Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/02/2009, C3 - SELECTION OF THE EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE CHEVRON TANK FARM REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (92 counclt MestiDa� a acEnba RepoRt Item Number CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director; By: Brian Leveille, Associate Planner SUBJECT: SELECTION OF THE EIR CONSULTANT FOR THE CHEVRON TANK FARM REMEDIATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT (92-08). RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve Marine Research Specialists (MRS) to serve as the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) consultant for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Redevelopment Project. 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Marine Research Specialists (MRS) contingent upon the applicant depositing with the City the amount of the contract plus a 30% administrative fee. DISCUSSION: Background The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) adopted in August 2005 designates a portion of the Chevron Tank Farm property for reuse and development. At the time of AASP adoption, information was not complete regarding the contamination on the property and as a result, several policies refer to mitigations and development guidance once more information was available. The policies in the plan acknowledge that Chevron is preparing a remediation plan to address the contaminated areas on the site and that the City may consider proposals for changes to the AASP to allow uses of the remediated site. The Tank Farm site was envisioned for annexation to the City to accomplish several goals: the infrastructure improvements and connections in the Airport Area rely on the participation of this property in sharing the costs of those improvements. Also, the ability to secure open space in perpetuity to enhance airport safety, visual and habitat amenities is also dependent on the participation of the owner. The AASP anticipated the future development of this site and it was a positive aspect of the cost- benefit study conducted for the Airport Area. Project Application In July 2008, Chevron Corporation submitted an application to the City for annexation, a tentative map, specific plan amendment, and remediation and development project for 803,000 sq. ft. of Business Park, Service and Manufacturing; and Open Space uses on its 280 acre site that fronts Tank Farm Road (Attachment 1 — Vicinity Map). Concurrently, Chevron is processing a similar project including a use permit, tentative map, and grading plan application through the County process. In reviewing the respective applications, both City and County staff concluded that a new Environmental Impact Report (EIR) would be required to address the C3 - ! Council Agenda Report—iLnevron EIR Consultant contract Page 2 changes to the AASP, to implement the work associated with the Remedial Action Plan for site clean-up and restoration, and to evaluate the respective grading, subdivision, and development proposals associated with the project. The EIR Process and Coordination between the City and County It was determined that a single EIR process with both City and County acting as "co-leads" would be the most efficient method to ensure that the environmental document comprehensively addresses all aspects of the proposed development. In addition, preparation of a single EIR will avoid a duplicative process for the applicant. In recognition of the unique challenges of coordinating a joint EIR effort through both the City and County processes, Chevron agreed to pay for the City and the County to hire a contract project manager to be a central point of contact and to coordinate the City and County efforts. The Council authorized the City Manager to hire Bill Henry of SWCA (formerly known as Morro Group) to act in this capacity in July 2008. As part of that authorization, Mr. Henry worked with staff of both agencies and the applicant to define the project description, the Notice of Preparation, and to advertise and distribute the Request for Proposals(RFP) for preparation of an EIR. Recommended EIR Consultant Four responses to the RFP were received. Two proposals did not adequately respond to the request and two were further considered. After much discussion between City and County staff, the firm MRS was identified as the top firm. The firm has conducted environmental review of remediation projects as well as larger development projects and is very familiar with the particular aspects involved in both. Since its proposal was slightly higher than the second front- runner, staff worked with the consultant to determine where the scope exceeded the work that needed to be done and where costs could be lessened while still providing the amount of detail and analysis that is needed. MRS responded with a revision that lessened the cost from $1,006,000 to $861,000. After a detailed review, City and County staff have agreed upon the finalized scope proposed by MRS and the scope of work and project deliverables attached to the staff report reflects this work scope(Attachments 3 &4). The cost of the EIR preparation is being split between the City and County. While the overall cost of the EIR preparation is anticipated to be $861,000, $243,945 of this is attributable to evaluation of the development within the City's jurisdiction while the remaining $617,055 covers evaluation of the remediation and a development project under County jurisdiction. The County will be developing a separate contract with MRS and the consultant will be billing each jurisdiction separately. This contract covers the agreement with MRS for preparation of the EIR and the City's responsibility for$243,945 of the total amount. CONCURRENCES Other City Departments were actively involved and consulted in the preparation of the project's initial study of environmental impact from which the EIR workscope was derived. C3 - 2- Council Agenda