehensive update to the Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) that was
prepared for the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP or Project) in August 2005. The updated
PFFP describes the public facilities required to serve future development in the AASP area and
identifies the total one-time burdens (impact fees) to be collected from each land use to fund
these facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. In addition, alternative financing mechanisms that may
be used to fill potential funding gaps, as well as implementation procedures that must be enacted
by the City of San Luis Obispo (City), are described in this PFFP.
The AASP is a blueprint for future non-residential development proposed to occur approximately
2.5 miles south of downtown San Luis Obispo, in the City’s designated Urban Reserve.
Approximately 3.8 million square feet of business park, service commercial, and manufacturing
land uses are anticipated to be developed on approximately 321 acres within the AASP by
buildout of the Project. The Project also contains some land uses that are not analyzed in this
study, including approximately 264 acres of existing development, 300 acres of agriculture and
open space, 292 acres designated for City- or County-owned property associated with the San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – McChesney Field, and approximately 300 acres planned
for roads, setbacks, creeks, and other features within the Project.
INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES
Development of the AASP area will require various transportation and storm drainage
improvements. The total cost for these improvements is estimated to be approximately $35.5
million; however, the Project’s share of the total facilities cost amounts to approximately $23.9
million. The remaining $11.6 million is anticipated to be funded by nearby development projects
as well as state and federal grants, based on input from the City. The table below summarizes
the total cost as well as the net AASP cost by infrastructure category, as provided by the City.
TABLE ES-1
INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES
Improvement
Total Cost
Net
AASP Cost
Transportation * $33,530,000 $22,300,000
Storm Drainage $1,960,000 $1,600,000
Total $35,490,000 $23,900,000
* Includes bikeways.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 259
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan ii April 23, 2014
It is important to note that these infrastructure costs for the AASP are in addition to utilities and
in-tract improvements; therefore, utility and in-tract improvements are not addressed in this
report. In-tract improvements are expected to be privately funded by AASP developers, while
utility improvements are anticipated to be funded by other financing sources.
GROSS INFRASTRUCTURE BURDENS AND PHASED CASH FLOW
Gross Infrastructure Burdens
Tables ES-2 and ES-3 below present the gross one-time burdens (impact fees) that result after
the costs of Project-specific facilities (i.e., net AASP costs) are allocated to the proposed land
uses. Based on selected benefit criteria, a fair share cost is identified for each type of land use.
In addition to Project-specific burdens, the Project will participate in existing City-wide
development impact fee programs for transportation, water, and wastewater facilities. Lastly, the
AASP will be subject to other impact fees for inclusionary housing, public art, schools, open
space, and entitlement process costs, as calculated in this analysis. These amounts are added to
the Project-specific one-time burdens to determine the total gross one-time burdens on each land
use.
TABLE ES-2
GROSS BURDENS PER ACRE
Land Use
Project-
Specific
Burden
City-Wide
Infrastructure
Other
Fees
Total Gross
Burden
Business Park $94,000 $172,600 $96,900 $363,500
Service Commercial $109,700 $103,300 $64,300 $277,300
Manufacturing $20,400 $77,600 $33,900 $131,900
TABLE ES-3
GROSS BURDENS PER KSF
Land Use
Project-
Specific
Burden
City-Wide
Infrastructure
Other
Fees
Total Gross
Burden
Business Park $6,300 $11,600 $6,500 $24,400
Service Commercial $10,600 $10,000 $6,200 $26,800
Manufacturing $2,800 $10,500 $4,600 $17,900
Attachment 8
PC1 - 260
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan iii April 23, 2014
The Project spans two zones in the City’s transportation impact fee program. A small area
encompassing the south-western corner of the Project is within the Los Osos Valley Road
(LOVR) fee area and is subject to LOVR transportation fees. The remainder, which comprises a
significant majority of the Project, is subject to the City-wide transportation fee. For purposes of
this analysis, the City-wide transportation fees are presented throughout this report unless
otherwise indicated.
Development impact fees that are specific to backbone infrastructure within the AASP (i.e.,
Project-specific burdens) are assumed to be the primary source of funding for the Project-
specific infrastructure. The gross impact fees calculated in this report reflect the amount
required per land use to fund the facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. Because some facilities will
be required before impact fee revenues become available, developer equity or an alternate
financing mechanism will likely be required. Fees levied in future years may be used to
reimburse developers or other financing sources that have paid to cover more than their fair share
of Project costs.
Phased Cash Flow
With the Project expected to develop in five major phases, the relationship between the timing of
infrastructure improvements and absorption of land uses becomes a critical cash flow issue.
Often, initial phases need to support a disproportionate amount of the overall infrastructure
requirements as certain large scale, and expensive, capital facility items must be built before
development can proceed. Table ES-4 presents the total Project-specific costs for each phase of
development and compares those costs against anticipated fee revenue assuming only a pay-as-
you-go financing strategy. In addition, Table ES-4 summarizes the funding shortfalls and
surpluses that result on a phase-by-phase basis.
TABLE ES-4
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND CASH FLOW BY PHASE
PAY-AS-YOU-GO FUNDING STRATEGY
(IN MILLIONS)*
Land Use
Phase 1
Years 1-5
Phase 2
Years 6-10
Phase 3
Years 11-15
Phase 4
Years 16-20
Phase 5
Years 21-25
Total
Total Phased Costs $5.2 $10.8 $2.6 $3.5 $1.8 $23.9
Gross Project-Specific Fees $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $23.9
Fees Less Costs ($0.4) ($6.0) $2.2 $1.3 $3.0 $0.0
Developer Equity/Other Fin. Sources $0.4 $6.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6.4
Reimb. for Dev. Equity/Other Fin. Sources $0.0 $0.0 ($2.2) ($1.3) ($3.0) ($6.4)
Cumulative Fees Less Costs $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Approximately 67% of all Project-specific costs are required during Phase 1 and Phase 2, yet
only approximately 40% of the total building square footage and corresponding fee revenue will
have been constructed by that point in time. Consequently, even though proposed gross Project-
Attachment 8
PC1 - 261
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan iv April 23, 2014
specific fees are expected to fully fund all required Project-specific infrastructure costs, the front
loaded nature of the Project-specific infrastructure results in significant cash flow requirements
in the first two phases of Project development.
As shown in Table ES-4, development of Phase 1 will require approximately $5.2 million in
Project-specific infrastructure costs; however, gross Project-specific fee revenue totals
approximately $4.8 million. Comparing costs against available revenue results in a deficit of
approximately $0.4 million that will need to be advance funded by private developers or an
alternate financing mechanism. During Phase 2, $10.8 million in Project-specific infrastructure
costs is incurred, but the estimated gross Project-specific fee revenue of $4.8 million cannot fund
all of the Phase 2 costs. The additional shortfall of $6.0 million during Phase 2 pushes the
overall shortfall to $6.4 million. Total gross revenues during Phases 3, 4, and 5 available for
reimbursement of oversized facilities costs from Phases 1 and 2 bring the oversizing down to
zero at buildout of the Project.
LAND SECURED DEBT FINANCING ANALYSIS & NET INFRASTRUCTURE BURDENS
An alternate funding mechanism that can be used to close funding gaps in a pay-as-you-go
financing strategy is a Community Facilities District (CFD). The use of a CFD will limit the
initial, one-time burden incurred by the various land uses and will reduce the amount of upfront
developer equity required. CFD financing for the Project is evaluated in Chapter 4 of this report.
In addition, a description of CFDs and of other financing mechanisms is presented in Chapter 5.
A planning level debt financing analysis was conducted to estimate the CFD bonding capacity of
the proposed Project. It is estimated that the AASP could support $27.9 million in bonds to fund
required infrastructure. After accounting for a reserve fund, two years of funded interest, and
various financing costs associated with issuing bonds, $19.8 million of facility costs, or
approximately 83% of the total Project-specific infrastructure cost, could be funded through the
land-secured financing of a CFD. The balance will need to be funded by another source, most
likely a combination of development impact fees and developer equity. Table ES-5 below
summarizes the total net burdens per acre and per thousand square feet after accounting for debt
financing through a CFD. CFD financing is the only difference between the gross burdens
shown in Tables ES-2 and ES-3 and the net burdens shown in Tables ES-5 below.
TABLE ES-5
NET BURDENS *
Land Use
Total
Net Burden
per Acre
Total
Net Burden
per KSF
Business Park $272,400 $18,300
Service Commercial $228,300 $22,100
Manufacturing $111,500 $15,000
* Includes proposed net Project-specific fees as well as existing City-wide and other fees.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 262
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan v April 23, 2014
Table ES-6 compares phased costs against projected revenues for each phase assuming a
financing strategy that combines CFD financing with pay-as-you-go funding. Including facilities
anticipated to be funded by CFD bonds reduces the amount to be funded through the proposed
AASP fee program from $23.9 million to approximately $4.1 million. In addition, the amount of
shortfall anticipated through Phase 3 decreases from $6.4 million, as shown in Table ES-4, to
$4.2 million in Table ES-6. Furthermore, the cumulative deficit through the early two phases of
development under the CFD financing strategy is approximately $2.4 million, which is more
than 60% lower than the anticipated deficit of $6.4 million under an exclusively pay-as-you-go
funding strategy.
TABLE ES-6
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND CASH FLOW BY PHASE
COMBINATION OF CFD AND A PAY-AS-YOU-GO FUNDING STRATEGY
(IN MILLIONS)*
Land Use
Phase 1
Years 1-5
Phase 2
Years 6-10
Phase 3
Years 11-15
Phase 4
Years 16-20
Phase 5
Years 21-25
Total
Total Phased Costs $5.2 $10.8 $2.6 $3.5 $1.8 $23.9
Revenues
CFD Bond Proceeds** $4.0 $7.9 $0.0 $7.9 $0.0 $19.8
Net Project-Specific Fees $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $4.1
Subtotal $4.8 $8.7 $0.8 $8.8 $0.8 $23.9
Revenues Less Costs ($0.4) ($2.0) ($1.8) $5.2 ($1.0) $0.0
Developer Equity/Other Financing Sources $0.4 $2.0 $1.8 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2
Reimb. for Financing Sources $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($4.2) $0.0 ($4.2)
Cumulative Revenues Less Costs $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.0 $0.0
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Assumes bonds supported by Phases 2 & 3 are issued during Phase 2, and bonds supported by Phases 4 & 5 are issued
during Phase 4.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 263
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 1 April 23, 2014
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
OBJECTIVE
Goodwin Consulting Group prepared a Public Facilities Financing Plan (PFFP) for the Airport
Area Specific Plan (AASP or Project) and the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) in August
2005. Since then, land use assumptions have been revised due to development that has occurred
in the AASP area and zoning changes in the AASP that have recently been proposed. In
addition, a new set of infrastructure requirements and cost estimates has been prepared for the
AASP.
The 2005 PFFP incorporated both the AASP and the MASP because development in these areas
was expected to occur somewhat concurrently. Since the AASP and MASP areas are now at
different stages in the entitlement process, it was deemed appropriate to prepare an updated
financing plan for the AASP only.
This comprehensive update to the 2005 PFFP analyzes the public facilities burden that must be
carried by the land uses proposed in the AASP and presents a base and an alternate financing
strategy to fund that burden. The base case financing strategy presumes only pay-as-you-go
funding will be used to finance Project-specific infrastructure needs, while the alternate
financing strategy relies on a combination of CFD funding and a reduction in pay-as-you-go
financing.
The overall public facilities burden for the Project consists of infrastructure and related costs
necessary to serve the Project plus development impact fees that would be imposed on the
Project for other City-wide capital improvements. The burden does not include utility and in-
tract improvements for the AASP; it is expected that these costs will be funded by other
financing sources or privately by AASP developers.
In summary, this PFFP does the following:
Summarizes the proposed land uses in the AASP
Describes transportation and storm drainage improvements required to serve future
development in the AASP area
Presents the costs of required transportation and storm drainage improvements and
allocates the costs to the proposed land uses based on benefit
Identifies total gross one-time burdens (impact fees) assuming only a pay-as-you-go
funding strategy
Presents an alternate financing strategy that relies on a combination of CFD funding and
pay-as-you-go financing
Determines tax-exempt bonding capacity of the Project based on marketable tax rates for
land-secured financing
Attachment 8
PC1 - 264
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 2 April 23, 2014
Identifies total net one-time burdens (impact fees) and land-secured financing annual
special tax rates
Summarizes long-term financing mechanisms most viable for this Project
Summarizes the implementation measures that must be enacted by the City
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The City of San Luis Obispo, California, is located approximately eight miles from the Pacific
Ocean and is midway between San Francisco and Los Angeles at the junction of Highway 101
and scenic Highway 1. The Airport Area Specific Plan lies approximately 2.5 miles south of
downtown San Luis Obispo, in the City’s designated Urban Reserve. The Margarita Area
Specific Plan and the South Street Hills open space areas bound the AASP to the north, while
urban development in the incorporated areas along South Higuera Street and Broad Street
borders the areas to the west and east, respectively. The agricultural lands of the Edna Valley are
located to the south and southeast of the AASP. A location map is shown below.
FIGURE A
MAP OF AASP
Attachment 8
PC1 - 265
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 3 April 23, 2014
The Airport Area Specific Plan encompasses approximately 1,500 acres of land. At buildout,
approximately 3.8 million square feet of non-residential land uses are expected to develop on a
total of 321 acres. Of these 321 acres, approximately 164 acres are designated for business park
development, 60 acres are designated for service commercial development, and the remaining 97
acres are anticipated to be developed as manufacturing land uses. The Project also contains
some land uses that are not analyzed in this study, including 264 acres of existing development,
300 acres of agriculture and open space, 292 acres designated for City- or County-owned
property associated with the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport – McChesney Field, and
approximately 300 acres planned for roads, setbacks, creeks, and other features; these acres are
not evaluated in the analysis because they are not subject to AASP development impact fees.
Land use assumptions for the Project are provided in Table A-1 of Appendix A.
PROJECT ABSORPTION AND PHASING
Development of the Project area is anticipated to span a 25-year period. During this timeframe,
it is expected that development will occur in five major phases. Each phase is anticipated to
develop over a 5-year period. A summary of the amount of development anticipated in each
phase is shown in Table A-2 of Appendix A.
With the Project expected to develop in five major phases, the relationship between the timing of
infrastructure improvements and absorption of land uses becomes a critical issue. Often, initial
phases of development must support a disproportionate amount of the overall infrastructure
requirements as certain large scale, and expensive, capital facility items are needed upfront. The
infrastructure cash flows presented in Chapters 3 and 4 address the relationship between
absorption and facility needs.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 266
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 4 April 23, 2014
Chapter 2
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE AND COST ESTIMATES
There are numerous types of costs incurred during the construction of any development project.
This PFFP focuses on the costs of Project-specific transportation and storm drainage
improvements, which are described below. While other improvements will be required for the
Project area, such as utilities and in-tract infrastructure that benefit just a particular area or
parcel, only Project-specific transportation and storm drainage improvements are analyzed in this
PFFP.
Language from the Airport Area Specific Plan, which describes in detail the various
improvements proposed to meet the needs of the community, is provided below to describe the
transportation and storm drainage infrastructure needs. The City provided preliminary cost
estimates for the infrastructure, which are summarized below. The total cost of transportation
and storm drainage improvements required for the Project is estimated to be $35.5 million, with
the Project’s share totaling $23.9 million. According to the City, the remaining $11.6 million is
anticipated to be funded by nearby development projects as well as state and federal grants.
The costs for infrastructure components within the AASP are presented in Table A-3 of
Appendix A. A summary of the total and net infrastructure costs to serve AASP development is
presented in Table 2-1 below.
TABLE 2-1
INFRASTRUCTURE COST ESTIMATES
Improvement
Total Cost
Net
AASP Cost
Transportation * $33,530,000 $22,300,000
Storm Drainage $1,960,000 $1,600,000
Total $35,490,000 $23,900,000
* Includes bikeways.
The following is a list of transportation and storm drainage improvements included in the AASP
development cost estimates:
Tank Farm Road
Santa Fe Road
Unocal/Chevron Collector Road
Broad Street
Prado Road
Buckley Road
Various Bikeways
Attachment 8
PC1 - 267
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 5 April 23, 2014
Project-specific improvements, cost estimates, and infrastructure phasing have been provided by
the City and are summarized in the remainder of this chapter.
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE
Transportation and Bicycle Trail Improvements
The circulation plan for the Project is designed to utilize the existing roadway system as much as
possible, with the addition of arterials, collectors, and local streets as needed to serve individual
development areas. The system also includes bicycle trails for non-vehicular circulation to
connect various planning sub-areas to each other and to the rest of San Luis Obispo.
The total cost for transportation and bicycle trail improvements is estimated to be approximately
$33.5 million, with approximately $22.3 million attributable to the Project. Costs include street
improvements (curbs and gutters, sidewalks, asphalt paving, slurry seal, striping, street lights,
signal lights, and street signs), bikeways, demolition and grading, landscaping, erosion controls,
design and engineering, and construction management.
Storm Drainage Improvements
The following proposed improvements and development requirements comprise the Storm Drain
Master Plan for the AASP:
Acacia Creek Bridge at Tank Farm Road: Use a precast arch culvert with a simple
widening of the culverts
East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge at Santa Fe Road: Use a precast arch culvert
with a simple widening of the culverts
Tank Farm Creek culvert facilities at Tank Farm Road: Use a precast arch culvert with a
simple widening of the culverts
Require projects to conform to the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Guidelines for
proposed development within the AASP
Require projects to conform to the City’s Waterways Management Plan, Drainage Design
Manual, for proposed development within the AASP
These proposed improvements, along with implementation of existing City-wide ordinances and
requirements, are expected to provide 100-year flood protection and provide for environmental
enhancement of stream corridors.
The proposed storm water drainage system for the Project includes a series of storm drainage
pipelines, curb inlets, filtration units, headwalls, erosion controls, design and engineering, and
construction management. The total cost for storm drainage improvements is estimated to be
approximately $2.0 million, with approximately $1.6 million attributable to the Project.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 268
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 6 April 23, 2014
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE PHASING
The phasing of Project-specific infrastructure required to support development in the Project is a
crucial element of the PFFP. In general, a majority of the infrastructure costs are anticipated to
be needed to serve development within Phases 1 and 2, with the highest cost occurring in
Phase 2. The phasing table below summarizes the net cost for each Project-specific
infrastructure category by phase, as shown in Table A-4 of Appendix A.
TABLE 2-2
PROJECT-SPECIFIC COSTS BY PHASE
(IN MILLIONS)
Improvement
Phase 1
Years 1-5
Phase 2
Years 6-10
Phase 3
Years 11-15
Phase 4
Years 16-20
Phase 5
Years 21-25
Total
Transportation * $4.7 $10.5 $2.3 $2.9 $1.8 $22.3
Storm Drainage $0.5 $0.3 $0.3 $0.6 $0.0 $1.6
Total $5.2 $10.8 $2.6 $3.5 $1.8 $23.9
* Includes bikeways.
Initial funding for Project-specific infrastructure is limited because a significant portion of the
contributing development is expected to develop in later phases; therefore, initial developers or
an alternative funding source may be required to advance fund Project-specific facilities in order
to allow development to proceed. In such cases, it may be necessary for this oversizing to be
reimbursed from development occurring in later phases. The infrastructure cash flows presented
in Chapters 3 and 4 address the relationship between absorption and phased facility needs.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 269
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 7 April 23, 2014
Chapter 3
FINANCING STRATEGY: ALL PAY-AS-YOU-GO FUNDING
DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES
Assembly Bill 1600 (herein “AB 1600”), which was enacted by the State of California in 1987,
created Section 66000 et seq. of the Government Code. In order to establish, increase, or impose
a fee as a condition of approval of a development project, AB 1600 (also known as the
Mitigation Fee Act) requires a public agency to specifically identify the public facilities funded
by the impact fees, and determine how there is a reasonable relationship, or “nexus,” between the
type of development project and the need for the facilities, the cost of the facilities, and the need
to impose a fee.
Development impact fees are monetary exactions (as opposed to taxes or special assessments)
that are charged by local agencies in conjunction with approval of a development project. The
fees are paid by builders or developers, typically at the time a building permit is issued. Impact
fees are levied for the purpose of defraying all or a portion of the costs of a public facility,
improvement, or amenity that benefits the project. The collection of impact fees does not require
formation of a special district; an impact fee program is implemented by a public agency’s
adoption of a resolution or ordinance.
Impact fees will be an important component of this PFFP. A fee ordinance must be adopted by
the City and the City’s existing public facilities fee program must be updated prior to
development of the Airport Area Specific Plan; the fee program may also be updated and revised
as part of future development phases. Because fees are collected as development occurs and
some of the facilities identified in this report are expected to be in place prior to development or
early in the buildout of the AASP, fees will likely be levied in future years to reimburse
developers that have paid to cover more than their fair share of project costs prior to the
availability of fee revenues.
Proposed Airport Area Specific Plan Fee Program
The Project’s infrastructure costs of $23.9 million are allocated among land uses within the
Project using factors (benefit units) that relate the amount of benefit a land use will derive from a
given capital facility to that of other land uses, such as daily trips and storm water runoff.
Dividing these total burdens by the quantity of land use produces a cost per acre for non-
residential development. For both transportation and storm drainage facilities, a cost per square
foot is calculated first and then is translated to a cost per acre using the appropriate floor-to-area
ratio (FAR).
Table A-5 in Appendix A summarizes the benefit unit assumptions for each capital facility
category. The detailed cost allocation calculations for transportation and storm drainage
improvements are presented in Table A-6 and Table A-7 of Appendix A, respectively.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 270
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 8 April 23, 2014
The total Project-specific infrastructure burdens are summarized in Table A-8 of Appendix A
and in Table 3-1 below. These gross Project-specific infrastructure burdens assume that all
Project-specific costs are funded through impact fees in a pay-as-you-go system. No additional
financing sources are assumed under the entirely pay-as-you-go financing strategy.