Report-=%.nevron EIR Consultant contract -' Page 3 FISCAL IMPACT The project applicant will pay all of the costs for the consultant services to prepare the EIR, plus a 30% administrative fee, with the administration of the consultant contract overseen by the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Finance Department. This is the approved procedure for City-required EIRs. Therefore, the project will have no direct fiscal impact. ALTERNATIVE Do not authorize entering into a contract with MRS. Instead re-issue the RFP for additional response. This approach is not recommended because it will further delay the process and both staff and the contract project manager are confident that MRS has the experience to adequately evaluate this project. ATTACHMENTS 1. Vicinity Map 2. Project description from Notice of Preparation(NOP) 3. MRS Consultants Scope of Work &Methodology 4. Project Deliverables, Project Schedule, Cost Quotation and Budget Summary 5. EIR Services Authorization Reading File: Full Response to proposal for preparation of the Chevron Tank Farm EIR G:Bleveille/Chevron/CCRepoNEIRConsultant(CC Repon)6-2-09.doc �3 -3 lL�S yCY�J'e`a.a�... 0.1a � ,a. Cd.V 0.3a • Rtgl p 9 S L3 i- W E I .a fl Cl Flf COa i �, � J a � ®a o. w a ✓ A S 7 �•{ w o . a r � 7 �.— , . . rP cr,• t- L� oQ mwn•w i �l a v C F 0 VICINITY MAP File No. 92-08 N Chevron Project Area , C3- ICE OF Attk W 2 City and Countyof San Luis Obispo NOT CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO NOTICE OF PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR THE CHEVRON RESTORATION AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION The 332-acre project site is located at 276 Tank Farm Road, south of the City of San Luis Obispo in an unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County (refer to Attachment A, Initial Study, Figures 1 and 2). Tank Farm Road bisects the site in an east-west direction. The site is bordered by light commercial and industrial development, the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, agricultural and pastoral lands with scattered residences, and a mobile home park. From 1910 until the late 1980s the Chevron Tank Farm site was used as an oil storage and distribution facility. In 1926, a lightning strike ignited a major fire at the Tank Farm, destroying many of the tanks and reservoirs. As a result of the fire, heated oil flowed out of the reservoirs and onto the ground surrounding the tanks by a combination of burning embers and boil-overs. This release is considered responsible for most of the numerous surface occurrences (i.e., expressions) of highly weathered and burned petroleum that cover the ground in topographically low areas of the Tank Farm. Most of the infrastructure used to store and transport oil has either been removed or is inoperable. The site is largely unused, expect for caretaker activities and a few buildings that formerly housed Chevron's Central Coast staff. Chevron no longer requires the use of this land for its oil production operations, and proposes to convert the property to uses that include commercial and industrial uses and open space. The Tank Farm site has been identified by the City for possible annexation given its proximity to existing City boundaries, existing industrial uses, and the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport. Chevron is currently in the process of proposing a Development Agreement for consideration by the City Council in association with a potential annexation of the site. In the event the City Council ultimately authorizes the negotiation of a Development Agreement, the process for adoption of such an agreement and the annexation of the site would be lengthy and complicated and would require the approval of several long-term development and phasing plans. Given the nature of the Development Agreement and annexation processes, Chevron has decided to file a land division map application with both the County and City. As such, Chevron is proposing two separate development options, one consistent with County regulations, and one consistent with City regulations. The objective of the dual project approach by Chevron is to provide an alternative development option in the event the review and approval process for annexation is unsuccessful or does not meet Chevron's needs. Approved development would be under either County or City jurisdiction, or following approval of amendments given that the proposed project would require amendments to the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The project will be simultaneously processed in both City and County jurisdictions. The City and County will serve in a 1 C3 -5 Attachment 2 City and County of San Luis Obispo NOTICE OF PREPARATION capacity of CEQA co-lead agencies in processing the project and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The project consists of two principal components. The first component is remediation and restoration of the site, which includes various risk management activities such as demolition of existing buildings, top soil excavation, site re-contouring, excavation and capping, and mitigation of existing impacts to wetland and rare plant habitats and the unavoidable impacts resulting from implementing the remedial actions. Re-contouring will be done mostly using on-site materials. The principal borrow source for soil materials will be the former quarry site known as the Flower Mound located in the northeastern corner of the project site. This area is comprised of metavolcanic rocks and serpentinite. It is anticipated that this area will need to be blasted in order to break up and access this material. San Luis Obispo City Development Option The following is proposed under the City development option: • 27 acres with approximately 433,000 square feet of floor space for business park land; • 26 acres with approximately 370,000 square feet for Service and Manufacturing uses; • 265 acres designated as open space on