TABLE 3-1
GROSS PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE BURDENS
Land Use
Gross
Project-Specific
Burden per Acre
Gross
Project-Specific
Burden per KSF
Business Park $94,000 $6,300
Service Commercial $109,700 $10,600
Manufacturing $20,400 $2,800
Existing Fee Programs
In addition to the Project-specific infrastructure burdens, development in the Project area will
also participate in other fee programs that fund additional facilities impacted by new
development. The major additional fee categories applicable to the Project are the City-wide
development impact fees (transportation, water, and wastewater), other fees (inclusionary
housing fee, public art in-lieu fee, and school mitigation fee), and other AASP fees (open space
fee and entitlement process reimbursement fee). The total existing development impact fees per
land use category are shown in Table A-9 of Appendix A.
The City transportation impact fee pays for City-wide transportation facility costs, and is charged
to new development on a per-square foot basis. The current fee applicable to a majority of the
Project area (i.e., non-LOVR fee area) is $7.05, $3.82, and $2.04 per business park, service
commercial, and manufacturing square foot, respectively. However, the city-wide transportation
impact fees included in this analysis reflect a 5.5% increase to the current rates to account for
additional costs anticipated to be included in the City-wide transportation impact fee program.
An estimated fee per acre is calculated using the appropriate FAR from Table A-1 of
Appendix A.
The City water and wastewater impact fees also pay for public facility costs throughout the City,
and are charged to new development based on meter size. For both water and wastewater, this
PFFP assumes an average of 2 connections per acre and a 1" meter size. The current City-wide
water fee and Tank Farm area wastewater fee for a 1" meter are $18,317 and $12,510,
respectively. It is important to note that these fees are estimates; the service sizes and related
fees could vary based on the needs and sizes of specific developments within the Project.
Non-residential developments greater than 2,500 square feet are required to build two affordable
dwelling units per acre, or pay an in-lieu inclusionary housing fee equal to 5% of total
construction costs. For purposes of this PFFP, construction costs are assumed to be $100, $90,
and $60 per business park, service commercial, and manufacturing square foot, respectively. In
Attachment 8
PC1 - 271
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 9 April 23, 2014
addition, all non-residential developments are required to propose public art to be placed in a
public place on, or in the vicinity of, the development project site, or pay an in-lieu fee equal to
0.5% of that portion of the total construction costs in excess of $100,000 for each building
permit.
The Project will also be subject to a school mitigation fee to fund school impacts related to future
development in the AASP. The current non-residential fee is $0.42 per building square foot.
Lastly, the City will collect fees for open space and reimbursement of costs related to the
Project’s entitlement process. These two fees combined range from approximately $6,300 per
acre for manufacturing uses to $8,800 per acre for service commercial uses.
A breakdown of the existing City-wide and other fees are presented in Table A-9 of Appendix A,
which are added together to show the total existing burden by land use on a per-acre and per-
square foot basis. Tables 3-2 and 3-3 below summarize the existing burdens for each land use
category on a per-acre and per 1,000 square feet basis.
TABLE 3-2
CITY-WIDE AND OTHER FEE BURDENS PER ACRE
Land Use
City-Wide
Infrastructure
Other
Fees
Other
AASP Fees
Total Gross
Burden
Business Park $172,600 $88,300 $8,600 $269,500
Service Commercial $103,300 $55,500 $8,800 $167,600
Manufacturing $77,600 $27,600 $6,300 $111,500
TABLE 3-3
CITY-WIDE AND OTHER FEE BURDENS PER KSF
Land Use
City-Wide
Infrastructure
Other
Fees
Other
AASP Fees
Total Gross
Burden
Business Park $11,600 $5,900 $600 $18,100
Service Commercial $10,000 $5,400 $800 $16,200
Manufacturing $10,500 $3,700 $800 $15,000
Total Gross Burdens (Excludes Potential CFD Financing)
Development impact fees that are specific to the AASP (i.e., Project-specific burdens) are
assumed to be the primary source of funding for the Project-specific infrastructure. The gross
impact fees calculated in this report, as presented in Table A-10 of Appendix A and summarized
in Table 3-4 below, reflect the amount required per land use to fund the facilities on an entirely
pay-as-you-go basis.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 272
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 10 April 23, 2014
TABLE 3-4
TOTAL GROSS BURDENS
(PROPOSED PROJECT-SPECIFIC FEES AND EXISTING FEES)
Land Use
Gross
Burden
per Acre
Gross
Burden
per KSF
Business Park $363,500 $24,400
Service Commercial $277,300 $26,800
Manufacturing $131,900 $17,900
Because some facilities will be required before impact fee revenues become available, developer
equity or an alternative financing mechanism will likely be required. Fees levied in future years
may be used to reimburse developers or other financing sources that have paid to cover more
than their fair share of project costs, as described in the following section.
GROSS PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW
With the Project expected to develop in five major phases, the relationship between the timing of
infrastructure improvements and absorption of land uses becomes a critical cash flow issue.
Often, initial phases need to support a disproportionate amount of the overall infrastructure
requirements as certain large scale, and expensive, capital facility items must be built before
development can proceed. Table 3-5 presents the total Project-specific costs for each phase of
development and summarizes the funding shortfalls and surpluses that result on a phase-by-phase
basis assuming only a pay-as-you-go funding strategy.
TABLE 3-5
GROSS PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND CASH FLOW BY PHASE
(IN MILLIONS)*
Land Use
Phase 1
Years 1-5
Phase 2
Years 6-10
Phase 3
Years 11-15
Phase 4
Years 16-20
Phase 5
Years 21-25
Total
Total Phased Costs $5.2 $10.8 $2.6 $3.5 $1.8 $23.9
Gross Project-Specific Fees $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $4.8 $23.9
Fees Less Costs ($0.4) ($6.0) $2.2 $1.3 $3.0 $0.0
Developer Equity/Other Fin. Sources $0.4 $6.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $6.4
Reimb. for Dev. Equity/Other Fin. Sources $0.0 $0.0 ($2.2) ($1.3) ($3.0) ($6.4)
Cumulative Fees Less Costs $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $0.0
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 273
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 11 April 23, 2014
Approximately 67% of all Project-specific costs are required during Phase 1 and Phase 2, yet
only approximately 40% of the total building square footage and corresponding Project-specific
fees will have been constructed and collected by that point in time. Consequently, even though
proposed gross Project-specific fees are expected to fully fund all required infrastructure costs,
the front loaded nature of the Project-specific infrastructure results in significant cash flow
requirements in the first two phases of Project development.
As shown in Table A-11 of Appendix A and Table 3-5 above, development of Phase 1 will
require approximately $5.2 million in Project-specific infrastructure costs; however, gross
Project-specific fee revenues total approximately $4.8 million. Comparing costs against
available revenue results in a deficit of over $0.4 million that will need to be advance funded by
private developers or an alternative financing mechanism. During Phase 2, $10.8 million in
Project-specific infrastructure costs is incurred, but the estimated gross Project-specific fee
revenue of $4.8 million cannot fund all of the Phase 2 costs. The additional shortfall of $6.0
million during Phase 2 pushes the overall shortfall to $6.4 million. Total gross revenues during
Phases 3, 4, and 5 available for reimbursement of oversized facilities costs from Phases 1 and 2
bring the net oversizing down to zero at buildout of the Project.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 274
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 12 April 23, 2014
Chapter 4
ALTERNATE FINANCING STRATEGY: CFD FUNDING & NET FEES
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
Other types of financing mechanisms besides impact fees may be needed to close funding gaps
that occur because fee revenues may not accrue quickly enough to pay for large pieces of
infrastructure. To ensure that funding keeps pace with infrastructure requirements, the formation
of a Community Facilities District (CFD) is recommended. The use of a CFD will limit the
initial, one-time burden incurred by the various land uses and will reduce the amount of upfront
developer equity required. CFDs are specific areas with defined geographic boundaries, and an
annual special tax is collected from property within those boundaries to pay debt service on
bonds issued through the CFD to fund infrastructure. CFDs are described in more detail with
other financing mechanisms in Chapter 5.
There are two limitations on the amount of financing available from a CFD, the first being the
value-to-lien-ratio. “Value” is considered to be the appraised value of the property, including
entitlements and improvements in place on the date the CFD bonds are to be sold. The value of
improvements to be constructed with bond proceeds is included in the value calculation. “Lien”
refers to the proposed bond issue, as well as any other public financing debt secured by the
property. Senate Bill 1464, which became effective January 1993, requires a minimum value-to-
lien ratio of 3-to-1.
The second restriction on the amount of financing available from a CFD is the total effective tax
rate (ETR) paid by a homeowner or property owner in the CFD. The ETR consists of the basic
one percent ad valorem property tax levy mandated by Proposition 13, plus overrides from
voter-approved bonded indebtedness and non-ad valorem taxes, assessments, and parcel charges
(expressed as a percentage of market value). Market value can be determined based on input
from local developers, a market consultant, local realtors, or an appraiser. There is no legal
limit, but a maximum ETR of 2.00% of market value has developed as a standard in many areas
throughout the State, although it tends to be closer to 1.80% on average for residential
development and even lower for non-residential land uses. It is thought that ETRs higher than
these amounts may lead to market resistance by prospective homebuyers or commercial and
industrial tenants, or potential “taxpayer revolts” by overburdened homeowners. The maximum
supportable ETR for a given project should also consider the maximum tax rates in competing
projects in the area and, based on the strength of the real estate market, the demand for new
development in general.
A planning-level estimate of land-secured financing capacity was conducted for each land use in
the AASP to determine the percentage of infrastructure costs that can be funded by bonds issued
through a CFD, with the debt service on those bonds supported by annual CFD special taxes.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 275
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 13 April 23, 2014
Special Tax Rates for Infrastructure
To begin the debt financing analysis, an estimated infrastructure CFD special tax per non-
residential square foot was calculated based on an assumed maximum annual burden of 1.30% of
value. Table B-1 in Appendix B shows the assumptions used for this calculation. First,
developed value assumptions for each land use were determined based on various research
performed regarding new non-residential development in the San Luis Obispo area. Second,
with the assistance of the San Luis Obispo County Tax Collector’s Office, the existing ad
valorem taxes were determined for properties in the AASP. The total ad valorem taxes levied as
a percentage of value, including the one percent ad valorem property tax levy mandated by
Proposition 13 plus overrides from voter-approved bonded indebtedness, is 1.0022%.
Next, annual special taxes and assessments were determined for the land uses in the Project.
Currently, there are no special taxes or assessments levied on properties in the Project area, and
this PFFP does not assume any other special taxes or assessments for the AASP except for an
infrastructure special tax. Based on a maximum annual burden of 1.30% of value, the additional
amount that can be levied for infrastructure is $0.67, $0.52, and $0.30 per business park, service
commercial, and manufacturing square foot, respectively. Note that if the City does decide to
form a special district for the AASP to fund the Project’s annual maintenance expenses, such as
an LLD or services CFD, the amount of the special tax available for infrastructure could be
lower.
Bonding Capacity
The infrastructure special tax rates discussed above are used to determine the potential bonding
capacity of the Project. The debt financing analysis is also based on the following factors:
special taxes escalate 2% a year
debt service coverage ratio of 110%, interest rate of 7.0%, and a bond term of 30 years
issuance costs of 5%, reserve funds of 10%, and capitalized interest of 14% (two years)
of gross bond proceeds
Based on all of the assumptions mentioned above, a total bonding capacity of approximately
$27.9 million is achieved. Of that capacity, $19.8 million can be used to fund construction costs
within the Project area after accounting for issuance costs, a reserve fund, and capitalized
interest. The bonding capacity is a preliminary estimate; any initial bond issue will be
constrained by the appraised value of the land in the CFD and market interest rates at the time
bonds are sold. The bonding capacity, construction proceeds, and assumptions are presented in
Table B-2 of Appendix B. In addition, a summary of the bonding capacity analysis by phase is
presented in Table B-3 of Appendix B.
As shown in Table B-4 of Appendix B, the CFD construction proceeds of $19.8 million are
subtracted from the Project-specific infrastructure costs. The remaining amount of $4.1 million
will need to be funded by another source such as development impact fees. A discussion of
financing mechanisms available to fund public facilities is provided in Chapter 5.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 276
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 14 April 23, 2014
NET INFRASTRUCTURE BURDEN (INCLUDES POTENTIAL CFD FINANCING)
CFD debt financing would fund a portion of the required infrastructure for the Project and would
reduce the amount of the one-time burden, which is generally incurred when a building permit is
issued. As shown on the right side of Table B-4 of Appendix B, the burdens would be reduced
by the amount of infrastructure supported by the CFD. The table below summarizes the total net
costs after accounting for tax-exempt debt financing.
TABLE 4-1
TOTAL NET BURDENS
Land Use
Total
Net Burden
per Acre
Total
Net Burden
per KSF
Business Park $272,400 $18,300
Service Commercial $228,300 $22,100
Manufacturing $111,500 $15,000
* Includes proposed net Project-specific fees as well as existing City-wide and other fees.
CFD AND PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE CASH FLOW
As discussed in Chapter 3, the relationship between the timing of infrastructure improvements
and absorption of land uses becomes a critical cash flow issue. One way to lessen the extent of
this cash flow issue is through CFD financing. Table B-5 in Appendix B and Table 4-2 below
compare phased costs against projected revenues for each phase assuming a financing strategy
that combines CFD financing with pay-as-you-go funding.
Including facilities anticipated to be funded by CFD bonds reduces the amount of shortfall
anticipated in Phases 1 through 3 of development to $4.2 million, compared to a $6.4 million
shortfall assuming an exclusively pay-as-you-go financing strategy. Furthermore, the cumulative
deficit through Phase 2 under the CFD financing strategy is approximately $2.4 million, which is
more than 60% lower than the anticipated deficit of $6.4 million under an entirely pay-as-you-go
funding strategy.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 277
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 15 April 23, 2014
TABLE 4-2
PROJECT-SPECIFIC INFRASTRUCTURE COST AND CASH FLOW BY PHASE
(IN MILLIONS)*
Land Use
Phase 1
Years 1-5
Phase 2
Years 6-10
Phase 3
Years 11-15
Phase 4
Years 16-20
Phase 5
Years 21-25
Total
Total Phased Costs $5.2 $10.8 $2.6 $3.5 $1.8 $23.9
Revenues
CFD Bond Proceeds** $4.0 $7.9 $0.0 $7.9 $0.0 $19.8
Net Project-Specific Fees $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $0.8 $4.1
Subtotal $4.8 $8.7 $0.8 $8.8 $0.8 $23.9
Revenues Less Costs ($0.4) ($2.0) ($1.8) $5.2 ($1.0) $0.0
Developer Equity/Other Financing Sources $0.4 $2.0 $1.8 $0.0 $0.0 $4.2
Reimb for Financing Sources $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 ($4.2) $0.0 ($4.2)
Cumulative Revenues Less Costs $0.0 $0.0 $0.0 $1.0 $0.0
* Totals may not sum due to rounding.
** Assumes bonds supported by Phases 2 & 3 are issued during Phase 2, and bonds supported by Phases 4 & 5 are issued
during Phase 4.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 278
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 16 April 23, 2014
Chapter 5
DESCRIPTION OF FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
The development impact fees calculated in this report reflect the amount required per land use to
fund facilities on a pay-as-you-go basis. However, it is anticipated that some facilities will be
required before fee revenues are available, causing funding gaps. Viable financing mechanisms
that are available to fund these gaps, including a Community Facilities District as was mentioned
in Chapter 4, are discussed in this section.
DEVELOPER EQUITY
When other funding mechanisms are deemed infeasible, inapplicable, or are otherwise undesired,
the solution is often developer equity. As shown in Table A-11 of Appendix A, an exclusively
pay-as-you-go financing strategy results in approximately a $6.4 million shortfall by the end of
Phase 2. Although total gross revenues during Phases 3, 4, and 5 available for reimbursement of
oversized facilities costs from Phases 1 and 2 bring the net oversizing down to zero at buildout of
the Project as illustrated in Chapter 3, the timing of infrastructure needs relative to the
availability of fee revenues will likely require developer equity or other sources of private
financing to fund the $6.4 million shortfall.
Although a combined financing strategy that includes CFD financing and net fee burdens
reduces the amount of the funding gap, it does not completely eliminate it. As shown in
Table B-5 of Appendix B, approximately $19.8 million of the Project’s total infrastructure cost
($23.9 million) can be funded by a CFD, leaving $4.1 million to be supported by Project-specific
impact fees. Due to the timing of infrastructure needs relative to the availability of CFD funding
and fee revenues, developer equity or other sources of private financing may be required to fund
approximately $4.2 million in interim shortfalls through Phase 3.
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT
The Mello-Roos Community Facilities Act (the “Act”) [Section 53311 et seq. of the Government
Code] was enacted by the California State Legislature in 1982 to provide an alternate means of
financing public infrastructure and services subsequent to the passage of Proposition 13 in 1978.
The Act complies with Proposition 13, as well as the more-recently passed Proposition 218, and
permits cities, counties, and special districts to create defined areas within their jurisdiction and,
by a two-thirds vote within the defined area, impose special taxes to pay for the public
improvements and services needed to serve that area. The Act defines the area subject to a
special tax as a Community Facilities District.
A CFD may provide for the purchase, construction, expansion, or rehabilitation of any real or
other tangible property with an estimated useful life of at least five years. A CFD may also
finance the costs of planning, design, engineering, and consultants involved in the construction
of improvements or formation of the CFD. The facilities financed by the CFD do not have to be
Attachment 8
PC1 - 279
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 17 April 23, 2014
physically located within the CFD. The facilities that can be financed by a CFD include, but are
not limited to, the following:
Roads, water and sewer lines, flood control channels
Parks, parkways, and open-space facilities
School sites, structures, furnishings, and equipment
Libraries
Child care facilities
Utility improvements (limited to five percent of bond proceeds if improvements are to be
taken over by a non-publicly owned utility agency)
Any other governmental facilities which the legislative body creating the CFD is
authorized by law to contribute revenue to, construct, own, or operate
A CFD may also pay for public services, including the following:
Street maintenance
Police protection
Fire protection
Recreation program services
Library services
Park and open space maintenance
Flood and storm protection services
Removal or cleanup of hazardous substances
Sandstorm protection
Seismic retrofitting
School facilities maintenance
A CFD may only finance the services mentioned above to the extent that they are in addition to
those provided in the area before the CFD was created and may not supplant services already
available within that area.
Formation of a CFD authorizes a public agency to levy a special tax on all taxable property
within the CFD in the manner prescribed in the formation documents. Property owned by or
irrevocably offered to a public agency may be exempted from the special tax. Mello-Roos
special taxes are collected at the same time and in the same manner as property taxes, unless
otherwise specified by the agency. Special tax revenues may be used to pay debt service on
bonds sold or may also be used to pay directly for facilities and public services.
Mello-Roos bonds can be short- or long-term obligations. Typically, long-term bonds have
either a twenty-five or thirty year maturity. Short-term notes or bonds can be issued to provide
interim funding; these obligations are then retired when another source of revenue becomes
available. Due to the flexibility associated with Community Facilities Districts and the wide
range of facilities that can be funded by the Act, it is recommended that CFD bonds be used to
fund facilities within the AASP area if land-secured financing is implemented. Developers will
want to ensure that special tax levels are competitive with other areas of the City and with
surrounding jurisdictions. The City will want to ensure that special taxes are collected and bonds
repaid in a timely manner as promised to bond investors.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 280
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 18 April 23, 2014
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Implementing a Special Assessment District (AD) involves using the Municipal Improvements
Act of 1913 to initiate proceedings for the formation of an AD and the Improvement Bond Act of
1915 to issue bonds. These Acts provide mechanisms for issuers to construct or acquire public
improvements, to apportion the costs through liens against the properties in a designated area
which directly benefit from the improvements (the district), and to finance the costs through the
issuance of tax-exempt bonds.
Public works improvements are eligible for AD financing to the extent that properties within the
district receive a special, measurable, local, and direct benefit from such improvements.
Traditionally, improvements to be financed using an AD include, but are not limited to, streets
and roads, water, sewer, local drainage facilities, utility lines, and landscaping. Other types of
public improvements which have a “regional” significance (e.g., major roads, bridges, flood
control facilities) are only partially eligible, based on the proportion of benefit from the
improvements that can be assigned to parcels within the AD. Typically, items of general benefit
to a community, such as schools, fire stations, and parks, have not been eligible for AD
financing.
The formation of an AD is initiated through either a petition submitted by sixty percent of the
landowners in a proposed AD, or through the adoption of a Resolution of Determination and the
preliminary approval of an investigative report by the City Council. The City then adopts a
Resolution of Intention that designates the boundaries of the proposed AD, describes the
proposed improvements, orders the issuance of bonds, and declares the City’s intention to levy
the assessments. This resolution must include an engineer’s report that includes the proposed
assessment diagram, which is used to determine the assessment levied against each property.
Pursuant to Proposition 218, each landowner must be sent a notice of public hearing and a ballot
that identifies the amount of assessment assigned to his/her parcel. The owner is directed to
return the ballot indicating their support or opposition to the assessment. At the public hearing,
the agency must determine if a majority protest exists. If ballots submitted in opposition to the
assessment exceed the ballots submitted in favor, the agency must abandon the assessment
proceedings. In determining whether a majority protest exists, the ballots are weighted based on
the amount of assessment assigned to each parcel. Subsequent to the confirmation of
assessments, a thirty-day cash payment is established during which any property owner can pre-
pay the assessment. After this thirty-day period, bonds may be sold for all unpaid assessments in
the newly-formed AD.
Each parcel of property within an AD is assessed a portion of the costs of the public
improvements and services to be financed by the AD based on the proportion of benefit received
by that parcel. Assessment liens are levied at the time of formation of the AD and installment
payments are collected along with property taxes on a semi-annual basis.
Limitations on the timing and amount of financing available through an AD are similar to the
limitations for CFDs, as discussed above. A minimum 3-to-1 value-to-lien ratio is usually
required, and a reserve fund must be established to provide for timely debt service payments,
regardless of delinquencies. It may be feasible to estimate the total ETR based on the anticipated
Attachment 8
PC1 - 281
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 19 April 23, 2014
land uses for each parcel. However, because the assessment becomes a fixed amount on that
parcel, if the land uses ultimately developed are different than anticipated, the actual ETR could
be much higher than expected as a percentage of market value.