both sides of Tank Farm Road. 250 acres would be used for open space and environmental mitigation. The remaining 15 acres would be used for active sports fields; • 14 acres would be used for streets, sidewalks, and other frontage improvements; and, • The City of San Luis Obispo would provide water, sewer, and public services such as police and fire. The City is in the process of installing a sewer trunk line in Tank Farm along the property's frontage. Chevron would extend the water main and utilities to the developable areas. The City option would require amendments to the Airport.Area Specific Plan, adding amendments to the City's General Plan Land Use Policy map, a subdivision of existing parcels, annexation of the property by the City, architectural review, adoption of a Development Agreement with the City, and environmental review. San Luis Obispo County Development Option The following is proposed under the County development option: • 27 acres with approximately 370,00 square feet of floor space for commercial services; • 26 acres with approximately 433,000 square feet for industrial uses; 2 �3-6 City and County of San Luis Obispo NOTTCE Attachment 2 • 250 acres would be used for open space and environmental mitigation and 11 acres for sports fields; • 4 acres for a wastewater treatment facility. Water and sewer would be provided by on-site wells and the on-site wastewater treatment facility; • 14 acres would be used for streets, sidewalks, and other frontage improvements; • Cal Fire would provide fire protection services, County Sheriff would provide police services, and utilities would be provided by existing area service providers. The County option would require an amendment of the County General Plan, a subdivision of.existing parcels, a Conditional Use Permit, adoption of a Development Agreement with the County,and environmental review. Attaftnt 3 4.0 Study Methodology This chapter discusses our approach to preparing the EIR for the Chevron Tank Farm Restoration and Redevelopment Project. Throughout the project MRS will take direction from the City and County and follow the City and County's EIR standards, practices, and guidelines, and the CEQA Guidelines issued by the State Office of Planning and Research. The main purpose of the EIR will be to: • Evaluate the environmental impacts associated with the Applicant's proposed project. • Develop feasible alternatives which meet most of the basic objectives of the project, and which have the potential to eliminate significant impacts caused by the proposed project. • Develop mitigation measures that can serve to reduce the level of significance of project and alternative impacts. The results of the EIR analysis will be used by the public and governmental agencies in making decisions on the project. This section of the proposal is broken down into two major sections. The first section provides a general discussion of the proposed approach to each of the major tasks listed in the RFP. The second section presents the detailed scope and approach to each of the environmental issue areas. 4.1 General Approach to Project Tasks This section briefly discusses the proposed approach to each of the major tasks listed in the RFP. 4.1.1 Project Management Program MRS specializes in the management of complex, multi-disciplinary projects which are similar to the proposed work. MRS staff has many years of experience in project management and offer a very strong project management component as part of this proposal. Section 3.2 provides a detailed project management program for the project. Section 6.0 provides a detailed project schedule that would be used as part of the management program to track process. 4.1.2 Project Description The project description will be developed based upon the information that the Applicant has submitted to the various agencies as part of their applications. There are a number of data that will be necessary regarding the proposed project description for an evaluation of the impacts. The project description chapter will discuss the need for the project, as well as all of the proposed actions that will be taken by the Applicant in order to implement the project. The project description will need to make it clear that the EIR is evaluating three separate projects, which include the restoration activities, the City redevelopment activities, and the County 29-Apr-09 4-1 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3� ?," M4, hplent4.0 Study etho_ y redevelopment activities. The document will need to make it clear that the remediation project will occur in all cases, but that only one of the City or County projects could move forward. The project description will be broken down into three major parts (1) restoration activities, (2) redevelopment activities for the City Project, and (3) redevelopment activities for the County Proj ect. As we begin developing the project description chapter we propose to work closely with the Applicant and the City and County to assure that the project description accurately reflects the proposed project. It is likely that as the project description is developed, additional information will be needed from the Applicant. MRS will submit data request forms to the City and County that provide a detailed description of the data needed and the reason for the request. These forms will also include a due date for the information so that the overall schedule can be maintained. Once a draft project description has been developed, ten(10) hard copies will be submitted to the City and County for review and comment. MRS would also suggest that the Applicant be given an opportunity to review the project description to assure that it accurately reflects their proposed project. This is extremely important since the project description data will serve as the basis for assessing the impacts associated with the proposed project. 4.1.3 Alternatives Analysis The California Environmental Quality Act, Section 15126.6, requires an EIR to describe a reasonable range of alternatives to a project or to the location of a project which could feasibly attain its basic objectives and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 provides direction for the discussion of alternatives to the proposed project. This section requires: • A description of"...a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of a project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the.project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives." [15126.6(a)] • A setting forth of alternatives that "...shall be limited to ones that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project. Of those alternatives, the EIR need examine in detail only the ones that the lead agency determines could feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project." [15126.6(f)] • A discussion of the "No Project" alternative, and "...If the environmentally superior alternative is the "no project' alternative, the EIR shall also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives." [I 5126.6(e)(2)] • A discussion and analysis of alternative locations "...that would substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR." [15126.6(f)(2)(B)] 29-Apr-09 4-2 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 -7 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology For this EIR, it is critical that a defensible alternatives analysis is developed which meets the. following objectives: • The alternatives analysis is comprehensive enough to assure that it has looked at a reasonable range of feasible alternatives to the proposed action. • That the alternatives analyzed throughout the document are limited to only those that could feasibly attain the Applicant's basis objectives for the project, and that have the ability to reduce significant impacts associated with the proposed action. In order to accomplish these objects we are proposing to use an alternative screening analysis. The use of an alternative screening analysis provides the basis for selecting alternatives that meet the second objective listed above, provides a detailed explanation of why other alternatives were rejected from further analysis, and assures that only feasible alternatives which have the ability to reduce significant impacts and meet the basic objectives of the project are evaluated and compared in the EIR. This screening methodology also uses the "rule of reason" approach to alternatives as discussed in CEQA (Guidelines Section 15126.6(f)). The rule of reason approach has been defined to require that EIRs address a range of feasible alternatives that have the potential to diminish or avoid adverse environmental impacts. In defining feasibility of alternatives the CEQA Guidelines state: "Among the factors that may be taken into account when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, other plans or regulatory limitations, jurisdictional boundaries (projects with a regionally significant impact should consider the regional context), and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control or otherwise have access to the alternative site." (Section 15126.6(f)(1)). If an alternative is found to be technically infeasible, then it would be dropped from further consideration. Typically, this was the primary feasibility factor used to eliminate an alternative without further screening analysis. In addition, CEQA states that alternatives should "...attain most of the basic objectives of the project ..." (Section 15126.6(a)). If an alternative is found to not obtain the basic objective, then it would also be eliminated. The use of a screening analysis for the alternatives ensures that the full spectrum of environmental concerns is adequately represented, and that a reasonable choice of alternatives is selected for evaluation in the EIR. Using the approach listed above the alternatives analysis section of the EIR will include (1) a brief description of a range of reasonable alternatives to the proposed project; (2) a screening 29-Apr-09 4-3 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0, 3 ,�v Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology analysis that summarizes and compares the significant environmental effects of the project and each alternative; and (3) an environmental analysis of the alternatives that were selected for further consideration in the EIR. A separate alternatives analysis will be conducted for each of the three projects (restoration, City redevelopment, and County redevelopment). The alternatives analysis will be presented in a standalone chapter of the EIR that will come right after the analysis of the proposed project impacts and mitigation measures. It is expected that the screening analysis for each of the projects will include a wide range of alternatives. While it is not know at this time how many alternatives will pass the screening analysis for each project, NMS has assumed that up to eight project alternatives will be evaluated in detail in the EIR. The distribution of the number of alternatives between the three projects will be determined at the time of the release of the alternatives screening analysis. The discussion and evaluation of alternatives for each of the development options will include at a minimum the following: 1. No Project, impacts based on the existing conditions without further development. 2. Redesigned Project, in location and/or level of improvements, that would reduce otherwise significant impacts to less than significant levels. The redesigned project shall also consider eliminating those mitigation measures proposed for primary or secondary impacts that, in themselves, may result in substantial environmental impacts or unreasonable fiscal burdens. Some the issues that will be looked at in developing alternatives is the location of the proposed athletic fields, and the expansion of bike trails, as well as alternative routes for roads. 