CITY COPS
Certificates of Participation (“COPs”) provide long-term financing for public improvements via
a lease or installment sales structure. COPs permit the acquisition or construction of specific
equipment, land, or facilities through the incurrence of debt, and do not require a local election.
Although the structure of COPs can sound complicated, it is actually an efficient and
straightforward method of securing tax-exempt financing for public facilities by taking
advantage of an available stream of revenues.
The principal parties to a COPs financing include a public agency, a non-profit corporation, and
a trustee. The non-profit corporation may be formed specifically to construct necessary
improvements, the funds for which are generated from the proceeds of the COPs sale. The
nonprofit corporation may also be an existing agency, such as a joint powers authority or an
economic development corporation. However, the actual responsibilities for construction are
generally delegated to the public agency. The non-profit corporation then leases or sells the land
and facilities back to the public agency in return for lease or installment sales payments.
The investors who purchase COPs receive a specified portion of the public agency’s payments as
payment of the principal and interest due on their COPs. The certificates are secured by the
public agency’s pledge to cover its lease or installment sales payments. The trustee is
responsible for accepting these payments and then disbursing them to the certificate holders.
The issuance of COPs does not require the formation of a special district and is authorized by
approval of a resolution by the governing body. COPs are secured by the covenant of the public
agency to make annual appropriations in an amount sufficient to service the certificates. The
appropriations may come from the general fund or from a designated special fund, such as an
enterprise fund for sewer and water services. If the facility being financed by the COPs is
revenue-producing, those revenues may be used to make lease payments. COPs are not secured
by the full faith and credit, or taxing power, of the public agency.
The revenue potential of COPs is limited by the availability of revenues which may be
appropriated each year to make lease payments. Since the passage of the Gann Amendment in
1979, annual appropriations of government agencies have been limited to prior year
appropriations adjusted for changes in the cost of living and population. In a period of declining
transfer payments from the Federal and State levels to local governments, the availability of
funds is further limited. The City might have the option to issue COPs in the event that a stream
of revenues is available to secure lease payments and lump-sum funding is needed for facilities.
Since the City would pledge its general fund to secure lease payments, the COPs will likely carry
a lower interest rate than that of land-secured bonds.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 282
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 20 April 23, 2014
Chapter 6
IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
The Airport Area Specific Plan and this PFFP are based on assumptions of land use, facility
demands, facility standards and design, and cost estimates. Since the Specific Plan is subject to
updates and revisions in future years as development applications are submitted and processed,
the PFFP must be revised to reflect such changes. The ongoing implementation of the PFFP will
be parallel to the continued monitoring of the Specific Plan, and will require the same degree of
time and effort to keep it current and useful. In this manner, the PFFP will guide the preparation
of subsequent plans and the overall funding of community infrastructure required to serve the
Project. Following is a summary of many of the tasks associated with implementation of the
PFFP.
UPDATES AND REVISIONS
As noted above, changes may occur in AASP facility plans, land use plans, or cost estimates. If,
and when, these items are revised, there will be a corresponding change in the fair share cost
allocation to each land use in the AASP area. More specifically, land use and facility changes
will result in revisions to the benefit analysis and corresponding cost allocations. To the extent
some projects in the AASP will have been developed and will have paid their fair share as
defined at the time they were built, revisions will apply only to future new development. If
facility costs are determined to be higher than estimated in the PFFP, the City will need to
increase fees in future years and/or call on developers to fund the extra expenses that relate to
CFD financing through the provisions of an acquisition agreement.
As the City will adopt new ordinances or update existing ordinances on an ongoing basis, fees
will be adjusted based on actual costs realized after construction bids have been received for
public facilities. If actual costs are higher than expected, again, the City will have to increase
fees and/or rely on the terms of an acquisition agreement to avoid a financing deficit in future
years.
ADOPTION OF FEE PROGRAMS
Prior to commencement of development within the Project, the City will need to adopt a fee
ordinance or resolution implementing an AASP fee program for each type of capital facility.
The initial ordinance will reflect fees based on information available at that time. Fees will be
adjusted annually or on a more frequent basis to reflect actual costs and current cost estimates.
Pursuant to section 66006 of the Government Code, the City will establish a separate AASP
capital facility account and a unique fund for each type of public facility for which fees are
collected. Establishment of this account will prevent commingling of the Project fees with other
City revenues and funds. Interest income earned by fee revenues in this account will be
deposited in the account and applied to facility construction costs. Within one hundred eighty
(180) days after the close of each fiscal year, the City will make information pertaining to the
Attachment 8
PC1 - 283
AASP Public Facilities Financing Plan 21 April 23, 2014
account [as required by Section 66006 (b)(1)] available to the public and will review this
information at a regularly scheduled public hearing.
In order to maximize the efficiency of the capital improvements program and minimize debt
issuance costs, the City may borrow money from one fund within the Project account to pay for
facilities financed by another fund within the account. This borrowing will occur when one type
of facility is needed immediately, while another type is not needed for a number of years. The
City will monitor such borrowing on an ongoing basis and will repay funds from which fee
revenues were borrowed in a timely manner and in an amount equal to the original amount
borrowed plus the interest that would have accrued had the money not been borrowed from the
fund.
FEE CREDITS AND REIMBURSEMENTS
Often, developers are expected to advance-fund or construct certain backbone infrastructure and
community facilities required to serve the Project. The improvements that are advance funded
may be improvements anticipated to be funded through the existing City fees, the proposed
Project-specific fee program, or CFD bond proceeds.
If a developer is required to advance-fund or provide shortfall funding for improvements, the
developer may be entitled to fee credits or reimbursements from future development. Fee credit
and/or reimbursement programs for existing and proposed fee programs will require agreement
among the developers, the City, and any other applicable agencies who will be administering the
fee programs. The policies and procedures for providing fee credits and reimbursements will be
established in the implementing documents for the proposed Project-specific fee program and
should be consistent with the development agreement, if applicable, between the City and the
applicant.
FORMATION OF FINANCING DISTRICTS
If a developer requests formation of a Mello-Roos CFD and the City concurs with that request,
the City must form a financing team made up of experts in the various fields associated with
implementation of such districts, including bond counsel, bond underwriter, and special tax
consultant. The City and the designated financing team will be responsible for forming the
district, issuing bonds to pay for required facilities, and levying special taxes to ensure timely
repayment of bonds.
Attachment 8
PC1 - 284
APPENDIX A
PUBLIC FACILITIES FINANCING PLAN TABLES
(NO CFD FUNDING)
Attachment 8
PC1 - 285
Table A-1
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Land Use Assumptions
Residential Units Estimated
Land Use Designations Acres per Acre Dwelling Units
Medium Density (Existing Mobile Homes)6.7 4.8 32
Total Residential Property 6.7 32
Estimated
Non-Residential Building
Land Use Designations Acres F.A.R.Square Feet
Undeveloped Land 1
Business Park 163.6 0.34 2,441,000
Service Commercial 59.7 0.24 617,000
Manufacturing 97.2 0.17 721,000
Subtotal 320.5 3,779,000
Developed Land 2 264.4 0.27 3,166,000
Total Non-Residential Property 584.9 6,945,000
Other Land Use Designations Acres
Agriculture 76.1
Conservation / Open Space 223.8
Government 292.0
Total Other Property 591.9
Total AASP Acreage 3 1,183.5
1 The total potential square footage (and associated acreage) does not include approximately 174,000 square feet of
development that has been approved under County jurisdiction but has yet to be developed. These entitled
projects are not anticipated to contribute to impact fees used to complete infrastructure in the area.
2 The total developed square footage (and associated acreage) includes approximately 2,993,000 square feet of
existing development and 174,000 square feet of approved-for development on privately owned properties.
3 Excludes acreage associated with roads, setbacks, creeks, and other features.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 286
Table A-2
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Land Use Summary by Phase
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Land Use Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Year 16-20 Years 21-25 Total
Non-Residential Development (Bldg SF)
Business Park 488,000 488,000 488,000 488,000 489,000 2,441,000
Service Commercial 123,000 123,000 123,000 123,000 125,000 617,000
Manufacturing 144,000 144,000 144,000 144,000 145,000 721,000
Total Non-Residential Bldg SF 755,000 755,000 755,000 755,000 759,000 3,779,000
Non-Residential Development (Acres)
Business Park 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.7 32.8 163.6
Service Commercial 11.9 11.9 11.9 11.9 12.1 59.7
Manufacturing 19.4 19.4 19.4 19.5 19.5 97.2
Total Non-Residential Acres 64.0 64.0 64.0 64.1 64.4 320.5
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 287
Table A-3
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
AASP Project-Specific Infrastructure Costs by Phase
Total % Allocated Net Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Infrastructure Type (Project Number and Description)Cost to AASP AASP Cost Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-25 Total
Transportation
1)Tank Farm Road/Higuera Intersection Improvements $1,310,000 100% $1,310,000 $0 $0 $1,310,000 $0 $0 $1,310,000
2)Tank Farm Road - Higuera to Chevron Collector $562,550 100% $562,550 $0 $562,550 $0 $0 $0 $562,550
3)Tank Farm Road Widening - Chevron Collector to Santa Fe 1 $6,894,679 100% $6,894,679 $2,395,576 $958,999 $1,033,482 $2,506,623 $0 $6,894,679
4)Tank Farm Road - Santa Fe to Broad Street $1,799,887 100% $1,799,887 $1,799,887 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,799,887
5)Tank Farm Road/Broad Street Intersection Improvements $1,078,868 100% $1,078,868 $0 $1,078,868 $0 $0 $0 $1,078,868
6)Santa Fe Road North of Tank Farm Road Widening 2 $2,178,525 33% $726,175 $496,667 $229,508 $0 $0 $0 $726,175
7)Santa Fe Road South of Tank Farm Road Widening 2 $2,412,430 74% $1,793,883 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,793,883 $1,793,883
8)Santa Fe Road - Hoover to Buckley $4,950,000 20% $990,000 $0 $990,000 $0 $0 $0 $990,000
9)Unocal/Chevron Collector Road - S/O Tank Farm Road $563,500 100% $563,500 $0 $563,500 $0 $0 $0 $563,500
10)Broad/Prado Road Intersection Improvements $590,000 71% $418,900 $0 $0 $0 $418,900 $0 $418,900
11)Broad Street - Fuller Bridge Widening $300,000 100% $300,000 $0 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $300,000
12)Prado Road/Higuera Intersection Improvements $1,640,000 100% $1,640,000 $0 $1,640,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,640,000
13)Buckley Road Extension - Higuera to Vachell $6,700,000 25% $1,675,000 $0 $1,675,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,675,000
Subtotal $30,980,439 $19,753,442 $4,692,130 $7,998,425 $2,343,482 $2,925,523 $1,793,883 $19,753,442
Storm Drainage
3)Tank Farm Road - Chevron Collector to Santa Fe 2 $1,386,072 100% $1,386,072 $322,851 $255,905 $256,458 $550,857 $0 $1,386,072
6)Santa Fe Road North of Tank Farm Road 2 $509,450 33% $169,817 $169,817 $0 $0 $0 $0 $169,817
7)Santa Fe Road South of Tank Farm Road 2 $65,190 74% $48,475 $0 $0 $0 $0 $48,475 $48,475
Subtotal $1,960,712 $1,604,364 $492,668 $255,905 $256,458 $550,857 $48,475 $1,604,364
Bikeways
Chevron Internal Class I Facility - S/O Tank Farm $934,000 100% $934,000 $0 $934,000 $0 $0 $0 $934,000
Tank Farm Road - Second Class I Widened Sidewalk $180,000 100% $180,000 $50,400 $129,600 $0 $0 $0 $180,000
Avila Ranch - Class I from Buckley to Chevron $815,000 100% $815,000 $0 $815,000 $0 $0 $0 $815,000
Buckley Road - Class I from Avila Ranch to Esperanza $620,500 100% $620,500 $0 $620,500 $0 $0 $0 $620,500
Subtotal $2,549,500 $2,549,500 $50,400 $2,499,100 $0 $0 $0 $2,549,500
Grand Total $35,490,651 $23,907,306 $5,235,198 $10,753,430 $2,599,940 $3,476,380 $1,842,358 $23,907,306
1 Includes soft costs and various bridge improvements.
2 Includes soft costs.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 288
Table A-4
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Summary of Infrastructure Costs
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Total
Item Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-25 Cost
Transportation 1 $4,742,530 $10,497,525 $2,343,482 $2,925,523 $1,793,883 $22,302,943
Storm Drainage $492,668 $255,905 $256,458 $550,857 $48,475 $1,604,363
Total $5,235,198 $10,753,430 $2,599,940 $3,476,380 $1,842,358 $23,907,306
1 Includes bikeways.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 289
Table A-5
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Capital Facility Benefit Units
Capital
Facility:
Benefit
Land Use Unit:
Business Park 11.40 per ksf 0.80 per acre
Service Commercial 19.35 per ksf 0.80 per acre
Manufacturing 3.90 per ksf 0.85 per acre
1 Includes bikeways.
Sources: RRM Design Group; SLO Creek Drainage Design Manual, Table 4-1;
Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Transportation 1 Storm Drainage
Coefficient
Runoff
Weekday Trips
Average
Attachment 8
PC1 - 290
Table A-6
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Cost Allocation Table
Transportation
Building Average Total Cost per
Square Weekday Weekday Percent Total Building Cost per
Land Use Acres Feet Trip Rate Trips Allocation Costs Square Foot Acre
Cost $22,302,943
Land Use per KSF
Business Park 163.6 2,441,000 11.40 27,827 65.36% $14,576,290 $5.97 $89,097
Service Commercial 59.7 617,000 19.35 11,939 28.04% $6,253,750 $10.14 $104,753
Manufacturing 97.2 721,000 3.90 2,812 6.60% $1,472,903 $2.04 $15,153
Total 320.5 3,779,000 42,578 100.00% $22,302,943
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 291
Table A-7
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Cost Allocation Table
Storm Drainage
Building Total Cost per
Square Runoff Runoff Percent Total Building Cost per
Land Use Acres Feet Coefficient Coefficients Allocation Costs Square Foot Acre
Cost $1,604,363
Land Use per Acre
Business Park 163.6 2,441,000 0.80 131 50.10% $803,717 $0.33 $4,913
Service Commercial 59.7 617,000 0.80 48 18.28% $293,288 $0.48 $4,913
Manufacturing 97.2 721,000 0.85 83 31.62% $507,359 $0.70 $5,220
Total 320.5 3,779,000 261 100.00% $1,604,363
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 292
Table A-8
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Project-Specific Cost Allocation Summary
Capital Total Cost Total
Facility:Transportation 1 Storm Drainage 2 Allocation Facility Costs
Benefit Average Runoff
Unit:Weekday Trips Coefficient
Capital Costs:$22,302,943 $1,604,363 $23,907,306
Land Use
Business Park $5.97 $0.33 $6.30 $15,380,007
Service Commercial $10.14 $0.48 $10.61 $6,547,038
Manufacturing $2.04 $0.70 $2.75 $1,980,262
Total $23,907,306
Land Use
Business Park $89,097 $4,913 $94,010 $15,380,007
Service Commercial $104,753 $4,913 $109,666 $6,547,038
Manufacturing $15,153 $5,220 $20,373 $1,980,262
Total $23,907,306
1 Transportation costs are allocated to each land use category using benefit units based on building square footage; therefore, fair-share costs
associated with future development should be based on the cost per building square foot estimates presented in this table.
2 Storm drainage costs are allocated to each land use category using benefit units based on acreage; therefore, fair-share costs
associated with future development should be based on the cost per acre estimates presented in this table.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Cost per Building Square Foot
Cost per Acre
Attachment 8
PC1 - 293
Table A-9
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
City-Wide and Other Fees
Total Total
Water Wastewater Inclusionary Public Art San Luis AASP Entitlement City-Wide &City-Wide &
Impact Impact Housing In-Lieu Coastal Unified Open Space Process Other Fees Other Fees
Land Use Non-LOVR 2 LOVR 2 Fee 3 Fee 3 Fee 4 Fee 5 School District 6 In-Lieu Fee Reimbursement 7 Non-LOVR LOVR
Business Park $7.44 $14.14 $2.46 $1.68 $5.00 $0.50 $0.42 $0.47 $0.11 $18.07 $24.77
Service Commercial $4.03 $12.62 $3.54 $2.42 $4.50 $0.45 $0.42 $0.69 $0.16 $16.22 $24.80
Manufacturing $2.15 $6.36 $4.94 $3.37 $3.00 $0.30 $0.42 $0.63 $0.22 $15.03 $19.24
Business Park $110,991 $210,963 $36,634 $25,020 $74,603 $7,460 $6,267 $6,968 $1,614 $269,556 $369,528
Service Commercial $41,695 $130,383 $36,634 $25,020 $46,508 $4,651 $4,341 $7,152 $1,614 $167,613 $256,302
Manufacturing $15,933 $47,173 $36,634 $25,020 $22,253 $2,225 $3,115 $4,666 $1,614 $111,460 $142,700
1 These impact fee amounts do not include any Airport Area Add-On fees.
2 Development not within the Los Osos Valley Road ("LOVR") area will be subject to City-wide fees of $7.05, $3.82, and $2.04 per square foot of business park, service commercial, and manufacturing, respectively.
Development within the LOVR area will be subject to the LOVR Area Base and Sub Area Add-On fees, which total $13.40, $11.96 and $6.03 per square foot of business park, service commercial, and manufacturing, respectively.
Rates for business park uses are assumed to equal rates for office uses. However, City-wide transportation impact fees (TIF) shown in this table include a 5.5% increase to the current rates to reflect additional costs
anticipated to be included in the City-wide TIF program. The fee per acre is calculated using the appropriate FAR from Table 1.
3 Assumes an average of 2 connections per acre and a 1" meter size. Assumes the draft wastewater fees for the Buckley area apply since a majority of future development within the AASP area outside of the
Chevron development project falls within the Buckley catchment area. The City-wide water fee and Tank Farm area wastewater fee for a 1" meter are $18,317 and $12,510, respectively. The service sizes
and related fees could vary based on the needs and sizes of specific developments.
4 Non-residential developments greater than 2,500 square feet are required to build two affordable dwelling units per acre, or pay an in-lieu fee equal to 5% of total construction costs. For purposes of this analysis,
construction costs are assumed to be $100, $90, and $60 per business park, service commercial, and manufacturing square foot, respectively.
5 Non-residential developments are required to propose public art to be placed in a public place on or in the vicinity of the development project site, or pay an in-lieu fee equal to 0.5% of that portion of the total
construction costs in excess of $100,000 for each building permit. For purposes of this analysis, construction costs are assumed to be $100, $90, and $60 per business park, service commercial, and
manufacturing square foot, respectively, and the 0.5% is applied to the total construction costs.
6 The current non-residential fee is $0.42 per building square foot.
7 Entitlement process costs of approximately $520K are spread equally on a per acre basis.
Sources: City of San Luis Obispo; Chevron Land Development; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
per Acre
per Building Square Foot
City-Wide Development Impact Fees 1
Impact Fee
Transportation
Other Fees Other AASP Fees
Attachment 8
PC1 - 294
Table A-10
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Total Project-Specific Costs plus Other Fees
Non-LOVR Area 1
Total
Project-City-Wide Gross Fees
Land Use Specific Infrastructure Other per Acre
Business Park $94,010 $172,645 $96,911 $363,566
Service Commercial $109,666 $103,349 $64,265 $277,279
Manufacturing $20,373 $77,587 $33,873 $131,833
Total
Total $23,907,306
LOVR Area 1
Total
Project-City-Wide Gross Fees
Land Use Specific Infrastructure Other per Acre
Business Park $94,010 $272,617 $96,911 $463,538
Service Commercial $109,666 $192,037 $64,265 $365,967
Manufacturing $20,373 $108,827 $33,873 $163,074
Total
Total $23,907,306
1 The AASP is subject to two fee areas in the City's Transportation Impact Fee program. A small area encompassing the south-western
corner of the AASP is included in the LOVR fee area and is subject to the LOVR transportation fees. The remainder of the AASP is
subject to the city-wide transportation fees.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
Attachment 8
PC1 - 295
Table A-11
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Cash Flow By Phase - Project-Specific Infrastructure
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-25 Total
Total Phased Costs $5,235,198 $10,753,430 $2,599,940 $3,476,380 $1,842,358 $23,907,306
Revenues
Gross Project-Specific Fees $4,774,379 $4,774,379 $4,774,379 $4,776,417 $4,807,751 $23,907,306
Subtotal $4,774,379 $4,774,379 $4,774,379 $4,776,417 $4,807,751 $23,907,306
Revenues Less Costs ($460,819)($5,979,050)$2,174,439 $1,300,037 $2,965,393 $0
Developer Equity/Other Financing Sources $460,819 $5,979,050 $0 $0 $0 $6,439,869
Reimbursement for Developer/Other Financing Sources $0 $0 ($2,174,439)($1,300,037)($2,965,393)($6,439,869)
Cumulative Revenues Less Costs $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 296
APPENDIX B
CFD AND NET BURDEN ANALYSIS TABLES
Attachment 8
PC1 - 297
Table B-1
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Annual Burden Analysis
% of Total Service
Developed Business Park Commercial Manufacturing
Value Square Foot Square Foot Square Foot
Developed Value $225 $175 $100
Ad Valorem
General Tax 1.0000%$2.25 $1.75 $1.00
State Water Project 0.0029%$0.01 $0.01 $0.00
Subtotal Ad Valorem Taxes 1.0029%$2.26 $1.76 $1.00
Special Taxes and Assessments
Proposed Infrastructure CFD Special Tax 1 $0.67 $0.52 $0.30
Subtotal Special Taxes and Assessments $0.67 $0.52 $0.30
Total Annual Burden $2.93 $2.28 $1.30
Total Annual Burden as % of Value 1.30%1.30%1.30%
1 Amount that can be levied based on a maximum annual burden of 1.30% of value.
Sources: San Luis Obispo County Tax Collector's Office; Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 298
Table B-2
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
CFD Debt Financing Analysis
Project Buildout
Service
Bonding Capacity Business Park Commercial Manufacturing Total
Special Tax Revenue
Total Building Square Feet 2,441,000 617,000 721,000 3,779,000
Maximum Annual Special Tax per Building Square Foot $0.67 $0.52 $0.30
Annual Special Tax Revenue $1,635,470 $320,840 $216,300 $2,172,610
Less Debt Service Coverage 9.1%$148,679 $29,167 $19,664 $197,510
Less Annual Administration 1.0%$16,355 $3,208 $2,163 $21,726
Remaining for Debt Service $1,470,436 $288,464 $194,473 $1,953,374
CFD Financing
Total Bond Size 1 $21,010,000 $4,115,000 $2,780,000 $27,905,000
Term (Years)30
Less Estimated Issuance Costs 5.0%$1,050,500 $205,750 $139,000 $1,395,250
Less Bond Reserve Fund 10.0%$2,101,000 $411,500 $278,000 $2,790,500
Less Capitalized Interest for 24 Months 14.0%$2,941,400 $576,100 $389,200 $3,906,700
Construction Proceeds $14,917,100 $2,921,650 $1,973,800 $19,812,550
Construction Proceeds per Building Square Foot $6.11 $4.74 $2.74
Construction Proceeds per Acre $91,180 $48,939 $20,307
1 Assumes a 2% annual escalation rate is applied to special taxes and debt service, and assumes a 7.0% interest rate.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 299
Table B-3
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
CFD Debt Financing Analysis
Summary by Phase
Land Use
Business Park
Service Commercial
Manufacturing
Total Total
Bonding Capacity Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phases 2 & 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 Phases 4 & 5 Total
Special Tax Revenue
Annual Special Tax Revenue $434,120 $434,120 $434,120 $868,240 $434,120 $436,130 $870,250 $2,172,610
Less Debt Service Coverage 9.1%$39,465 $39,465 $39,465 $78,931 $39,465 $39,648 $79,114 $197,510
Less Annual Administration 1.0%$4,341 $4,341 $4,341 $8,682 $4,341 $4,361 $8,703 $21,726
Remaining for Debt Service $390,313 $390,313 $390,313 $780,627 $390,313 $392,121 $782,434 $1,953,374
CFD Financing
Total Bond Size 1 $5,575,000 $5,575,000 $5,575,000 $11,150,000 $5,575,000 $5,605,000 $11,180,000 $27,905,000
Term (Years)30
Less Estimated Issuance Costs 5.0%$278,750 $278,750 $278,750 $557,500 $278,750 $280,250 $559,000 $1,395,250
Less Bond Reserve Fund 10.0%$557,500 $557,500 $557,500 $1,115,000 $557,500 $560,500 $1,118,000 $2,790,500
Less Capitalized Interest for 24 Months 14.0%$780,500 $780,500 $780,500 $1,561,000 $780,500 $784,700 $1,565,200 $3,906,700
Construction Proceeds $3,958,250 $3,958,250 $3,958,250 $7,916,500 $3,958,250 $3,979,550 $7,937,800 $19,812,550
Cumulative Construction Proceeds $3,958,250 $11,874,750 $19,812,550
1 Assumes a 2% annual escalation rate is applied to special taxes and debt service, and assumes a 7.0% interest rate.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
$0.30
Maximum Annual
Special Tax
per Square Foot
$0.67
$0.52
Attachment 8
PC1 - 300
Table B-4
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Total Project-Specific Costs plus Other Fees Assuming CFD Financing
Non-LOVR Area 1
Project-Specific Net Project-
Total Infrastructure Specific Total
Project-City-Wide Gross Fees Supported Costs After Net Fees
Land Use Specific Infrastructure Other per Acre by CFD 2 CFD per Acre
(A)(B)(C)(D = A+B+C)(E)(F = A-E)(G = B+C+F)
Business Park $94,010 $172,645 $96,911 $363,566 $91,180 $2,830 $272,386
Service Commercial $109,666 $103,349 $64,265 $277,279 $48,939 $60,727 $228,340
Manufacturing $20,373 $77,587 $33,873 $131,833 $20,307 $66 $111,527
Total
Total $23,907,306 3 $19,812,550 $4,094,756
CFD Funding ($19,812,550)4
Infrastructure Supported by Fees $4,094,756
LOVR Area 1
Project-Specific Net Project-
Total Infrastructure Specific Total
Project-City-Wide Gross Fees Supported Costs After Net Fees
Land Use Specific Infrastructure Other per Acre by CFD 2 CFD per Acre
(A)(B)(C)(D = A+B+C)(E)(F = A-E)(G = B+C+F)
Business Park $94,010 $272,617 $96,911 $463,538 $91,180 $2,830 $372,358
Service Commercial $109,666 $192,037 $64,265 $365,967 $48,939 $60,727 $317,029
Manufacturing $20,373 $108,827 $33,873 $163,074 $20,307 $66 $142,767
Total
Total $23,907,306 3 $19,812,550 $4,094,756
CFD Funding ($19,812,550)4
Infrastructure Supported by Fees $4,094,756
1 The AASP is subject to two fee areas in the City's Transportation Impact Fee program. A small area encompassing the south-western corner of the AASP is
included in the LOVR fee area and is subject to the LOVR transportation fees. The remainder of the AASP is subject to the city-wide transportation fees.
2 Assumes CFD debt financing capacity is limited by a burden-to-value ratio of 1.30%. Refer to Table B-1.
3 Equals the total amount of project-specific facility costs or fees paid by the project.
4 Equals the total amount of infrastructure that could be supported by a CFD.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Cost per Acre
Cost per Acre
per Acre
per Acre
Attachment 8
PC1 - 301
Table B-5
City of San Luis Obispo
Airport Area Specific Plan Public Facilities Financing Plan
Cash Flow By Phase Assuming CFD Financing - Project-Specific Infrastructure
Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5
Years 1-5 Years 6-10 Years 11-15 Years 16-20 Years 21-25 Total
Total Phased Costs $5,235,198 $10,753,430 $2,599,940 $3,476,380 $1,842,358 $23,907,306
Revenues
CFD Bond Proceeds 1 $3,958,250 $7,916,500 $0 $7,937,800 $0 $19,812,550
Net Project-Specific Fees $816,463 $816,463 $816,463 $816,470 $828,898 $4,094,756
Subtotal $4,774,713 $8,732,963 $816,463 $8,754,270 $828,898 $23,907,306
Revenues Less Costs ($460,485)($2,020,467)($1,783,477)$5,277,890 ($1,013,460)$0
Developer Equity/Other Financing Sources $460,485 $2,020,467 $1,783,477 $0 $0 $4,264,429
Reimbursement for Developer/Other Financing Sources $0 $0 $0 ($4,264,429)$0 ($4,264,429)
Cumulative Revenues Less Costs $0 $0 $0 $1,013,460 $0
1 From Table B-3. Assumes bonds supported by Phases 2 & 3 are issued during Phase 2, and bonds supported by Phases 4 & 5 are issued during Phase 4.
Source: Goodwin Consulting Group, Inc.4/23/2014
Attachment 8
PC1 - 302
Ta n k Farm
SouthHigueraTank Farm IndustrialSacramento
HooverF ie roAeroLongGranada
Suburban
VachellPrado
Buckley BuckleySantaF eAerovistaPoinsettiaClarion
Undeveloped Floor Area 3,346,896
May Redevelop Floor Area 605,293
Developed Floor Area (2,992,564) µ
Airport Area Parcels
0 0.5 10.25 MilesPotential Commercial Floor Area 6,944,753
(Business Park 938,661; Manufacturing 676,984; Service Commercial 1,376,919)
(Business Park 75,909 ; Manufacturing 404,246; Service Commercial 125,138)
Developed, Fee Paid Floor Area 406,269
Undeveloped, Fee Paid Floor Area 984,342
(Business Park 2,511,655; Manufacturing 343,396; Service Commercial 491,845)
Agriculture & Conservation Open Space Zoning
County Owned Parcels Business Park 193,087Service Commercial 213,182
Full Potential Floor Area 3,952,200
Business Park 242,545Manufacturing 26,589Service Commercial 715,209
Attachment 9
PC1 - 303
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
December 11, 2013
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners John Fowler, Ronald Malak, Michael Multari, William
Riggs, Vice-Chairperson John Larson, and Chairperson Michael Draze
Absent: Commissioner Charles Stevenson
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Senior Planner Phil
Dunsmore, Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Assistant
City Attorney Andrea Visveshwara, and Recording Secretary Diane
Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The Staff Update was moved to just after
approval of the minutes after which Commr. Draze recused himself due to ownership of
property in the area of 276 Tank Farm Road.
MINUTES: Minutes of November 13, 2013, were approved as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 276 Tank Farm Road. SPA 92-08: Review of amendments to the Airport Area
Specific Plan as part of the Chevron Remediation and Development Project;
Chevron Corporation, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore)
Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending review and
comment on the draft amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan and continuation of
the item to a later date when the Final EIR, Annexation, Subdivision Map, Revised
Public Facilities Financing Chapter, and Development Agreement for the project will
also be considered.
In response to questions from the Commissioners, Senior Planner Dunsmore explained
that staff is working closely with the County in developing the final EIR and that there is
ongoing work to determine the cost and responsibility of infrastructure improvements.
He stated that if the area is annexed by the City, it would be served by City water and
sewer services, and, if it remains in the County, groundwater would be used and the
applicant would be responsible for onsite wastewater treatment facilities. He noted that
roundabouts are more efficient for traffic circulation flow, safer for bicycles and
pedestrians, and generally provide enhanced levels of service, especially with multi-lane
roundabouts.
Attachment 10
PC1 - 304
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2013
Page 2
Commr. Malak stated he wanted to add language to City policy about energy
consumption to include reference to active and passive solar design. He also
expressed concern about bicycles and vehicles turning into driveways on Tank Farm
Road. Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that there is always potential for conflict with
driveways but that there will be few on Tank Farm Road and more on the collector
roads in the project.
Commr. Riggs asked about the transition between Class 1 and 2 bike paths. Senior
Planner Dunsmore stated that this will be addressed when there is more development
but that, if necessary, the City would help coordinate with adjacent property owners to
avoid discontinuity in the network.
In response to a question from Commr. Riggs, Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum
explained that the number of lanes on Santa Fe and Tank Farm Road are determined
by modeling that has clearly shown the need for four lanes on Tank Farm but is at the
cusp between two and four lanes for Santa Fe. He noted that development in the
project area will double and that there will be more information about the models with
the EIR and the Land Use Element update.
He requested to see the detail of traffic analysis in the next staff report.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Victor Montgomery, SLO, representing Chevron, thanked staff, especially Senior
Planner Dunsmore, for working on and moving forward this complicated project that has
been ongoing since 2008. He stated that Chevron is still in dialogue about
improvements, all of which are linked to financing, and some things that will be
discussed tonight are subject to change based on affordability. He requested that the
Commission discuss and review the project but not endorse anything at this point.
Commr. Fowler noted that Chevron bought this property with full knowledge that it is a
contaminated site and that the check for that would be substantial. Mr. Montgomery
stated Chevron also has huge projects going on in Avila and Guadalupe, and the Tank
Farm property will be remediated but that development has a separate set of financial
parameters.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
In response to questions from Commr. Multari, Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that
staff is recommending both Class 1 and Class 2 bike paths as part of Phase One.
Commr. Multari stated that he supports the bike paths over four lanes for Tank Farm
Road if a choice had to be made.
Commr. Riggs stated that roundabouts, especially multilane roundabouts, are
dangerous for special needs and reduced vision individuals but somewhat effective for
pedestrians and good for vehicles. He supported returning to the original language
about this because it provided more flexibility.
Attachment 10
PC1 - 305
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2013
Page 3
Commr. Fowler stated that staff had made the case for roundabouts and he supported
them.
In response to Commr. Fowler’s question concerning why language was struck in
Attachment 2 about native grasses, Senior Planner Dunsmore explained that a more
intense analysis resulted in a change in the number of plant species and birds which is
covered in a less specific way in another section. He also explained that “leaked” on
page 3-10 of Attachment 2 was deleted because there is no exact proof of leaking
although there is a record of the tanks boiling over and that “City” was struck on page 4-
11 of Attachment 3 because the County, not the City, owns the airport.
Commr. Larson asked why the “Significant and unavoidable (Class I) impacts to Vernal
Pool Fairy Shrimp” described on page ES-9 of Attachment 1 is not in the Class I
Impacts table on page IST-2-1. Senior Planner Dunsmore stated this was originally a
Class 1 impact but will be listed as Class 2.
Commr. Larson asked if the City, County, and relevant resource agencies are satisfied
that the wetlands expansion will not result in an excessive amount of bird strikes for air
traffic. Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that originally a 2:1 replacement was required
but that resource agencies are now satisfied with 1:1. He noted that the amount of
wetlands required has been dramatically reduced.
Commr. Larson stated that it would be useful to see a graphic that overlays the various
safety zones around the airport at a subsequent hearing so the Commission can
consider potential uses for the public facilities parcel that will be consistent with
occupational densities in the airport plan.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that a major revision was coming for
consistency. He stated that since most Commissioners were not at last Monday’s
workshop, Staff could present a scaled-down version of the workshop at a Commission
hearing. He noted that members of the low vision community came to the workshop on
Monday and that phased improvement of Tank Farm Road will mean starting with a
two-lane road and single-lane roundabout. He stated that timing the improvement is
important because problems result with cars going too fast when there is too much
space in a multilane roundabout.
Commr. Fowler asked about the bunch grass on the hill close to planned business
development. Senior Planner Dunsmore explained that the bunch grass can be
relocated and that the area is suited for development because it has a lower level of
contamination, works well with the extension of Prado Road and is away from the
airport safety zone.
Commr. Malak asked about the difference in cost between building a four-lane Tank
Farm Road in the first phase and building two lanes in the first phase and adding two
lanes in four to ten years. Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that there is
always additional cost when doing things twice and that costs can increase over time
with the estimate for the phasing costs on Tank Farm Road at about $5 million and
Attachment 10
PC1 - 306
Planning Commission Minutes
December 11, 2013
Page 4
probably more like 60%. Commr. Malak supported building all four lanes in the first
phase.
Commr. Larson stated that he had no strong feeling about either two or four lanes for
Tank Farm Road but that, while he is a strong supporter of building bicycle facilities, he
did not want to sacrifice efficient movement of vehicles. He noted that there is a need to
do both and he would like to see more information about facilities financing.
Commr. Fowler asked how the three-year time period for restoration was established.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that it was part of Chevron’s plan.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that staff has developed a “chunked”
approach to this complex project and will come back with the draft EIR and then
entitlements. He noted that there may be a need for an addendum based on how the
project is shaped down the road.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
1) Meeting tomorrow will be about the Land Use Element update
2) Monday, December 16, 2013, meeting about the Circulation Element
update
3) Meeting in January will address the Chevron project
3. Commission: Commr. Riggs stated he will be absent for tomorrow’s meeting
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:11 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Approved by the Planning Commission on January 8, 2014.
Ted Green
Acting Supervising Administrative Assistant
Attachment 10
PC1 - 307
R XXXX-14
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL
CERTIFY THE FINAL EIR FOR THE CHEVRON TANK FARM
REMEDIATION AND DEVELOPMENT PROJECT
(APPLICATION # ER 92-08)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on May 28,
2014, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and
Development project; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR for Chevron
Remediation and Development Project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by
law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Final EIR which includes
the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the testimony
of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said
hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings in addition to the CEQA findings detailed in Exhibit A:
Findings
1. The Final EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. For each significant effect identified in the EIR under the categories of Air Quality, Biological
Resources, Transportation and Circulation, Geological and Soil Resources, Noise and Vibration,
Aesthetics and Visual Resources, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, and Public Services and
Utilities, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or substantially lessen
the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level of insignificance and have
been incorporated into the project.
4. The significant effects identified in the Air Quality and Cumulative Transportation sections of the
EIR will not be fully mitigated to a degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all the
Resolution “A”
Attachment 11
PC1 - 308
Resolution No. XXXX-14
Page 2
identified mitigation measures included in the EIR. However, the Planning Commission finds
that the adverse environmental effects are acceptable and makes a statement of overriding
considerations for those significant and unavoidable environmental impacts because:
a. Mitigation strategies are identified in the Final EIR help to reduce project emissions and
ultimately put the air basin in closer compliance with established State and federal
standards and a similar amount of commercial development was contemplated in the
previous version of the Airport Area Specific Plan and its accompanying FEIR.
b. Significant changes to air quality and area wide transportation are inherent to the project
due to the potential scale of the proposed development area when combined with
Cumulative development elsewhere in the City and cannot be reduced by altering the
design or location of the project.
c. The Cumulative impacts addressed in the FEIR include mitigation measures designed to
improve vehicular, bicycle and pedestrian circulation at many locations in the area that
are already reaching maximum levels of service under current conditions.
SECTION 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the
City Council certify the Final EIR for the project with findings and mitigation measures as described in
attached Exhibit A.
Upon motion by Commr. , seconded by Commr. , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs.
NOES: Commr.
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commrs..
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2014.
_____________________________
Kim Murry
Planning Commission Secretary
Attachment 11
PC1 - 309
City of San Luis Obispo Exhibit A
R XXXX-14
CHEVRON TANK FARM PROJECT
CEQA FINDINGS
I. Environmental Determination ............................................................................... 1
II. Summary Project Description ............................................................................... 1
III. City Development Plan / Airport Area Specific Plan Amendments ....................... 2
IV. The Record ........................................................................................................... 3
V. The December 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron
Tank Farm ............................................................................................................ 4
VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations ............................................................... 5
VII. Potential Environmental Effects Which Are Not Significant or Beneficial .............. 7
VIII. Potential Significant Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of
Insignificance ...................................................................................................... 20
IX. Potential Significant Unavoidable Effects for Which Sufficient Mitigation is
not Available ....................................................................................................... 39
X. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program .................................................... 42
Attachment 11
PC1 - 310
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 1
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FINDINGS OF MITIGATION AND
ADOPTION OF MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR THE
CHEVRON TANK FARM PROJECT
I. Environmental Determination
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo considers and relies on the Final Environmental Impact
Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2009031001) for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and
Development in determining to carry out amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The
Final EIR consists of the three volumes, including the Final EIR, responses to comments on the Draft
EIR, a list of persons and agencies commenting on the Draft EIR, a Mitigation Monitoring Program, and
technical appendices. The City Council has received, reviewed, considered, and relied on the information
contained in the Final EIR, as well as information provided at hearings and submissions of testimony
from official participating agencies, the public and other agencies and organizations.
Having received, reviewed and considered the foregoing information, as well as any and all information
in the record, the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby makes these Findings pursuant to,
and in accordance with, Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code, as follows:
II. Summary Project Description
The Project Site was originally owned and operated by Union Oil. Chevron purchased Union Oil,
including the Project Site, in August 2005. The San Luis Obispo Tank Farm was constructed on the
property in 1910 to serve as the accumulation point for the petroleum pipeline from the San Joaquin
Valley. In 1926, many of the tanks on the Project Site were destroyed in a fire created by a lightning
strike. The Tank Farm was slowly withdrawn from operation during the later decades of the twentieth
century, and by the late 1990s it was formally decommissioned. The Project Site now exists as primarily
vacant land that is surrounded by the expanding footprint of urban development of the City, and the San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SLOCRA). The Applicant intends to remediate the Project Site to
address site contamination issues, restore habitat, and develop portions of the Project Site consistent with
a proposed land use plan.
The Project consists of two principal components: remediation and development. The remediation portion
of the Project is based on an extensive collaborative process with resource agencies that have concurred
with the Applicant’s proposed remediation approach, while taking into consideration the proposed future
uses at the Project Site. The second component of the Project involves development of business park and
service commercial uses.
The Project entails a complex permitting landscape for a couple of reasons. First, although the Project Site
is within the County, it is also located within the City’s Urban Reserve Line (URL) and Urban Services
Line (USL) and has been identified by the City for annexation. Second, the Project is broken into two
larger phases: remediation and development.
The County is responsible for the remediation phase, while the development phase would be regulated by
either the County or City, depending on whether or not the Project Site is annexed into the City. In
addition, the Project Site is located within an area that is subject to the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP).
On March 19, 2014 received a determination of consistency with the ALUP from the Airport Land Use
Attachment 11
PC1 - 311
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 2
Commission.
The remediation and restoration component includes several activities proposed to occur over a three-year
period: demolition of existing buildings and selected reservoir remnants, excavation of top soil and sub-
surface material, site re-contouring, capping, and increasing the quantity of wetland and rare plant
habitats. Re-contouring would be done mostly using on-site materials.
The second component of the Project would be development of portions of the Project Site. If the Project
is annexed into the City, there would need to be amendments to the City AASP, the General Plan, the
Airport Compatibility Open Space Plan (ACOS), a tentative Tract Map, as well as other City permits. If
the development is in the County, then a General Plan amendment and conditional use permit would be
required.
The Applicant’s goal is to develop approximately 17 percent of the Project Site with approximately
800,000 square feet (floor area) of business park and service commercial uses. Development would be
implemented in five phases over a period of approximately 25 years; each phase would create
approximately 160,000 square feet of leasable floor area. The proposal includes designation of
approximately 15 acres for recreational use (may include up to two acres of public land) to be developed
by a subsequent Project Site/individual lot owner.
The Project Site is included in the City’s AASP that anticipates future annexation of this and other
properties in the area given its proximity to existing City boundaries, existing industrial uses, and the
SLOCRA. In addition, the City’s AASP encourages the environmentally sensitive portions of the Project
Site – comprised of approximately 250 acres – be kept in open space.
III. City Development Plan / Airport Area Specific Plan Amendments
The City Development Plan proposes development of the Project Site with approximately 803,000 square
feet of commercial and industrial floor area with associated parking, landscaping, open space, recreational
playing fields, bicycle and pedestrian trails. The City Development Plan could also include land for the
City to construct public facilities such as a transit maintenance yard and storage facility or a fire station
and training facility.
The development would be phased over a 25-year period. The proposed land uses under the City
Development Plan include 27.85 acres of Business Park development (BP-SP), 26.01 acres of Service-
Commercial development (C-S-SP), 15.05 acres of Public Facilities (PF-SP) intended for recreational ball
fields, 13.62 acres of public right-of-way (e.g., streets), and the approximately 250-acre balance as Open
Space (C/OS-SP). See Figure ES-3.