3. Reduced Project, based on those resources that are identified as being unavoidably significant, adverse impacts under the proposed project. The reduced project shall also consider eliminating those mitigation measures proposed for primary or secondary impacts that, in themselves, may result in substantial environmental impacts or unreasonable fiscal burdens. 4. Alternative Locations, for portions of the development that would reduce otherwise significant impacts to less than significant levels. Alternatives to the restoration project could include alternative methods of restoration such as excavation, in situ treatment, etc. Similar to what was done for the Guadalupe Restoration Project and the Avila Beach Cleanup Project, a wide range of restoration and remediation technologies will be evaluated as part of the alternatives screening analysis. 29-Apr-09 4-4 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR a3- / 1 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology MRS is proposing to provide the City and County with early draft of the alternatives screening analysis for review and comment. This will help assure that all parties are in agreement with the alternatives that are going to be evaluated in detail in the EIR. The analysis of the alternatives selected for detailed evaluation in the EIR, will be analyzed using the same methodology as described for each issue area. As required by CEQA, a determination will be made as to the environmentally superior alternative. The determination of the environmentally superior alternative will be performed by conducting a comparative analysis for all issue areas of the mitigated impacts for each alternative evaluated throughout the document. Alternatives which are found to be unfeasible, would not reduce significant impacts over the proposed project, or would not meet the project objectives, would be dropped from further consideration and would not be included in the comparison of alternatives. 4.1.4 Administrative Draft EIR The preparation of the Administrative Draft EIR is where the majority of project work occurs. One of the first tasks will be to develop a Style Guide for the EIR that provides a detailed outline of the document as well as information on the formatting that will be used. The requirements for maps and figures are detailed in the Style Guide along with a list of appropriate acronyms. More on the Style Guide is provided in Section 5 (Document Preparation). A draft Style Guide will be submitted to the City and County for review and comment. Once the City and County have approved the Style Guide it will be issued to the project team along with document templates in Word. MRS will provide ten (10) hard copies of the Administrative Draft EIR, with appendices and mitigation monitoring,program (all copies in oversized three ring binders). MRS will also provide copies of the Administrative Draft in pdf format on CD if requested by the City or County. The major task for the Administrative Draft EIR is the analysis of the environmental issue areas identified in the NOP and the final scoping document. Each environmental issue area will have the following major sections in the Administrative Draft EIR. • Environmental and Regulatory Setting(i.e., Baseline) • Significance Thresholds • Project Impact/Mitigation Assessment • Cumulative Impacts • Mitigation Monitoring Plan Our overall approach to the development of each of these major sections is discussed below. Section 4.2 provides the detailed.methodology that will be used for each of the issue areas. 29-Apr-09 4-5 Chevron Tank Farm Project EER Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Environmental and Regulatory Setting(i.e.,Baseline) The main objective of the baseline will be to assess and document the current conditions of the existing site. This will be accomplished through a peer review of the documentation provided by the Applicant in its application and a review of the existing conditions at the-site. Another objective of the baseline will be to review, evaluate and document the current state of contamination at the Chevron Tank Farm site based on the information provided by the Applicant and determine what remedial efforts are occurring at the facility. Chevron has conducted an extensive evaluation of the contamination at their properties in the area. The program included extensive soil and ground water testing that identified areas of hydrocarbon and other contamination, and a human health and ecological risk assessment. For most issue areas, the baseline information is expected to be developed from previous studies in the area including field investigations, long-term monitoring activities, regulatory requirements, and other EIRs. The sources of information are likely to include state and local agencies, reports prepared for the Applicant, and previous CEQA documents that have been prepared within the study area. Where data gaps are identified we will conduct further surveys and field investigations to fill those data gaps. The Applicant for this project has prepared a large number of studies that provide a considerable amount of information associated with the baseline conditions at the site. These documents will be peer-reviewed before the information is used as part of the baseline section of the EIR. One of the fust tasks that will be undertaken will be a comprehensive review of the Applicant prepared documents. This peer-review will focus on adequacy and technical accuracy of the information. MRS will provide to the City and the County a Peer-Review Report that details any deficiencies in the documentation and any additional work that may need to be done to complete the baseline section of the EIR. As part of the preparation of the proposal, a limited peer-review of the Applicant prepared documents has been conducted. Based upon this review we have assumed that some limited field surveys will be needed to verify and expand on ekisting data. Field work that is proposed is detailed