The Applicant-proposed City Development Plan trades approximately nine acres of developable area in
the northwest portion of the Project Site and on the west edge of the area south of Tank Farm Road for 16
acres in the northeast portion of the Project Site.
The City would provide water, sewer, and public services such as police and fire. The City recently
installed a sewer trunk line in Tank Farm Road along the property’s frontage. The Applicant would
extend the potable and recycled water mains and utilities to the developable areas.
Improvements and modifications would be made to existing roadways in the Project area. Tank Farm
Road would be widened to four lanes from Acacia Creek in the east to the western boundary of the
property. Santa Fe Road, south of Tank Farm Road, would be re-aligned and tied into Tank Farm Road.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 312
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 3
New roads would also be constructed north of Tank Farm Road.
The City Development Plan would also require amendments to the AASP and the ACOS. Some of the
major changes to the AASP would include modification of some of the zoning on the Project Site,
modification of the boundaries of the Cluster Development Zone, elimination of the Unocal Collector
Road, elimination of the Class I multi-use trail to the south, and installation of a signalized intersection at
Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road (the AASP calls for the use of a roundabout at this intersection).
Amendments to the AASP include:
• Removing the Service-Commercial designation on approximately 8.6 acres in the northwest
corner of the Project Site;
• Eliminating or relocating the collector street (known as the Unocal Collector) along the western
and northern edges of the Project Site, which would also include removing underlying planned
utilities and realigning the sewer trunk line located within the collector street’s right-of-way;
• Providing an additional driveway connection to Tank Farm Road just west of the existing
driveway entrance to the Tank Farm offices. The location of the proposed driveway entrance is
shown in Appendix A.3, page A.3-10;
• Installation of a signalized intersection at Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road (the AASP calls
for the use of a roundabout at this intersection); and
• Revisions to appropriate text, tables, and graphics to reflect land use and circulation changes,
including:
o Land Use areas designations amended to reflect the acreages as described for the Project;
o Plan Area Zoning amended to reflect the acreages as described for the Project;
o Primary Circulation System and Functional Classifications within AASP Area and
Surrounding Community amended to Proposed Primary Circulation System and Functional
Classifications;
o Bicycle Plan amendment consisting of eliminating the Class I bikeway on the south side of
Tank Farm Road, eliminating the Class I bike path connecting Tank Farm Road to Buckley
Road along Tank Farm Creek, The bike lanes along the Unocal Collector Road (this road
would not be built as part of the Project), and realignment of some of the bike paths shown in
the Bicycle Transportation Plan.
o Modify southern side of Tank Farm Road street section to remove sidewalk and Class I path
and include a 12-foot wide Class I multi-use path on the north side of Tank Farm Road;
o Update to the AASP cluster development zone evaluation; and
o Update information and mitigations related to environmental issues.
IV. The Record
The California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 15091 (b) requires that the City's findings be
supported by substantial evidence in the record. Accordingly, the Lead Agency's record consists of the
following, which are located at the City Community Development Department office, San Luis Obispo,
California:
• Documentary and oral evidence, testimony, and staff comments and responses received and
Attachment 11
PC1 - 313
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 4
reviewed by the Lead Agency during informational workshops, public review, and the public
hearings on the project.
• The Chevron Tank Farm Project Final Environmental Impact Report, Volumes I, II, and III.
V. The December 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron
Tank Farm
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo makes the following findings with respect to the
December 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron Tank Farm Project SCH
#2009031001:
A. The City has considered the information contained in the December 2013 Final EIR for the Chevron
Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project, the public comments and responses previously
submitted, and the public comments and information presented at the public hearings.
B. The City Council hereby finds and determines that implementation of the City Development Plan
Chevron Tank Farm Project may have a significant adverse effect on the environment.
C. The City Council hereby finds with respect to the adverse environmental impacts detailed in the Final
EIR:
1. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR, the Findings of Fact, the list of
mitigation measures included in the List of Mitigation Measures (Volume III, Appendix J),
the City Council finds and determines that changes or alterations have been required in or
incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the adverse environmental
effects identified in the Final EIR. The organization of this section is as follows, and reflects
the organization of the December 2013 Final Environmental Impact Report for the Chevron
Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project (FEIR):
4.1.5 Air Quality
4.2.5 Biological Resources
4.3.5 Transportation and Circulation
4.5.5 Water Resources
4.6.5 Wastewater
4.7.5 Geological and Soil Resources
4.8.5 Noise and Vibration
4.9.5 Cultural Resources and Archaeology
4.10.5 Aesthetics and Visual Resources
4.11.5 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
4.12.5 Population and Housing
4.13.5 Public Services and Utilities
4.14.5 Recreation
4.15.5 Agricultural Resources
2. That, based on information set forth in the Final EIR and in the Findings of Fact, the adverse
environmental effects related to operational related air quality and cumulative transportation
and circulation associated with the Chevron Tank Farm Project are significant effects which
cannot be entirely mitigated or avoided if the project is approved and implemented;
Attachment 11
PC1 - 314
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 5
3. That no additional adverse impacts will have a significant effect or result in substantial or
potentially substantial adverse changes in the environment as a result of the Chevron Tank
Farm Project.
D. The City Council hereby finds and determines that:
1. All significant effects (except operational related air quality and cumulative transportation
impacts) that can be feasibly avoided have been eliminated or substantially lessened as
determined through the findings set forth in Section VIII;
2. The project design and development incorporates adequate measures to ensure protection of
significant archeological resources, biological resources, and visual and aesthetic resources.
3. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, specific
environmental, economic, social and other considerations make infeasible other project
alternatives identified in the Final EIR;
4. Based on the Final EIR, the Findings, and other documents in the record, the remaining
unavoidable significant environmental effects of the Chevron Tank Farm Project are
outweighed and overridden by the benefits of the project as described in the Statement of
Overriding Considerations.
5. Should the final design of the Chevron Tank Farm Project have the potential to result in
adverse environmental impacts that are not anticipated or addressed by the December 2013
Final EIR, subsequent environmental review shall be required in accordance with CEQA
Guidelines Section 15162(a).
VI. Statement of Overriding Considerations
The Final EIR has identified and discussed significant effects that will occur as a result of the proposed
project. With the implementation of the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR, these effects can
be mitigated to a level of insignificance except for operational related air quality impacts and cumulative
transportation impacts (see Section IX of these findings for further discussion of potentially significant
impacts associated with the proposed project).
Having reduced the effects of the proposed project by adopting the other mitigation measures and a
program to monitor mitigation measures for certain project-related impacts, and having balanced the
benefits of the project against the project's unavoidable adverse impacts, the City Council pursuant to
CEQA Guidelines sections 15093 and 15092 hereby determines that the benefits of the proposed project
outweigh these potential unavoidable adverse impacts based on the following overriding considerations:
1. The amount of land proposed for permanent open space dedication combined with a restoration
plan to enhance the open space provides positive environmental enhancements that will help to
offset the potential significant impacts of the proposed commercial development.
2. The proposed commercial development will provide for necessary bicycle connections in the
form of class 1 pathways linking the Damon Garcia Sports Fields to Tank Farm Road and other
properties, linking Tank Farm Road to Prado Road, and linking Tank Farm Road to the Avila
Ranch property. These bicycle connections will encourage alternative forms of transportation
thereby offsetting potential significant traffic and circulation impacts as well as air quality
Attachment 11
PC1 - 315
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 6
impacts.
3. The proposed amendments to the AASP will relocate proposed commercial areas away from
sensitive biological habitat areas while facilitating remediation and restoration of the former tank
farm property thereby enhancing the biological functions of the property, improving drainage and
surface water flow, reducing downstream flooding, and eliminated existing wildlife entrapment
hazards.
4. The proposed amendments to the AASP will relocate proposed commercial areas and land uses
away from potential airport hazards while clearly identifying airport open space zones, runway
protection zones while improving physical features (e.g., removing the walls and upper portions
of the berms of former Reservoir 2) to enhance airport safety thereby reducing potential hazards.
5. The City has identified the following overriding economic, social, and other public benefits of the
project, which are additional reasons that the significant and unavoidable impacts identified in the
Final EIR can be found acceptable, and hereby adopts them as a statement of overriding
considerations:
a. In conformance with the City’s General Plan policies and community goals, the project will
provide for additional commercial development opportunities within the City’s urban
reserve area while providing for jobs, necessary services and key infrastructure
improvements.
b. The project will provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities for new
businesses to locate in the City by creating new business park and service commercial
space which will further the General Plan Land Use Element goals and which will provide
additional sales tax revenues for the City that the City can use to provide services to the
community;
c. The project will provide for a significant expansion to the City’s open space reserve, with
the intent of securing open space for recreational uses, habitat restoration, and viewshed
preservation on land that is contiguous to other such open space areas.
6. The development project will help finance improvements to key circulation features including the
widening of Tank Farm Road, aesthetic improvements to the Tank Farm corridor, the
incorporation of important bicycle and pedestrian linkages, the connection of Tank Farm Road to
the future extension of Prado Road and the re-alignment of Santa Fe Road south to correct
hazardous road features.
The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby determines that the specific overriding economic,
legal, social, technological, and other benefits of the proposed project described above outweigh the
potential unavoidable adverse effects on the environment, and that the unavoidable adverse effects are
therefore acceptable based on the overriding considerations listed above.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 316
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 7
IMPACT ANALYSIS: Four categories of impacts are identified:
Class I. Class I impacts are significant and unavoidable. To approve a project resulting in Class
I impacts, the CEQA Guidelines require decision makers to make findings of overriding
consideration that "... specific legal, technological, economic, social, or other considerations
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR..."
Class II. Class II impacts are significant but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance by
measures identified in this EIR and the project description. When approving a project with Class
IT impacts, the decision-makers must make findings that changes or alternatives to the project
have been incorporated that reduce the impacts to a less than significant level.
Class III. Class III impacts are adverse but not significant.
Class IV. Beneficial impacts.
VII. Potential Environmental Effects Which Are Not Significant or Beneficial
The City Council has concluded that the following effects are not considered significant.
Air Quality
Impact
AQ.5
Construction activities associated with the City Development Plan would
generate emissions that exceed SLOAPCD thresholds.
Mitigation Fugitive dust mitigation measures (see impact AQ.2) would be applicable to
this phase of the Project as per SLOAPCD requirements.
AQ-2a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
provide satisfactory evidence that a SLOAPCD-approved Construction Activity
Management Plan (CAMP) has been prepared that addresses fugitive dust
emissions. The Plan shall include requirements in the SLOAPCD CEQA
Handbook. Fugitive dust mitigation measures in the plan shall include a
combination of the following, as approved by the SLOAPCD:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to
prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. An adequate water supply
source must be identified. Increased watering frequency would be
required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-
potable) water should be used whenever possible.
c. All dirt stockpile areas should be sprayed daily as needed, covered, or a
SLOAPCD-approved alternative method will be used. (90 percent
reduction).
d. Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved Project
revegetation and landscape plans should be implemented as soon as
possible following completion of any soil disturbing activities.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 317
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 8
Air Quality
e. Exposed ground areas that will be reworked at dates greater than one
month after initial grading should be sown with a fast-germinating non-
invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established, unless
other dust and erosion control measures are specified in the agency-
approved Dust Control Plan.
f. All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized
using approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods
approved in advance by the SLOAPCD.
g. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be
completed as soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid
as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
h. Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on
any unpaved surface at the construction site.
i. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be
covered or should maintain at least 2 feet of freeboard (minimum
vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance
with CVC Section 23114.
j. Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto
streets, or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site.
k. Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried
onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water should
be used where feasible
l. Apply water every 3 hours to disturbed areas within the construction site
(61 percent reduction in particulate emissions).
m. Application of soil binders to dirt roads shall be applied to achieve at
least an 80 percent reduction in fugitive dust emissions. All soil binders
used shall be ‘environmentally friendly’ and shall be either
lignosulfonate- or calcium lignosulfonate-based approved by the
SLOAPCD. All dust control methods, including soil binders, shall be
demonstrated in the fugitive dust control plan to ensure compliance with
SLOAPCD Rule 401.
n. All roadway, driveway, and sidewalk paving should be completed as
soon as possible. In addition, building pads should be laid as soon as
possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used.
o. The contractor or builder shall designate a person to monitor the fugitive
dust emissions and oversee mitigation measure implementation as per
SLOAPCD approval to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible
emissions to less than 20 percent opacity, and to prevent transport of
dust off-site. The designated monitor shall carry out these duties on
regular workdays, as well as holidays and weekends when work may
not be in progress. The name and telephone number of the designated
monitor shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance Division prior
Attachment 11
PC1 - 318
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 9
Air Quality
to the start of any grading, earthwork, or demolition.
AQ-2b Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
submit an APCD approved Construction Activity Monitoring Plan (CAMP),
which shall include, but not be limited to the following elements:
a. A Dust Control Management Plan that encompasses all, but is not
limited to, measures associated with impact AQ.1 and AQ.2;
b. Tabulation of on- and off-road construction equipment information
(e.g., make, model, type, engine tier, DPM Level 3 filter age, horse-
power, and miles or hours of operation);
c. Construction truck trips scheduled during non-peak hours to reduce
peak-hour emissions;
d. Limited construction work-day period, if necessary; and
e. Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
AQ-2c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
implement the following idle-restricting measures for both on- and off-road
equipment during the Project grading and construction phase near sensitive
receptors:
a. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of
sensitive receptors or applicable measures shall be employed as per the
direction of the SLOCAPCD, including monitoring or low-particulate
engine technologies. No staging, queuing or idling within 1,000 feet of
the recreational fields when in use;
b. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted or
applicable measures shall be employed as per the direction of the
SLOCAPCD, including monitoring or low-particulate engine
technologies. No staging, queuing or idling within 1,000 feet of the
recreational fields when in use;
c. Use alternative fueled equipment whenever possible; and
d. Signs identifying the no idling requirements must be posted and
enforced at the construction site.
AQ-2d Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
implement the following idle-restricting measures for on-road vehicles during
the grading and construction phase of the Project:
a. a. Section 2485 of Title 13, the California Code of Regulations limits
diesel-fueled commercial motor vehicles that operate in the State of
California with gross vehicular weight ratings of greater than 10,000
pounds and licensed for operation on highways. It applies to California
and non-California based vehicles. In general, the regulation specifies
that drivers of these vehicles:
- Shall not idle the vehicle’s primary diesel engine for more than 5
minutes at any location, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
Attachment 11
PC1 - 319
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 10
Air Quality
regulation; and,
- Shall not operate a diesel-fueled auxiliary power system (APS)
to power a heater, air conditioner, or any ancillary equipment on
that vehicle during sleeping or resting in a sleeper berth for
greater than 5 minutes at any location when within 100 feet of a
restricted area, except as noted in Subsection (d) of the
regulation.
b. b. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to
remind on-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
AQ-2e Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
implement the following idle restricting measures for off-road vehicles during
the construction phase of the Project:
a. Off-road diesel equipment shall comply with the 5-minute idling
restriction identified in Section 2449(d)(3) of the CARB In-Use off-
Road Diesel regulation:
www.arb.ca.gov/regact/2007/ordiesl07/frooal.pdf.
b. Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and job sites to
remind off-road equipment operators of the 5-minute idling limit.
AQ-2f Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
submit a geologic evaluation under the CARB Air Toxics Control Measure
(ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations,
to determine if Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) is present within the area
that will be disturbed. NOA has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by
the CARB. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the
District. If NOA is found at the site, the Applicant must 1) comply with all
requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development
of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety
Program for approval by the SLOAPCD; 2) require that any crushing
operations do not result in any dust that is visible crossing the property line,
does not discharge into the air any visible emissions other than uncombined
water vapor, for a period aggregating more than three minutes in any one hour
which are 50 percent as dark or darker in shade as that designated as number
one on the Ringlemann Chart or exceed at 10 % opacity; and 3) conduct a
geological evaluation prior to any grading. Technical Appendix 4.4 of the
SLOAPCD CEQA Handbook includes a map of zones throughout the County
where NOA has been found. More information on NOA is available at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-2g Prior to issuance of demolition permits, the Applicant shall comply
with asbestos containing material (ACM) requirements. Demolition activities
can have potential negative air quality impacts, including issues surrounding
proper handling, demolition, and disposal of ACM. ACM could be encountered
during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be
found in utility pipes and pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If
utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is
Attachment 11
PC1 - 320
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 11
Air Quality
proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may
apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP).
These requirements include but are not limited to: (1) notification to the
SLOAPCD; (2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos
Inspector; and (3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified
ACM. More information on asbestos is available at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Emissions exceed the SLOAPCD thresholds for the peak day
ROG+NOx emission levels. However, as the construction activity would last for more than 90
days (anticipated lasting for 2-3 years), the daily thresholds would not apply (as per the
SLOAPCD Handbook). All other thresholds would not be exceeded by the development phase
construction activities.
Impact
AQ.9
Operational activities associated with the City Development Plan would
generate CO emissions that produce localized CO Hot Spots.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Increased trips associated with the vehicles at area intersections would
emit CO emissions that could cause localized concentrations of CO to exceed the air standards.
An assessment was conducted utilizing the CALINE4 model at all intersections that would
exceed an LOS D during the build-out plus Project phase. Eleven intersections were assessed
and the greatest increase in CO emissions would be less than 1 ppm. The CO levels ranged
from 4.0 ppm to 5.0 ppm 1-hour results and from 3.4 to 4.0 ppm for the 8-hour results. These
levels are below the standards of 20 ppm and 9 ppm for the 1-hour and 8-hour respectively.
Impact
AQ.10
Operational activities associated with the City Development Plan would
generate diesel PM emissions that produce localized, elevated cancer impacts.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Increased trips associated with the City Development Plan would
increase diesel particulate emissions (DPM) associated with diesel trucks near area
intersections and roadways that could cause localized concentrations of DPM to elevate cancer
risks. The City Development Plan would generate over 1,300 trucks per day on area roadways,
with over 300 daily trips of heavy trucks. The diesel emissions from these trucks and their
impacts were assessed using EMFAC2011 and AERMOD modeling of the intersections and
Attachment 11
PC1 - 321
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 12
Air Quality
roadways with highest levels of Project truck trips (Tank Farm Road/Broad Street and Tank
Farm Road/Higuera Road). A receptor grid at 25 meter spacing was used to define receptors
outside of 30 meters from the roadway centerline to a distance of 1,000 meters. Evaluation of
roadway segments and intersections found that the City Development Plan resulted in a
highest cancer risk of 5.8 cancer cases per million located immediately adjacent to the Tank
Farm Road and Higuera Street intersection, which would be below the SLOAPCD significance
criteria.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact T.2 The addition of traffic generated by the Project would cause one intersection to
operate at unacceptable levels under Existing plus Project conditions.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: To assess impacts associated with Existing plus Project conditions,
Project impacts were analyzed as if the Project were constructed and operating today.
Significant impacts associated with existing conditions with the Project traffic levels could
occur at Broad Street and Tank Farm Road. The addition of Phase 1 Project traffic during the
a.m. and p.m. peak hours would worsen operations from LOS D to LOS E. The design and
installation of a second eastbound left turn lane would improve operations to a LOS D during
both time periods. A second eastbound left turn lane was recently completed by the City using
Airport Area Impact Fees as part of a major improvement project at this intersection. The
Project would pay into the City Airport Area Impact Fee account as part of the City
Development Plan. With the recently completed second eastbound left hand turn lane the
Broad Street and Tank Farm Road intersection would operate at an LOS of D during both time
periods, which would make the impact less than significant.
Water Resources
Impact
WR.6
Paving and development could result in changes to surface water flows thereby
increasing surface water runoff from the Project Site.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: With the City Development Plan, stormwater draining from
approximately 48 acres of land will be collected into catch basins and storm drains and routed
into the North Marsh Area. Paving the eastern development area would substantially increase
runoff. However, the detention and sedimentation pond, discussed under the remediation
aspect of the Project, would be engineered to accommodate this volume and flow rate. In
accordance with RWQCB and AASP development requirements, the detention basin would
Attachment 11
PC1 - 322
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 13
Water Resources
supplement other proposed best management practices, such as the vegetated swale along
Tank Farm Road and the lot-level stormwater infrastructure (e.g., catch basin trash and
oil/water separators) that would be designed during implementation of the City Development
Plan.
As part of the City Development Plan on the eastern part of the site just north of Tank Farm Road, a
new detention/sedimentation basin would be constructed for the treatment of runoff before discharging
to the existing isolated on-site ponds. The added runoff is a direct result of paving and other
impermeable surfaces that coincide with development activities and a slightly larger catchment area
generated as a result of developmental grading. None of the stormwater from this area would be
discharged off-site.
The remaining development east of the Santa Fe Road extension would drain via sheet flow to Acacia
Creek. The runoff from this area would be greatly reduced. Runoff is expected to discharge to Acacia
Creek via sheet flow at a rate of approximately 3.5 and 9.5 cubic feet per second for the 2-year and
100-year storms, respectively. These volumes and flow rates are insignificant compared to those for
Acacia Creek.
Based upon the discussion above, surface water runoff impact from the City Development Plan
component of the Project would be less than significant.
Impact
WR.7
Flooding of development structures or redirection of flood flows could occur if
buildings are built within the 100-year flood plain.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: A number of the proposed grading activities would serve to change the
area of the site that would be within the 100-year flood plain. The Applicant in conjunction
with the Lead Agency would be required to obtain a Conditional Letter of Map Revision
(CLOMR) and a letter of Map Revision (LOMR) from the Federal Emergency Management
Administration (FEMA). These documents would change the 100-year flood zone maps for the
Project Site. None of the development areas would be within the 100-year flood plain.
Wastewater
Impact
WW.2
The wastewater generated from the City Development Plan component of the
Project would exceed the design capacity of the City’s downstream sewer lines
or the capacity of the City’s water reclamation facility.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Attachment 11
PC1 - 323
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 14
Wastewater
Supportive Evidence: According to the AASP, the Specific Plan area (including the City
Development Plan) has been projected to generate flows of approximately 745,000 gallons per day.
Due to the fact the planned land use of the Project Site is part of the AASP, the 64,090 gallons per day
of generated flow falls within the anticipated parameters. The Project would convey the generated flow
to the existing wastewater sewer line running westerly down Tank Farm Road. The wastewater
impacts due to the City Development Plan are anticipated to be less than significant due to existing
sewer lines, pump station, and water reclamation facility are capable of handling the projected flows at
build-out. The advanced planning, and incorporation into the AASP, has allowed for the projected
wastewater generation from the City Development Plan to result in minimal impact to the wastewater
facilities.
Geological and Soil Resources
Impact
GR.2
Seismically induced ground shaking could damage proposed structures and
infrastructure, potentially resulting in loss of property or risk to human health
and safety.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: The Applicant would be required to design and construct all buildings to
withstand the expected ground acceleration that may occur at the Project Site based on the California
Building Code that is applicable at the time the buildings are permitted. The current California
Building code requires that surface facilities, buildings, residential structures, and equipment have
suitable foundations and anchoring design, surface restraints, and moment-limiting supports to
withstand seismically-induced ground shaking. In addition the 2010 California Building Code, and the
City of San Luis Obispo building code requires that slopes, roadways, and building pads are properly
engineered.
Impact
GR.3
Existing uncertified fill on-site could be subject to hydroconsolidation,
excessive settlement, expansive soil shrink and swell, and differential
settlement and expansion, and thus could damage proposed facilities, resulting
in loss of property and risks to human health and safety.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Based on site observations and previous studies, un-engineered fill has been
placed across the Project Site at various locations for roads, holding ponds, and other operations. The
exact locations and the horizontal and vertical limits of un-engineered fill have not been clearly
discerned. The Project would have to meet all of the requirements of the City and the 2010 California
Building Code as it relates to all grading activities, including the requirements for compacted
engineering fill.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 324
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 15
Geological and Soil Resources
Impact
GR.6
Construction and improvement in areas lacking suitable factors of safety for
existing slopes could result in gross or surficial instability, as well as
earthquake-induced landslides, which could damage proposed structures and
infrastructure, resulting in loss of property and risks to human health and safety.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Based on the flat topography on-site and distance from suspected
landslide areas, the potential for landsliding or the failure of natural slopes to affect the Project
Site is low.
Noise and Vibration
Impact N.4 Off-site City Development Plan related traffic would generate noise impacts to
nearby areas.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Traffic levels at full build-out (after Phase 5) would increase on area streets
which would in turn increase noise levels. Traffic noise levels at intersections with the proposed
Project traffic are shown in Table 4.8-10. Increases in traffic would increase noise levels at 100 feet
from the roadways by up to 0.5 dBA. This increase would be below the 3 dBA increase specified in the
significance thresholds. Although the noise levels associated with traffic would be above the 60 dBA
specified as the upper limit of transportation-related noise levels at receptors, the traffic routes would
be associated with traffic along arterial roadways and would not impact residential collector streets or
local streets.
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact
HM.7
Potential risk associated with development within the SLOCRA safety areas.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: The proposed Project would have development with Safety Areas S-1b, S-
1c. The project would be developed with an approved ACOS and CDZ specified in an approved
Detailed Area Plan (the AASP). This would allow non-residential densities of 50 persons per acre
in S-1b and 120 persons per acre in S-1c. The data in Table 4.11-5 of the FEIR shows that the
proposed Project would be well below the allowable population densities in the ALUP.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 325
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 16
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact
HM.9
Risk associated with land use changes and aircraft wildlife strikes and other
aircraft hazards.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: It is unlikely that the proposed development would result in any
substantial change in the amount of wildlife over the current baseline, but may only serve to
change the species that forage at the Project Site, and the times that these species are present.
The area is currently characterized by grassland, which attracts various species of birds,
including birds of prey that feed on rodents. Species that have been involved in aircraft strikes
include seagulls, hawks, pigeons, blackbirds, sparrows, finches, ducks, owls, American
kestrels, meadowlarks and turkey vultures. Hawks are the most frequently impacted species.
Subsequent to development, it is likely that opportunistic species, such as seagulls, pigeons,
blackbirds, sparrows, finches, ducks, etc. would be attracted to the area, while predatory
species, such as hawks, white-tailed kite, prairie falcon, northern harrier, and golden eagle (all
observed at the Project Site) would be expected to decrease due to the decrease in feeding
opportunities.
Population and Housing
Impact
P/H.2
The City Development Plan may induce substantial growth in the area by
proposing new businesses in the area.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: The Project would induce growth in the area by developing
commercial facilities that may employ approximately 1,971 people. As stated above, the City
reports capacity for 4,200 new dwellings to be developed within the URL. Development of
those proposed residential developments would provide adequate housing in the area for the
new residents that may be generated by the implementation of this Project over a 20 to 25 year
period.
Public Services and Utilities
Impact
PS/U.6
Build-out of the City Development Plan land uses would create an
incrementally higher demand for police protection services.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 326
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 17
Public Services and Utilities
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: As reported by the SLOPD, existing staff levels are adequate to meet
the demands of the community; however, a department objective of being available 30 percent
of the time is not currently being met much of the year. As service demands associated with
development in the Project area increase, additional staffing resources may need to be put in
place to insure that the area receives the same level of service as the rest of the community.
However, the City Development Plan would not require new or physically altered
governmental facilities to accommodate additional officers that may be needed in order to
maintain acceptable service ratios or other performance objectives.
Impact
PS/U.7
Construction and operation of the City Development Plan could potentially use
nonrenewable resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner.
Mitigation PS/U-7a If additional electrical or natural gas energy infrastructure is required
to accommodate the proposed Project, the Applicant would be required to pay a
fee to PG&E or SCG respectively, to provide additional service.
PS/U-7b To avoid wasteful use of gasoline or diesel fuel, construction vehicles
should be left on-site for the duration of each annual active construction season
(as defined by allowed construction timing by the various mitigation measures),
and construction vehicles shall be turned off when not in use to avoid idling.
PS/U-7c The Applicant shall comply, to the maximum extent feasible, with all
adopted City policies regarding energy consumption such as:
a. Incorporating cost-effective, renewable, energy resources into the
Project;
b. Providing passive features through site design that allows shade to
reduce unwanted heat gain, thereby reducing the need to use energy for
cooling; and
c. Installation of energy efficient appliances, heat recovery equipment, and
building energy management systems.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Both utilities report reliable service levels in the Project area, therefore,
it is not expected that the development of the Project’s commercial facilities would consume
energy beyond the capacity of PG&E or SCG to supply or produce. By adhering to SLO
Municipal Code for energy efficiency requirements, the Project will not be in conflict with
energy conservation plans, or result in the construction or operations of a project that would
use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner.
Impact
PS/U.8
Construction and operation of the City Development Plan could generate
significant amounts of solid waste.
Mitigation PS/U-8a Pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Ordinance 1381, Chapter
Attachment 11
PC1 - 327
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 18
Public Services and Utilities
8.05, a Recycling Plan for the City Development Plan to be implemented during
construction shall be submitted for approval by the City of San Luis Obispo
Utilities Department, prior to building permit issuance. Throughout
construction periods, documentation shall be provided to the City Utilities
Department demonstrating compliance with the plan and the City’s Ordinance
1381. The plan shall include strategies to increase recycling of construction
materials, and documentation that a minimum of 50 percent of discarded
construction materials are diverted from landfills. The plan may consist of the
following information:
a. The name and contact information of who will be responsible for
implementing the recycling plan.
b. A brief description of the proposed Project wastes to be generated,
including types and estimated quantities of each material to be salvaged,
reused, or recycled during the construction phase of this Project.
c. Waste sorting/recycling and/or collection areas shall be clearly indicated
on the Site Map.
d. A description of the means of transportation and destination of
recyclable materials and waste, and a description of where recyclable
materials and waste will be sorted (whether materials will be site-
separated and hauled to designated recycling or landfill facilities, or
whether mixed materials will be removed from the site to be processed
at a mixed waste sorting facility).
e. The name of the landfill(s) where trash will be disposed of and a
projected amount of material that will be landfilled.
f. A description of meetings to be held between Applicant and contractor
to ensure compliance with the recycling plan.
g. A contingency plan shall identify an alternate location to recycle and/or
stockpile construction debris in the event of local recycling facilities
becoming unable to accept material (for example: all local recycling
facilities reaching the maximum tons per day due to a time period of
unusually large volume).
h. Ongoing documentation by the Contractor submitted with each
Building/Zoning Inspection reporting on a quarterly basis.
i. Disposal information including quantity of material landfilled, which
landfill was used, total landfill tipping fees paid, and copies of weight
tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices.
j. Recycle information including quantity of material recycles, receiving
party, and copies of weight tickets, manifests, receipts, and invoices.
k. Reuse and salvage information including quantities of salvage materials,
storage locations if they are to be used on-site, or receiving party if
resold/used off-site.
PS/U-8b Pursuant to the City of San Luis Obispo’s Source Reduction and
Attachment 11
PC1 - 328
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 19
Public Services and Utilities
Recycling Element to achieve a 50% reduction in solid waste as required by AB
939, the project shall provide a plan for the disposal, storage and collection of
solid waste material for the project. The plan shall include provisions for
adequate recycling bin capacity as well as timely collection of recyclables. The
development of the plan shall be coordinated with the City’s franchised solid
waste collection and disposal firm, San Luis Obispo Garbage.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Cold Canyon Landfill has capacity until approximately the year 2040.
Assuming that 100 percent of disposal from the City Development Plan was to be accommodated by
either of these landfills, the increase in their percentage of permitted daily disposal quantities would be
approximately 3 percent for the Chicago Grade facility and 3.5 percent for the Paso Robles facility.
Based on the reported 2009 disposal rates, the increases would result in daily throughput percentages of
35 percent for the Chicago Grade Landfill and 23 percent for the Paso Robles Landfill. These facilities
have estimated closure dates of 2042 and 2051, respectively. As such, landfills that serve the County
have sufficient capacity to dispose of City Development Plan generated solid waste, which would make
the solid waste impacts of this Project less than significant.
Impact
PS/U.9
Development of the Project could impact availability of water supplies from the
City water Utility.
Mitigation PS/U-9 The Development shall connect to the City’s reclaimed water system
and shall use reclaimed water for landscape irrigation.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: Adequate water supply for the City Development Plan was included in
the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (adopted July 21, 2011). Based on the information
provided in this Water Supply Assessment and the adopted Urban Water Management Plan,
the City has a sufficient water supply available to meet the water supply demand (171.4 afy) of
the Project.
Agriculture
Impact
AR.4
The City Development Plan would result in the conversion of farmland or
grazing land to non-agricultural uses.
Mitigation No mitigation measures are required since the impact is less than significant.
Findings Impacts are considered potentially adverse but less than significant (Class III).
Supportive Evidence: About 30 acres of land that is currently available for grazing would be
converted to development. With the multitude of site constraints, the historical use of the Project Site,
and the limited grassland that is accessible for grazing, the Project Site has only has limited and
intermittent grazing for the purpose of weed control since the 1990s. Historically, the Project Site has
Attachment 11
PC1 - 329
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 20
Agriculture
not been used for continuous cattle grazing for the purpose of raising animals.
Cattle grazing could continue on the site with the development, but would have to be limited to
areas outside of the restored wetland, VPFS habitat, and terrestrial areas. Given that the Project
Site is only used for limited cattle grazing to control weeds, the multitude of site constraints,
the historical use of the site, and the limited grassland that is accessible for grazing, the
impacts of the City Development Plan on the conversion of grazing land would be less than
significant.
Recreation
Impact
REC.2
The City Development Plan would increase the City’s recreational acreage
stock with 15 acres of sports fields, as well as Class I and Class II bicycle lanes,
while not adding residential development.
Mitigation No mitigation required.
Findings Impacts are considered beneficial (Class IV).
Supportive Evidence: For purposes of analyzing typical development project impacts on
recreation, only residential projects are usually considered potentially impactful since
employees of businesses are not expected to utilize recreational facilities as frequently or for
extended periods of time as residents would. In addition, the increase in daytime population as
a result of the presence of construction workers is temporary in nature. The Project would not
develop any residential units and as such would not increase the use or demand for parks or
other recreational opportunities, nor accelerate deterioration of such facilities. Therefore, by
increasing the City’s recreational opportunities without substantially increasing the population
that uses them, the Project’s effect on City recreation facilities would be benefial.
VIII. Potential Significant Effects Which Have Been Mitigated to a Level of
Insignificance
The City Council has concluded that the mitigation measures identified in the Mitigation Monitoring
Program (Section XI.) will result in substantial mitigation of the following effects and that these effects
are not considered significant or they have been mitigated to a level of insignificance.
Air Quality
Impact
AQ.6
Operational activities associated with the City Development Plan would
generate ROG+NOx emissions that exceed SLOAPCD thresholds.
Mitigation AQ-6a Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant
shall implement the following mitigation measures to reduce area source
emissions, where applicable.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 330
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 21
Air Quality
a. Increase walls and attic insulation by 20 percent above what is required
by the 2008 Title 24 requirements.
b. Shade tree planting along southern exposures of buildings to reduce
summer cooling needs.
c. Shade tree planting in parking lots to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
d. Use built-in energy efficient appliances, where applicable.
e. Orient buildings toward streets with convenient pedestrian and transit
access.
f. Use double-paned windows.
g. Use low-energy parking lot and streetlights. (e.g., sodium)
h. Use energy efficient interior lighting.
i. Incorporate energy efficient skylights into roof plan (i.e., should meet
the EPA/DOE Energy Star® rating).
j. Install High efficiency or gas space heating.
k. Install door sweeps and weather stripping if more efficient doors and
windows are not available.
AQ-6b Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits or lease
agreement, the Applicant shall implement the following mitigation measures to
reduce vehicle emissions.
a. Locate electrical vehicle charging station(s) in the parking lots at a ratio
required by County or City ordinance or as recommended by APCD.
b. In coordination with the City Transit Management, provide transit
demand enhancements (i.e., additional stops, shelters, phones) within
the Project impact area to meet the increased ridership demand
associated with the Project.
c. Provide on-site long-and short-term bicycle parking consistent with
location and design criteria established by the City’s Bicycle
Transportation Plan, with installation and design guidance provided by
the City’s Community Design Guidelines. One bicycle parking space
for every 10 employees is considered appropriate.
d. Provide shower stalls and locker facilities to encourage employees to
bike or walk to work.
e. The Applicant or lessee shall meet with SLOCOG’s Rideshare Program
Coordinator to develop a Trip Reduction Plan to be reviewed and
approved by the Public Works Director and APCD. The Trip Reduction
Plan shall include the following:
1) A comprehensive Transportation Demand Management program
for employees. The TDM may include: (a) private vanpool
operation; (b) transit and vanpool fare subsidies; (c) pay parking
Attachment 11
PC1 - 331
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 22
Air Quality
for employees; (d) provision of subscription bus services; (e)
alternative work hours; (f) capital improvements for transit
services; (g) reduction of parking fees for carpools and vanpools;
(h) Bikeway linkages to established bicycle routes; and (i)
provision of an on-site employee transportation and rideshare
coordinator.
2) Preferential carpool and vanpool parking for employees.
3) A lunch-time shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips.
4) On-site facilities for eating and convenience including
refrigeration, automatic banking, and other vending for
employees.
5) Incentive programs, similar to the County Rideshare
Transportation Choices Program, to reduce employee commute
trips. Programs should be coordinated with adjacent commercial
development with a goal to achieve an Average Vehicle
Ridership (AVR) of 1.20 persons per vehicle or greater.
6) The Applicant shall set aside funds equivalent to three month
enrollment in Rideshare’s Back ‘N’ Forth Club for 25 percent of
all employees (a maximum of $52,230 for this project). This
fund shall be managed by APCD through a program similar to
the “Flash Pass” used for the San Luis Obispo Home Depot
development. If funds are not used for this purpose, they may be
used for other incentives that have been included in the approved
Trip Reduction Plan.
f. The Applicant shall coordinate with the City and APCD to pursue a
shared use agreement to use over-supplied parking areas for a potential
park-and-ride lot. The park-and-ride lot should be away from building
entrances and as close as possible to the parking lot entrance nearest to
Tank Farm Road or fronting street. The target number of park-and-ride
spaces should be 25. The parking area should be identified with signage
and registered with the San Luis Obispo Council of Governments as an
official park-and-ride lot.
g. Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce
vehicle queuing and improve the pedestrian and bicycle environment.
AQ-6c Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, if emissions of
ROG+NOx with the above mitigations still exceed the thresholds, the Applicant
shall secure SLOAPCD approved off-site reductions in ROG+NOx emissions
from the SLOAPCD to ensure that ROG+NOx emissions do not exceed the
SLOAPCD daily and annual thresholds.
AQ-6d Implement a program of periodic wet-vacuum street sweeping in
coordination with APCD in order to reduce vehicle-related fugitive dust
emissions.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 332
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 23
Air Quality
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the proposed project operational
air quality impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The City Development Plan, by design, addresses a number of
operational measures that could reduce emissions including in-fill development, development
within ¼ mile of public transit connections, the use of bike paths, etc. Although the City
Development Plan does not include residential development, some measures could be applied
to reduce energy use, and thereby, reduce emissions. Title 24, for example, is applicable to all
occupied buildings in California. Some measures related to LEED requirements could reduce
energy use of the proposed land uses. However, the majority of emissions are associated with
on-road vehicle traffic. Fugitive dust, for example, is entirely associated with on-road vehicle
traffic, and 85 percent of NOx emissions are generated by on-road vehicles. As on-road
vehicles are regulated by the CARB and existing regulations are in place to reduce these
emissions in the coming years, there are minimal mitigation measures that could be applied to
the operational phase of the Project to reduce criteria emissions, although some measures can
be applied to reduce vehicle trips.
Impact
AQ.8
Operational and construction activities associated with the City Development
Plan would generate GHG emissions that exceed SLOAPCD thresholds.
Mitigation AQ-8 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits for each phase,
the Applicant shall include building efficiency improvements and/or off-site
reductions in GHG emissions to ensure that GHG emissions do not exceed the
SLOAPCD thresholds.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the operational and construction
GHG emission impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: GHG emissions would be attributable to energy consumption (21 percent),
mobile sources (23 percent), waste production and treatment creating non-biogenic and biogenic CO2
and methane (34 percent), water consumption (17 percent) and construction (1 percent). GHG
emissions would exceed the SLOAPCD threshold of 1,150 metric tonnes per year. Mitigation measures
would include those associated with impact AQ.6 (off-site mobile reductions), in addition to the
requirement for the use of higher efficiency buildings. Similar to SLOAPCD ROG+NOx program, the
GHG program is administered by the SLOAPCD and funds programs in the community which reduce
GHG emissions.
Biological Resources
Impact
BIO.8
The City Development Plan would result in permanent loss of biological
functions of wetlands, native grasslands, habitats for rare plants and animals,
and other biotic communities considered sensitive by federal, state, or local
policies, statutes, and regulations.
Mitigation BIO-8a The final restoration plan shall include criteria that would require the
Attachment 11
PC1 - 333
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 24
Biological Resources
restoration of at least a 2:1 replacement ratio (4.14 acres as defined by Padre
2008c) of all “native grasslands” habitat permanently lost in the development
elements of the project. Restored native grassland habitat shall meet standards
and criteria as defined by the County of San Luis Obispo and CDFW within the
proposed restoration of 45.2 acres of forb field habitat. Implementation of the
terrestrial habitat restoration shall follow the plan, including locations to be
restored, restoration techniques, a schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of
recovery, success criteria, and remedial actions if success criteria are not met.
BIO-8b The function of the restored native grassland habitats shall be
monitored. A Long-Term Habitat Management and Evaluation Plan shall be
developed and appended to the final restoration plan. The habitat management
and evaluation plan shall include methods to determine if the restored areas are
meeting success criteria per the approved restoration plan including criteria of
plant and wildlife species in restored habitats and to compare such results to
pre-Project conditions. The complementary plan shall include surveys to
monitor the occurrence of native plants and animals in restored habitats relative
to their occurrence in similar habitats prior to remediation and development.
BIO-8c Hikers, pets, and bikers shall be excluded from sensitive habitats
within the Project Site. The final SLO City and County-approved restoration
plan shall include a fencing plan element with specific details on location,
requirements of permanent and seasonal exclusion zones, and type of fencing to
ensure that wildlife movement is not restricted. The fencing plan shall include
information on placement of signs, educational placards, type of fencing
required, method of exclusions, and monitoring and repair of exclusion devices,
and shall include, at the least, a description and figure of those areas (i.e., VPFS
habitat, vernal pool habitat, riparian habitat, and habitat in the process of being
restored) that would require full time exclusion.
BIO-8d The final restoration plan shall require a 2:1 replacement of the 3.71
acres of USACE Jurisdictional Waters/wetlands, isolated waters/wetlands, and
one-parameter wetlands (for a replacement of 7.42 acres) permanently impacted
by the City Development Plan. Implementation of the wetland and habitat
restoration shall follow the plan, including locations to be restored, restoration
techniques, a schedule of surveys to monitor the rate of recovery, success
criteria, and remedial actions if success criteria are not met.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the biological functions impacts
would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: Mitigation measure BIO-3a requires a 2:1 replacement of all native grassland
impacted by remediation efforts of the project. The Conceptual Restoration Plan proposes mitigation
for the loss of needlegrass bunch grass by including this species in the general seed species mix,
outplanting over 6,500 one-gallon containers of needlegrass bunch grass, and calls for the restoration of
extensive forb fields (45.2 acres, greatly exceeding the 2:1 or 3:1 replacement ratio that is typical
mitigation for impacts to this habitat) with selected native grasslands in the upland portion of the
restoration efforts. All of this effort, after the short term impacts of restoration, would greatly improve
and enhance the overall functions of the existing native grassland community on the Project Site. MM
Attachment 11
PC1 - 334
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 25
Biological Resources
BIO-3a also requires a 1:1 habitat replacement for a total of 42.93 acres for one-parameter wetland
impacts. Loss of wetland habitat in the development phase would represent a permanent loss of this
habitat. In addition to the impacts to native grasslands, sensitive plant and wildlife habitats and
populations in the vicinity of the City Development Plan footprint would be exposed to construction
related noises, trash, dust, and human presence throughout the duration of the construction phase which
could consist of periods of disturbances lasting up to 25 years. The operation phase of the development
area would also result in increased human presence, increased lighting, and new and increased usage of
the roads and bike paths near plant and wildlife habitat (i.e., vernal pools, native grasslands, and fairy
shrimp habitat) that are extremely sensitive to disturbances.
Impact
BIO.9
The City Development Plan would permanently impede migration and dispersal
of upland, aquatic, and semi-aquatic wildlife species.
Mitigation BIO-9a To reduce impacts to wildlife migration, the Applicant shall include in
the approved final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) landscape designs for planting
of native vegetation along the northern portion of the City Development Plan
area. The native vegetation landscaping shall be designed to provide wildlife
species cover and refuge during migration. The landscaping shall be designed to
shield migrating wildlife from human presence, noise, and lighting from
residential and recreational activities in the City and County Development Plan
footprint. Due to the 2 to 25 year duration of development phase, such planting
shall occur on the onset of the development phase.
BIO-9b To reduce cumulative impacts to wildlife migration the Applicant
shall include in the final restoration plan (MM BIO-1a) a fencing plan element
with specific details on location and requirements for the purpose of restricting
wildlife movement through the development area but allowing movement
through the open space areas.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the wildlife migration and
dispersal impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The City Development Plan would result in impacts that could permanently
impede migration and dispersal of upland, aquatic, and semi-aquatic wildlife species. The development
would result in a permanent loss of native vegetation types in the northeastern portion of the Project
Site that comprise movement and dispersal habitat to numerous wildlife species. Permanent structures,
buildings, and bike paths and increased human presence in the area would reduce or eliminate the
ability for wildlife species to freely move through the area. In addition, the City Development Plan on
the eastern portion of the Project Site is near the riparian habitat associated with Acacia Creek and the
East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek which are expected to support a large portion of wildlife
movement in the general area. The restoration of native habitats would assist in maintaining and re-
establishing corridors and habitat linkages that can be used by migrating and dispersing animals.
Protection measures reducing the threat of sedimentation and erosion and restoration of the East Fork
of San Luis Obispo Creek would reduce the level of impacts to migratory fish.
Impact The City Development Plan has the potential to reduce the size and diversity of
Attachment 11
PC1 - 335
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 26
Biological Resources
BIO.10 plant and animal populations at the Project Site.
Mitigation BIO-10 Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit the Applicant shall
submit a lighting plan to the City for approval. All Project lighting shall be
designed to shielded spillage of light into adjacent preserved open space areas.
Any structural part of the light fixture providing this shielding shall be
permanently affixed. Outdoor lighting for buildings shall be restricted to lights
required by code for lighting building exteriors and for safety and security
needs. The lighting for the ball field shall not be on during period when there
are no activities at the fields. In no case shall the lights at the ball fields be on
between the hours of midnight and 7:00 AM. After initial installation of Project
lighting, a City-approved biologist shall conduct a field inspection to confirm
that the proper lamps have been installed and that light spillage into Open
Space areas has been minimized to the maximum extent feasible without
compromising safety or other critical night-lighting requirements.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the plant and animal population
size and diversity impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The City Development Plan would result in impacts that have the potential to
reduce the size and diversity of plant and animal populations at the Project Site. The effects of
construction activities would result in a permanent and total loss of the plants and wildlife that exist
within the graded areas. Any permanent loss of habitat would also reduce foraging habitat for species
with larger home ranges. In addition, plant and wildlife populations in the vicinity of the City
Development Plan footprint would be exposed to construction related noises, trash, dust, and human
presence throughout the duration of the operation phase of the City Development Plan area would also
result in increased human presence, increased lighting, and increased usage of the roads and bike paths
near plant and wildlife habitat (i.e. vernal pools, native grasslands, and fairy shrimp habitat) that are
extremely sensitive to disturbances. Mitigation that restricts public access into the sensitive habitat
portions of open space areas (MM BIO-8c) would reduce some of the effects of increased human
presence in natural areas. The Applicant-proposed and recommended Restoration Plan (MM BIO-1a)
would restore, enhance, and increase functions for existing plant and wildlife habitats on the Project
Site.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact T.3 Impacts to the City’s transit system could result due to increased ridership
generated by the Project, impacts to bicycle and pedestrian facilities could
result from network discontinuities and unsafe crossings; impacts to site access
and on-site circulation could result from queue spillback and the creation of
additional conflict points.
Mitigation T-3a Site Access (Northeastern Parcel): Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road:
Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant shall
install a multi-lane roundabout at the new intersection of Tank Farm Road and
northern leg of Santa Fe Road accessing the Project Site. This improvement is
consistent with the intersection control in the AASP. Also the Applicant shall
Attachment 11
PC1 - 336
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 27
Transportation and Circulation
extend the existing four lane section of Tank Farm Road thru the multilane
roundabout.
Transit: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1 buildings/development, the
Applicant shall install transit facilities along Tank Farm Road to the satisfaction
of the City Public Works Department with direct pedestrian and bicycle
connections to buildings on the Project Site. The Applicant shall also work with
the City and SLO Transit to ensure that transit service capacity is adequate to
serve the projected demand.
Bicycle and Pedestrian: Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1
buildings/development, the Applicant shall, at a minimum, install the following
bicycle and pedestrian facilities: 1) a continuous Class I multi-use path along
the north side of Tank Farm Road, 2) City standard 6.5 foot wide Class II bike
lanes on the north and south sides of Tank Farm Road between the east and
west boundaries of the entire Project Site along with appropriate transitions to
existing Tank Farm Road, 3) a Class I multi-use path between Tank Farm Road
and the southern limits of the Project Site connecting to the ‘Avila Ranch’
development project, 4) a Class I multi-use path through the north-west portion
of the property (old Chevron Collector street location) with a provision to allow
construction of a City sewer connection to the lift station, and 5) a Class I
multi-use path through the north-east portion of the site linking the properties to
the east to the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection. The precise
alignment of these Class I paths shall be subject to the approval of the
Community Development and Public Works Directors.
T-3b Site Access (Northwestern Parcel): Prior to the occupancy of Phase 1
buildings/ development, the Applicant shall redesign its major access to the
northwestern parcel so that it is consolidated with adjacent parcels to minimize
the potential for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian conflicts and to prevent a
break in the median on Tank Farm Road. The recommended consolidated
access point is proposed as a part of Tentative Tract Map 3009 and would
require coordination with other property owners.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the transit, bicycle, pedestrian,
and site access/on-site circulation impacts would be not significant with
mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence:
Bicycle Analysis - The Project proposes the several changes to the planned bicycle facilities within or
along the Project site, including but not limited to, 1) Instead of a Class I bike path on both sides of
Tank Farm Road (per #1 above), the Project would construct a single 12-foot multi-use path in a 20-
foot easement on the north side of Tank Farm Road; and, 2) The Project would not construct the Class I
bike path connecting Tank Farm Road to Buckley Road along Tank Farm Creek. These inconsistencies
with the City’s Bike Plan could result in a discontinuous bicycle network and the potential for
uncontrolled crossings of Tank Farm Road, which are potentially significant impacts.
Pedestrian Analysis - While detailed site plans are not available at this time, the preliminary plans
provide typical public street cross-sections illustrating the planned pedestrian facilities within the
developed portions of the site. The Project would provide sidewalks along both sides of all public roads
Attachment 11
PC1 - 337
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 28
Transportation and Circulation
on the site, including Roads A, B, and C, Santa Fe Road, and Tank Farm Road. Most sidewalks would
be separated from the roadway by a planter area and, in some cases, a parking lane. In addition to
sidewalks, the planned Class I bike paths adjacent to Tank Farm Road, Prado Road, and along the East
Fork of San Luis Obispo and Acacia creeks would also serve pedestrians, so inconsistencies with the
BTP could result in a discontinuous pedestrian network and the potential for uncontrolled crossings of
Tank Farm Road, which are potentially significant impacts.
Site Access - Vehicular site access to the northeastern portion of the Project Site from the south is
proposed via Santa Fe Road, and a driveway on Tank Farm Road serving the northwestern parcel of the
Project Site. Once complete, the Prado Road extension will provide an additional route to access the
northeastern portion of the Project Site from the north via Santa Fe Road. The following potential
impacts related to site access have been identified: 1) Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road: Under Existing
plus Project conditions during the a.m. peak hour, the eastbound left turn movement would exceed the
storage capacity of the turn pocket and spill back on to Tank Farm Road, which could create a
potentially unsafe situation. The 95th percentile queues are projected to exceed 350 feet, thereby
blocking through traffic; and 2) Tank Farm Road/Northwestern Parcel Driveways: Two driveways are
proposed on Tank Farm Road at the northwestern parcel (i.e., an eastern and a western driveway which
are approximately 200 feet apart). The eastern driveway would be a right in/right out only access point
and the western driveway would permit all turning movements. The northwestern parcel would
generate its highest level of traffic during the p.m. peak hour, with 31 vehicles entering and 59 exiting.
The western full-access driveway would be located less than 200 feet from other driveways to the east
(i.e., the “eastern driveway” referenced above) and west (off of the Project Site). This full access
driveway would require a median break, which conflicts with the AASP plans for the Tank Farm Road
cross-section. Given the proximity of adjacent driveways and the amount and speed of traffic on Tank
Farm Road, in order to maintain roadway capacity and reduce safety concerns, it is recommended that
left-turn access to the northwestern parcel be consolidated into one location only with adjacent parcels
to minimize the potential for vehicular conflicts. One potential consolidated access point is proposed in
Tentative Tract Map 3009, and would require coordination with nearby property owners.
On-site Circulation - Detailed plans showing on-site circulation have not yet been prepared. If
improperly designed, site access and internal circulation could result in hazardous conditions for
cyclists, pedestrians, and transit users. This is a potentially significant impact.
Parking - Parking for each of the components of the Project would be based upon what is required by
code. Adequate code required parking for the components of the Project would need to be verified
upon application for building permits. No parking impacts are anticipated with this Project.
Impact T.4 The proposed construction phasing plan would disrupt vehicle and bicycle
travel for an extended duration, and the proposed truck routes are inconsistent
with the City’s Circulation Element. Construction activities related to the
Project could result in potentially significant impacts to roadways in the Project
vicinity due to the potential obstruction of heavy vehicles.
Mitigation T-4 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the Applicant
shall submit a construction traffic management plan that includes a revised
phasing plan
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, construction-phase vehicle and
bicycle impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Attachment 11
PC1 - 338
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 29
Transportation and Circulation
Supportive Evidence:
Truck Routes - The City’s truck routes, which include Tank Farm Road, South Higuera Street, Prado
Road, and U.S. Highway 101. The truck route for transporting materials to and from destinations to the
south on U.S. Highway 101 is proposed via either the Los Osos Valley Road interchange or the South
Higuera Street interchange. Access to and from destinations to the north on U.S. Highway 101 is
proposed via either the Los Osos Valley Road interchange or the Prado Road on-ramp. Site access
would be provided via a single access point on Tank Farm Road controlled by a temporary traffic
signal. The City's truck route map and on-street signage indicate that Los Osos Valley Road is not a
truck route. The Project's truck routes are therefore inconsistent with the City's Circulation Element.
Construction Traffic - An estimated 1,624 total truck round trips per phase of the Project would be
required for the delivery of construction materials and equipment, with a peak intensity of 110 daily
truck round trips. Approximately 150 employees would work on site, resulting in approximately 150
daily round trips. The Project's infrastructure phasing plan shows that the construction of frontage and
surface improvements to Tank Farm Road are planned to occur in a discontinuous manner over the first
four phases. Similarly, the Class I bike path along Tank Farm Road would be constructed piece by
piece, and would not be continuous until Phase 5 of the Project is complete. This phasing plan would
result in persistent construction activities throughout the development of the Project, and would require
many redundant truck trips as staging and equipment delivery would have to occur as each phase's
infrastructure improvements are constructed. This level of construction would substantially disrupt
vehicle and bicycle travel.
Geological and Soil Resources
Impact
GR.4
Construction activities and grading may cause erosion-induced siltation of
nearby waterways as a result of ground disturbing activities.
Mitigation GR-4a Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant
shall prepare a construction Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP)
by a Qualified SWPPP Developer (QSD) certified professional for the
development Project for review and approval by the City. The plan shall
include features meeting the construction activities best management practices
and the applicable provisions of the erosion and sediment control best
management practices (ESC-1 through ESC-56) published in the California
Storm Water Best Management Practice Handbooks (Construction Activity)
and best management practices (CD-4(2)) of the Caltrans Storm Water Quality
Handbooks, Construction Contractor's Guide and Specifications, to ensure that
every construction site meets the requirements of the regulations during the
time of construction. Further, the plan shall ensure compliance with and
enrollment under the State Water Board General Construction Permit.
GR-4b Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant
shall prepare an Erosion Control Plan and Wet Weather Plan for review and
approval by the City of San Luis Obispo. The plan shall detail the best
management practices that will be used on the site to control erosion and
sedimentation to be implemented during all development activities. The plan
shall include at least the following measures unless other erosion control
measures are specified in the agency approved SWPPP:
Attachment 11
PC1 - 339
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 30
Geological and Soil Resources
a. Graded areas shall be stabilized with riprap (i.e., crushed stone) or other
ground cover as soon as grading is completed. The surface of slopes
shall be roughened during the construction period to retain water,
increase infiltration, and facilitate establishing vegetation. Tracked
machinery shall be operated up and down (parallel with) slopes to leave
horizontal (perpendicular) depressions in the soil, which run across the
slope, on the contour.
b. Slope breaks, such as diversions, benches, or contour furrows shall be
constructed to reduce the length of cut- and fill-slopes, thus limiting
sheet and rill erosion and preventing gully erosion.
c. Sediment barriers shall be used around construction areas to retain soil
particles on-site and reduce surface runoff velocities during rainfall
events. Sediment barriers could include straw bales, silt fences, and
gravel and earth berms. Silt fences shall be installed per specification on
slope contours in areas where shallow overland flow is anticipated.
d. Temporary and permanent drainages shall be employed, as necessary, to
reduce slope erosion and prevent damage to construction areas. Sheet
flow across or toward a disturbed area shall be intercepted and conveyed
to a low to moderate gradient (1 to 5 percent slope) sediment basin,
erosion-resistant drainage channel, or a level, well-vegetated area.
Drainages would include swales, diversion dikes, and slope drains.
e. Water bars, rolling dips, and out-sloping roads shall be constructed as
part of new road construction to disperse runoff and reduce the erosive
forces associated with concentrated flows.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, erosion-induced siltation of
nearby waterways impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: Grading and building activities associated with the development may
cause an increased potential for short-term erosion and sedimentation of local and nearby
drainages. Water and wind erosion of the stockpiles and loose dirt could impact surface water
run-off. Sedimentation into local creeks would be a potentially significant impact. State and
County requirements shall be implemented throughout construction, reducing the potential for
off-site sedimentation. The Applicant would be required to prepare a Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by/for the Central Coast Regional Water Control Board.
Impact
GR.5
Moderately expansive soils prone to swelling and shrinking from increased or
decreased water content could damage proposed structures and infrastructure,
resulting in loss of property and risks to human health and safety.
Mitigation GR-5a Expansive soils should be mitigated by the over-excavation and
replacement of non-expansive soils for all buildings and structures, as approved
by the City of San Luis Obispo. Alternatively, all construction for buildings
shall use thickened slabs, extended slab edges, and additional reinforcement to
reduce negative impacts from any expansive soil movement. Several equivalent
Attachment 11
PC1 - 340
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 31
Geological and Soil Resources
remedial measures may be implemented that are standard construction and
mitigation measures. In addition, capillary breaks shall be used under slabs to
address the potential for moisture transport and pumping that leads to moisture
infiltration as a result of heat and moisture gradients where buildings are
sensitive to moisture infiltration. All remedial measures, designs, and
calculations shall be prepared by a registered civil engineer, and shall be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to issuance of the applicable building
permits.
GR-5b The Applicant shall use low- to non-expansive soils for slab, trench
backfill, and pavement support to eliminate risk, which can be accommodated
by importing select materials. Select grading techniques could utilize the
granular soils on-site for subsequent use. Alternatively, an equivalent remedial
measure to mitigate expansive soils may be implemented where the appropriate
design and calculations prepared by a registered civil engineer, demonstrate a
suitable design, and have been reviewed and approved by the City prior to
issuance of the applicable building permits.
GR-5c Soils shall be properly compacted as specified by a registered civil
engineer. The registered civil engineer should also specify the appropriate soil-
water content for expansive soil mitigation. The compaction levels and soil-
water content shall be approved by the City prior to issuance of the applicable
building permit.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to shrinking and
swelling the ground and damage to buildings impacts would be not significant
with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The on-site soils consist of interlayers of sand, silt and clay. The clay
layers present a potential for moderate expansivity, though laboratory soils testing will be
necessary during the development phase to determine the magnitude of the expansion
potential. Expansive soils can heave foundations and slabs. These adverse effects could
damage or cause catastrophic failure to structures and components, which could result in a
significant impact. Foundations for structures and slabs constructed on expansive soils require
special design considerations to mitigate the hazard.
Impact
GR.7
Compressible soils that underlie the site will be prone to excessive settlement
that could adversely affect the proposed development and improvements.
Mitigation GR-7 Prior to the issuance of the applicable building permit, the Applicant
shall have a registered civil engineer prepare a geotechnical report based on the
proposed development to the magnitude of total and differential settlements and
time rates for waiting during construction. The report shall be submitted to the
City for review and approval. The report shall discuss the measures that have
been taken to ensure that the primary settlement is within acceptable limits for
the proposed development. Acceptable measures could include but are not
limited to:
a. Surcharging the proposed building sites with fill for a specified time
frame. Settlement monuments shall be required to measure the total
Attachment 11
PC1 - 341
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 32
Geological and Soil Resources
settlement. The results of the survey shall be presented to the City for
review and approval and should include time rate plots to demonstrate
that at least 90 percent (t90) of the primary settlement (or as determined
necessary) has occurred before any further construction of structures in
the area.
b. Partial or complete over-excavation of the clay layers and replacement
with gravel drain layer and engineered fill. Settlement monuments shall
be required to measure the total settlement. The results of the survey
shall be presented to the City for review and approval and should
include time rate plots to demonstrate that at least 90 percent (t90) of the
primary settlement (or as determined necessary) has occurred before any
further construction of structures in the area.
c. Support structures on deepened foundations that extend thru the soft or
unsuitable layers and derive support from suitable materials. Where
necessary, the piles shall be required to be designed to withstand
negative friction as necessary. Various foundations schemes will require
specific design criteria, but are typical to these types of mitigation
measures and should follow custom and practice in the industry.
d. Perform in-situ remedial measures, such as sand drains, to accelerate
and mitigate the anticipated settlements. Various schemes will require
specific design criteria, but are typical to these types of mitigation
measures and should follow custom and practice in the industry.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts compressive soils and
settlement would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: Consolidation tests performed on the site identified that the site is
underlain by normally to low pressure over-consolidated clay layers. Depending on grading,
building location, and other factors, settlements may be on the order of 1 to 4 inches. No time-
rates calculations or information to assess was provided in the report to determine waiting
periods. This order of settlement poses the potential to damage remediation areas, buildings,
pipelines and roadways and render them unusable, resulting in a hazard to public health and
safety. Excessive settlement would pose a significant hazard to the Project
Noise and Vibration
Impact N.3 Construction activities associated with the construction of the City
Development Plan could increase noise levels in the area.
Mitigation N.3 Implement mitigation measures N-1a, N-1b, and N-1c.
N-1a Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, the Applicant shall
ensure that the crushing plant is located at least 1,500 feet away from any
residential receptor or an equivalent distance or is treated with some other form
of acoustical mitigation (e.g., located within an enclosure) to ensure noise levels
at the closest residential receptor are below 60 dBA. The location of the
Attachment 11
PC1 - 342
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 33
Noise and Vibration
crushing plant shall be identified on the site plan for the grading permit. If noise
reducing measures are applied instead of increased distances, vibration
calculations shall be performed to demonstrate that vibration impacts would
remain below the applicable thresholds.
N-1b The Applicant shall ensure that all construction activity at the Project
Site (including deliveries and arriving and departing workers) is limited to the
hours from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, and prohibit
activities on Saturdays, Sundays, and federal holidays. If activities outside this
timeframe occur, noise monitoring shall be established to demonstrate that
applicable noise codes are not exceeded. This shall be a note placed on all
construction plans.
N-1c Prior to issuance of applicable grading permit, and throughout
construction, the Applicant shall ensure that all construction machinery is
maintained according to the manufacturers’ specifications and ensure that
mufflers and silencers are maintained properly. Back-up OSHA noise indicators
shall be ambient sensitive and self-adjusting to minimize backup indicator noise
or flaggers shall be used in the place of backup alarms (as allowed by OSHA).
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, construction-related increases in
noise levels would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: Noise would be generated by a number of different construction equipment
operating at different times during the construction phase of the Project. The peak activities that could
produce the peak off-site noise levels would be associated with activities on the east end of the Project
Site, such as activities during Phase 1 located immediately west of the Mobile Home park. Activities at
these locations would include minor grading, building construction, and paving activities. Noise levels
off-site were estimated utilizing the FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model. Construction
activities at the far east end of the Project Site north of Tank Farm Road would generate Leq noise
levels at the Mobile Home park of 68.7 dBA, which would be below the intermittent, short-term
allowable noise level for mobile equipment of 75 dBA during daytime hours. None of the construction
activities would utilize stationary equipment. Mitigation measures N-1a, N-1b, and N-1c would still be
applicable as construction equipment, if not properly maintained or operated during hours that are
outside of the allowable hours in the Municipal Code, could produce significant impacts.
Impact N.5 Development within the ALUP single event noise contours could cause the
development to be exposed to unacceptable noise levels.
Mitigation N-5 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permit, the incorporate
noise reduction measures into the development design (i.e., extra insulation or
thicker walls, window design) for all applicable land uses that would be located
within the ALUP noise contours (Tentative Tract Map, Lot 1, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18
and portions of 6 and 14 within the 75 dBA contour and all or most of the
remaining plots within the 65 dBA contour). Noise mitigation shall result in
noise levels being at or below acceptable levels specified in the ALUP. Noise
reduction measures shall clearly be identified with construction permit
Attachment 11
PC1 - 343
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 34
Noise and Vibration
applications.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, single event noise impacts related
to SLOCRA would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The ALUP requires mitigation for projects that propose development
within the noise contours associated with the airport operations. Some portions of the Project
would be potentially placed within these noise contours, specifically portions of the City
Development Plan (Tentative Tract Map, Lot 1, 10, 12, 15, 16, 18 and portions of 6 and 14
within the 75 dBA contour and all or most of the remaining plots within the 65 dBA contour).
Development within these areas, including offices, hotels, restaurants, would require additional
attenuation built in to the construction design in order to ensure that indoor noise levels are
below the ALUP standards.
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Impact
AE.2
The City Development Plan component of the Project would degrade the
existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings.
Mitigation AE-2 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant
shall ensure that all development projects are reviewed for consistency with the
San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan, the Airport Area Specific Plan
design guidelines outlined in Section 5.0 Community Design, and the City’s
Community Design Guidelines as part of the City Architectural Review
process.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to degradation of
the visual quality of the site and surrounding area would be not significant with
mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: With the removal of the Flower Mound in the northeastern portion of the
Project Site, subsequent grading and ultimate development of the Santa Fe Road extension and
commercial services buildings, landscaping, and parking lots, the visual character of that portion of the
Project Site would change from one of vacant, natural topography to one with physical development
and intense use. This increasing change to the existing visual character would extend to other portions
of the Project Site (west end, Tank Farm Road, and north and south sides of Tank Farm Road on the
east end) as all five phases of the Project are built. The quiet, serene environment currently enjoyed at
the Project Site would give way to sustained increases in vehicle and truck traffic, construction
equipment, earthwork stockpiles, man-made structures, and associated lighting and glare. With respect
to the area in which the Project Site is located, the issue of aesthetic impacts was reviewed during the
adoption of the City’s General Plan and adoption of the AASP. The conclusion was reached within
Section 9.0 of the Land Use Element/Circulation Element Update FEIR that urbanization would
irreversibly change the visual character of the south end of the City from that of a low density semi-
rural area to a more intensely developed, suburban area. This was classified as a significant,
unavoidable impact in the Airport Margarita Area EIR. The City Development Plan, however, does
include features aimed at reducing impacts to the existing visual character and quality of the Project
Site and its surroundings. In general, restoration planting would be conducted throughout the Project
Attachment 11
PC1 - 344
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 35
Aesthetics and Visual Resources
Site to maintain consistency with the native plant community structure and composition of the Project
Site, removal of the power lines and power poles adjacent to project development frontage along Tank
Farm Road and the removal of chain link fencing would serve to enhance the visual quality of the
views along Tank Farm Road. A 14-foot wide landscaped median and the installation of a multi-use
pathway/bikeway would also serve as an example of enhancements along Tank Farm Road.
Over the years, the rural character of the surrounding area has been gradually encroached upon by
residential, commercial and industrial development. While the Project would continue this trend, the
above features would provide relief to the visual impacts generated by the Project, in addition to the
substantial design standards contained in the AASP and the City and County General Plans.
Implementation of these design standards would reduce the impact to the existing visually rural
character of the Project Site and its surroundings.
Impact
AE.3
The Project would generate a new source of substantial light or glare which
would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area.
Mitigation AE-3 Prior to issuance of applicable construction permits, the Applicant
shall submit a lighting plan and lighting operation schedule for review and
approval. The lighting plan shall demonstrate that direct views of light sources
are shielded from nearby residences. The lighting schedule shall describe the
number, location and amounts of lights, and the proposed hours of operation for
the entire property. The lighting schedule shall propose the minimum number of
lights, level of illumination, and hours of operation allowed by City codes and
ordinances, including the City’s Night Sky Ordinance. The approved lighting
schedule shall become a required condition of the lease between the property
owner and any tenant on the Project Site.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to light and glare
would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The City Development Plan for urban uses would result in an increase in
daytime/nighttime light and glare, including the residences off of Prado Road and Margarita Avenue
northwest of the Project Site and residences in the Hidden Hills Mobile Lodge. These increases would
be the result of new lighting at service commercial, business park, and public facility uses, such as a
ball field, over the course of the 25-year development schedule. Further, while the types of lighting and
their exact locations are not specified at this point, the development would increase the amount of light
into adjacent areas, including airport lands, as well as those residential areas identified above.
Over the years, the surrounding area has been gradually encroached upon by residential,
commercial and industrial development. The development would add to the existing lighting
currently generated from these adjacent areas, such as the industrial subdivision to the west of
the Project Site and the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields to the northeast. Lighting design features,
such as shielding and a restrictive lighting schedule, could be implemented to reduce the
lighting and glare impact.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 345
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 36
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Impact
HM.6
Potential health risk from exposure to residual contamination following site
cleanup and development.
Mitigation HM-6 Prior to recordation of applicable tract map, the Applicant shall
include deed restrictions on development parcels identifying specific limits on
trenching activities and procedures for conducting subsurface construction
activities. The Applicant shall maintain responsibility for air quality monitoring
during any subsurface excavation activities.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, health risk from exposure to
residual contamination impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class
II).
Supportive Evidence: Proposed soil caps located below areas being constructed upon would
require long-term monitoring and maintenance. Institutional controls would include deed
restrictions limiting land use to commercial and industrial purposes; excavation notification
requirements; a soil management plan; groundwater use restrictions in affected areas; and a
vapor barrier requirement for any new buildings constructed in a particular Operation Unit,
which would protect the building occupants from possible vapors from the underlying
hydrocarbons. Chronic health risks for intrusive workers was considered less than significant
due to limited exposure duration. However, during construction activities, such as trenching
for utilities and foundations, there is some potential for short-term acute exposure to workers
and damage to the containment cap. Soil caps of at least 4 feet in thickness has been proposed
which is sufficient for utility installation. Trenching depths up to 10 feet could occur in some
areas, but not in the areas that will utilize a soil cap. However, it is possible that intrusive
workers could over-excavate in the area of the soil cap, resulting in potential acute exposure to
residual contamination.
Impact
HM.8
Potential risk associated with the future use of acutely hazardous materials in
the SLOCRA safety areas.
Mitigation HM-8 The Applicant shall include deed restrictions on development parcels
limiting on-site storage of AHMs to amounts less than the reportable quantities
as currently defined in California Health and Safety Code §2770.5, California
Accidental Release Program (CalARP) List of Substances, and California Code
of Regulations §5189, Process Safety Management of Acutely Hazardous
Materials, Appendix A.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, risk impacts associated with the
future use of acutely hazardous materials in the SLOCRA safety areas would be
not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: Businesses associated with the future development scenario could
potentially utilize chemical substances that are defined as Acutely Hazardous Materials
(AHM). California Health and Safety Code §2770.5, California Accidental Release Program
(CalARP) List of Substances, and California Code of Regulations §5189, Process Safety
Management of Acutely Hazardous Materials identify AHMs and reportable quantities. The
Attachment 11
PC1 - 346
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 37
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
storage of large quantities of AHMs in SLOCRA Safety Area S-1 would have the potential to
result in a significant accidental release in the event of an aircraft strike.
Public Services and Utilities
Impact
PS/U.5
Build-out of the City Development Plan could increase demand for fire
protection services.
Mitigation PS/U-5a The Applicant shall deed to the City property at the Project Site that
the City could use for the development of a public Fire Station.
PS/U-5b Development shall only be approved when the City deems that
adequate fire suppression services and facilities, consistent with adopted travel
time standards, are available, or will be made available concurrent with
development at the Project Site. If, at time of development it is determined that
the development site is outside of adequate response time zones, feasible
options to enhance emergency access to the development sites may include but
are not limited to the following:
a. Completion of transportation improvements that improve emergency
services travel time to proposed development sites.
b. Co-location of City fire services with existing Cal Fire facilities located
on Broad Street
c. Establishment of fire facilities within a closer proximity to the
development site that meet or exceed adopted travel time standards.
d. Developer/Applicant financing of other improvements that will
contribute to alleviating current deficiencies as identified in the SLOFD
Master Plan.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, demand to fire protection
services impacts would be not significant with mitigation (Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The City Development Plan could create increased demand for fire protection
services due to structure fires, hazardous material spills associated with some of the possible
commercial services land use that would be allowed by the City zoning, paramedic response, wildfire,
etc. The Project Site is in a Moderate Fire Severity Zone, which means there is not a substantial
wildfire hazard. The site is currently surrounded primarily by agricultural land, but the area is seeing
increased levels of commercial and residential development. The Project Site also contains large
wetland areas. All of these factors would reduce wildfire hazards for the Project Site.
Development at the Project Site would have to meet all of the requirements of the City of San Luis
Obispo Fire Standards and applicable provisions of the California Fire Code. This would include items
such as installation of fire water supplies and hydrants throughout the development, building
sprinklers, adequate fire department access, proper placement of street numbers, water supply capable
of providing adequate fire flow, installation of fire protection systems and equipment in buildings,
portable fire extinguishers, etc.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 347
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 38
Public Services and Utilities
According to the SLOFD Master Plan, the Project Site lacks four-minute primary unit
response coverage for emergency calls. The nearest City fire station is located about 2.5 miles
from the Project Site. However, the City has a mutual aid agreement with CALFIRE, and the
response time for CALFIRE to the Project Site is about four minutes. The nearest CALFIRE
station is located about two miles from the Project Site. In the short-term, by adhering to a
reciprocal agreement that advises both CALFIRE and SLOFD to each send one fire engine
during a fire emergency, adequate fire-fighting resources would be provided for the Project
Site. Given that the City Development Plan would occur over a 25-year period, and the fact
that the SLOFD response time to the Project Site would not be consistent with the travel time
standards adopted by the City in the SLOFD Master Plan, the impacts to fire protection
services would be considered potentially significant.
Agricultural Resources
Impact
AR.5
The City Development Plan would involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural use.
Mitigation AR-5 The Applicant shall design the development for the Northwest
Operations Area such that the buildings are located near the eastern edge of the
parcel. This mitigation measure would not apply if the agricultural property
adjacent to the Northwest Operations Area has received entitlements from the
City to develop the property prior to development of the Northwest Operations
Area.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, impacts related to conversion of
farmland to non-agricultural uses would be not significant with mitigation
(Class II).
Supportive Evidence: The Applicant has proposed to conduct most of the grading for the
development pads as part of the remediation activities. Dust generation during the development phase
of the project would be limited to the final grading. This could result in a short-term significant impact
to row crop productivity. Further, there is potential after build out and operational activities commence
that agricultural activities on the property adjacent to the Northwest Operations Area could create
health-related and nuisance conflicts with occupants (employees and customers) in the form of
pesticides, dust, odors and noise. However, in accordance with the California Civil Code “The Right
To Farm Act” (Sections 3482.6 & 3482.6), this pre-existing agricultural use is not to be considered a
nuisance. Therefore, the development at the Northwest Operations Area would continue to be subject
to those inconveniences or discomforts arising from the adjacent agricultural operations. The potential
impacts on the development could be potentially significant.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 348
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 39
IX. Potential Significant Unavoidable Effects for Which Sufficient Mitigation is
not Available
Air Quality
Impact
AQ.7
Operational activities associated with the City Development Plan would
generate diesel particulate and fugitive dust emissions that exceed SLOAPCD
thresholds.
Mitigation AQ-7 Implement mitigation measure AQ-6b.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, the project diesel particulate and
fugitive dust emission operational impacts would remain significant (Class I)
due to diesel particulate and fugitive dust emissions exceeding SLOAPCD daily
operational thresholds.
Supportive Evidence: Emissions associated with the operational phases of City Development Plan
would generate diesel particulate and fugitive dust emissions due to activities at each site that would be
a function of land use, employee vehicles, and delivery of materials to each site. Operations would
occur associated with each of the five phases of development and would increase cumulatively every
five years associated with the five phases of development.
Emissions were estimated using the CalEEMod modeling program for each phase along with the
associated land uses defined in the Project Description. Each phase and land use was entered into the
CalEEMod program. Inputs were utilized as described in the SLOAPCD CalEEMod information sheet.
Most other inputs utilized the CalEEMod defaults. Emissions associated with each phase of the City
Development Plan are tabulated individually and are shown in Table 4.1-14 and 4.1.15. Additional
emissions would occur cumulatively during each phase of the City Development Plan until final build-
out in 2040, which is also shown in Table 4.1-14 and 4.1.15.
Transportation and Circulation
Impact T.5 The addition of Project traffic would cause nine intersections and two freeway
segments to operate at unacceptable levels under Cumulative conditions.
Mitigation T-5a South Higuera Street and Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of
each phase of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata
share of the right-of-way acquisition and intersection improvements to achieve
LOS D operations. These improvements include: installation of second left turn
lanes on the northbound, southbound, eastbound approaches; the addition of
right turn lanes on the northbound and southbound approaches; and the addition
of overlap phases on the eastbound and westbound approaches as determined
by the City and the level of impact associated with the contribution of either the
City or the County Development portions of the Project. This project is not
included in the City’s Transportation Impact Fee program or the AASP or
MASP impact fee programs. Due to its size and complexity, the City should
consider amending this project into one of the City’s impact fee programs. If
amended into an impact fee program, the Project shall pay impact fees in
Attachment 11
PC1 - 349
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 40
Transportation and Circulation
accordance with the amended fee program.
T-5b Los Osos Valley Road and U.S. 101 Southbound Ramps/Calle
Joaquin –The Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of design and
installation of a northbound left turn lane added to the future improvement on
the Calle Joaquin approach, as determined by the City and the level of impact
associated with the contribution of either the City or the County Development
portions of the Project. This project is currently contained in the City’s TIF
program as part of the Los Osos Valley Road Interchange Project however it
will be not be constructed as part of the Interchange project currently underway.
T-5c South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road – Prior to the occupancy
of Phase 1 buildings/development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-
rata share of the design and installation of a second westbound right turn lane
with an overlap phase concurrent with the southbound left and a second
southbound left turn lane, as determined by the City and the level of impact
associated with the contribution of the City Development portions of the
Project.
T-5d South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane – Prior to the occupancy of
each phase of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata
share of the design and installation of the extension of Buckley Road to South
Higuera Street. The AASP impact fee program contains part of the cost
associated with the Buckley Road extension, but the impact fee program needs
to be updated to reflect new project cost estimates and permitting requirements.
T-5e South Higuera Street and Los Osos Valley Road – The applicant shall
participate in their pro-rate share of either (1) The right-of-way acquisition,
design, and installation a second southbound through lane, second southbound
right-turn lane, and an eastbound right turn overlap signal phase concurrent
with the northbound left turn; or (2) The extension of Buckley Road to the Los
Osos Valley Road interchange (LOVR Bypass). This project is not currently in
the City’s Circulation Element and is not contained in any impact fee programs
established by the City or County. It is cumulative in nature and the City shall
add this project into the TIF or AASP if the Circulation Element Update
identifies it as an appropriate infrastructure improvement.
T-5f Santa Fe Road and Tank Farm Road – Mitigation measure T-3a
would also mitigate this cumulative impact.
T-5g Broad Street and Tank Farm Road – Prior to the occupancy of each
phase of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of
the design and installation of a northbound right turn lane, a southbound right
turn overlap phase concurrent with the eastbound left, and conversion of the
westbound right turn lane to a shared through right turn lane.
T-5h Broad Street and Buckley Road – Prior to the occupancy of each
phase of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of
the design and installation of a second northbound through lane and a second
southbound through lane.
T-5i Broad Street and Prado Road – Prior to the occupancy of each phase
Attachment 11
PC1 - 350
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 41
Transportation and Circulation
of development, the Applicant shall participate in their pro-rata share of the
design and installation of a second northbound left-turn lane.
Findings After implementation of mitigation measures, cumulative operational impacts at
nine intersections and two freeway segments would remain significant (Class I)
due to exceedance of the City’s LOS threshold and the possibility of the
applicant not being able to obtain the necessary, privately owned, right-of-way
to make improvements to intersections; and, due to the fact that no mitigation
measures are available (specific to the improvements to U.S. Highway 101).
Supportive Evidence: The FEIR analysis examined the potential impacts of the Project in the
timeframe when it may actually be constructed and operational (i.e., approximately 27 years from date
of approval, including the remediation phase). This scenario includes development associated with the
buildout of the City's General Plan, as well as the infrastructure improvements detailed below. Future
year traffic forecasts were developed using the City's Travel Demand Forecasting Model, which
estimates future traffic levels resulting from the development of currently vacant parcels in the City.
The following intersections have been identified as having Cumulative conditions that are potentially
substandard to adopted City thresholds. Impacts from the project are cumulatively considerable and
may have potentially significant impacts under Cumulative with Project traffic conditions. These
locations are:
• South Higuera Street and Prado Road– The addition of Project traffic creates significant traffic
impacts during the a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours.
• Los Osos Valley Road and Southbound U.S. Highway 101 On/Off Ramps – The addition of
Project traffic creates significant traffic impacts during the a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours.
• South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road – The addition of project traffic creates significant
traffic impacts during the a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours.
• South Higuera Street and Vachell Lane – The addition of Project traffic creates significant
traffic impacts during the a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours.
• Los Osos Valley Road and South Higuera Street – The addition of Project traffic creates a
significant traffic impact during the p.m. Peak Hour.
• Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road – The addition of Project traffic creates a significant
traffic impact during the p.m. Peak Hour.
• Broad Street and Tank Farm Road – The addition of Project traffic creates significant traffic
impacts during the a.m. and p.m. Peak Hours.
• Broad Street and Buckley Road – The addition of Project traffic creates a significant traffic
impact during the p.m. Peak Hour.
• Prado Road and Broad Street – The addition of Project traffic creates a significant traffic
impact during the a.m. peak hour.
The Project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact to U.S. Highway 101, worsening
unacceptable operations on both study segments. No feasible mitigation measures have been identified,
and a Major Investment Study has yet to be performed identifying long term improvements necessary
for U.S. Highway 101 between Los Osos Valley Road and Monterey Street off-ramps within the City
of San Luis Obispo. A mobility study for the US 101 corridor is currently being conducted by
SLOCOG and will review these issues. The long term impacts of this Project, as well as all other
County development, remains significant and unavoidable along U.S. Highway 101.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 351
City of San Luis Obispo CEOA FINDINGS Exhibit A
Chevron Tank Farm Project
Page 42
X. Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
Section 21081.6 of the Public Resources Code requires that when a public agency is making findings
required by State CEQA Guidelines Section 15091(a)(l), codified as Section 21081(a) of the Public
Resources Code, the public agency shall adopt a reporting or monitoring program for the changes to the
proposed project which it has adopted or made a condition of approval, in order to mitigate or avoid
significant effects on the environment.
The City Council hereby finds and accepts that the Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Chevron
Tank Farm Project contained in Appendix K, Volume II of the FEIR meets the requirements of Section
21081.6 of the Public Resources Code by providing for the implementation and monitoring of mitigation
measures intended to mitigate potential environmental effects.
Attachment 11
PC1 - 352
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX-14
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING
THE CITY COUNCIL AMEND CHAPTERS 3, 4, 6, 7 OF
THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
(APPLICATION # ER, SPA 92-08)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public
hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, on
May 28, 2014, for the purpose of considering the Final EIR and Airport Area Specific Plan
Amendments for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development project; and
WHEREAS, said public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding a
recommendation to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the Final EIR for
the purposes of considering entitlements for the proposed amendments to the Airport Area
Specific Plan and proposed City development project; and
WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner
required by law; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the Project Final EIR
which includes the mitigation monitoring program prepared for the project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission reviewed and considered the amendments to the
Specific Plan that respond to the Chevron Remediation and Development project; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of
San Luis Obispo as follows:
Section 1. Findings. Based upon all the evidence, the Commission makes the following
findings:
1. Adjustments to the Land Use plan are necessary to accommodate a reasonable amount of
future commercial development while accommodating open space, habitat restoration,
parkland and infrastructure improvements following remediation of the property.
2. The amount of land proposed for permanent open space dedication combined with a
restoration plan to enhance the open space provides positive environmental enhancements
that will help to offset the potential significant impacts of the proposed commercial
development.
3. The proposed commercial development will provide for necessary bicycle connections in
the form of class 1 pathways linking the Damon Garcia Sportsfields to Tank Farm Road
and other properties, linking Tank Farm Road to Prado Road, and linking Tank Farm
Resolution “B”
Attachment 12
PC1 - 353
Resolution No. [ ]
Page 2
Road to the Avila Ranch property. These bicycle connections will encourage alternative
forms of transportation thereby offsetting potential significant traffic and circulation
impacts as well as air quality impacts.
4. The proposed amendments to the AASP will relocate proposed commercial areas away
from sensitive biological habitat areas while facilitating remediation and restoration of
the former tank farm property thereby enhancing the biological functions of the property.
5. The proposed amendments to the AASP will relocate proposed commercial areas and
land uses away from potential airport hazards while clearly identifying airport open space
zones, runway protection zones while improving physical features to enhance airport
safety thereby reducing potential hazards.
6. The project will provide expansion space for existing businesses and opportunities for
new businesses to locate in the City by creating new business park and service
commercial space which will further the General Plan Land Use Element goals and
which will provide additional sales tax revenues for the City that the City can use to
provide services to the community.
7. The project will provide for a significant expansion to the City’s open space reserve, with
the intent of securing open space for recreational uses, habitat restoration, and viewshed
preservation on land that is contiguous to other such open space areas.
8. The development project will help finance improvements to key circulation features
including the widening of Tank Farm Road, aesthetic improvements to the Tank Farm
corridor, the incorporation of important bicycle and pedestrian linkages, the connection
of Tank Farm Road to the future extension of Prado Road and the re-alignment of Santa
Fe Road south to correct hazardous road features.
Section 2. Recommendation. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that
the City Council amend the Airport Area Specific Plan chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 as shown in the
attached legislative draft, Exhibit A.
On motion by Commr. , seconded by Commr. , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commrs.
NOES: Commr.
REFRAIN: None
ABSENT: Commrs..
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2014.
_____________________________
Kim Murry
Planning Commission Secretary
Attachment 12
PC1 - 354