by issue area in Section 4.2 below. Particular areas where fieldwork will be needed include biological resources, visual, noise, cultural resources, and traffic. The environmental setting section of the EIR will also include a regulatory setting section for each of the relevant issue areas. NMS proposes to provide the City and County with a preliminary draft of the baseline section of the EIR for review and comment well before the release of the Administrative Draft EIR. This approach assures that there is agreement on the baseline, and allows the City and County more time to review this section of the EIR. The approach also allows MRS to address comments on 29-Apr-09 4-6 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR G3 - 13 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology the baseline section of the EIR prior to release of the Administrative Draft EIR, which helps to accelerate the production and review of the Administrative Draft EIR. Significance Thresholds One of the most important tasks in the evaluation of impacts is to develop a set of well-defined significance criteria (or environmental thresholds) for each of the issue areas evaluated in the EIR. We propose to develop the significance criteria prior to our assessment of impacts and to agree on these with the City and County in advance. For this project one of the issues will be how to use any County and City adopted thresholds in the document. MRS plans to work with the City and County to develop a common set of significance thresholds for use throughout the document. Where available, significance criteria will be based upon existing City and/or County environmental thresholds. Where criteria do not exist, they will be developed based on criteria used in previous EIRs. With well-defined criteria, the impacts can be classified in terns of significance with a greater degree of confidence. Project Impact/Mitigation Assessment For this project we propose to break the impact section of the EIR into three sections that cover the following projects. • Restoration: Evaluation of impacts associated with restoration and remediation activities. • City Redevelopment. Impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the site within the City would be analyzed based on the project description for development within the city if the area is annexed. • County Redevelopment. Impacts associated with the proposed redevelopment of the site within the County would be analyzed based on the project description for the development within the County. This approach of presenting the impacts will allow the public and the decision makers to better understand the impacts and associated mitigation measures for each of the projects. This approach would also make it easier for each agency to develop conditions of approval and findings for the project within their jurisdiction. The approach to the impact assessment for each issue area is discussed in more detail in Section 4.2 One of the major goals of an EIR is to identify potential impacts and then to develop reasonable, feasible, and effective mitigation measures to reduce the impacts to insignificant. During the course of preparing an EIR mitigation measures are identified by issue area. Coordination between issue areas is important, as many times mitigation measures in one issue area are not carried through into other issue areas to determine if any residual impacts exist. In order to facilitate the coordination of impacts and mitigation measures, we propose having a Mitigation/ Engineering Coordinator to assure consistency of the mitigation measures. We also propose to 29-Apr-09 4-7 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 -I`f Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology hold a number of workshops with the project team to discuss impacts and mitigation measures. This approach assures that each mitigation measure is evaluated thoroughly and all the potential residual impacts are addressed for each of the issue areas. For the significant impacts, mitigation measures will be developed to reduce the.level of significance, if possible. The mitigation measures that we develop may be design changes, technology-based measures, new or revised management systems for project operation, and/or administrative procedures to ensure that certain processes and/or environmental conditions are carefully monitored. The mitigation measures will address primary and secondary impacts associated with the project. In our approach to evaluation of impacts, we will distinguish between impacts before and after mitigation. Significant impacts that cannot be mitigated to a level of insignificance will be categorized as Class I impacts. Class II impacts are those that are significant prior to mitigation but can be mitigated to a level of insignificance. Class III impacts are impacts that are adverse but not significant prior to mitigation. For Class III impacts, mitigation measures may be recommended if they could reduce the adversity of the impact. Class IV impacts are beneficial impacts. As with the impact assessment, mitigation measures will be developed for each of the three projects. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact portion of the assessment is designed to address the cumulative impacts associated with reasonable-foreseeable projects within the study area. One of the fust steps in the cumulative analysis will be to work with the City and County and other agencies in developing a cumulative projects list. We would propose to work with the City and County and other responsible agencies to determine which of these projects should be included in the cumulative analysis. Using this data, a cumulative projects description will be developed which will detail all projects on the cumulative list. The cumulative projects description will be submitted first to the City and County for review and approval, and then to the project team. Mitigation Monitoring Plan The mitigation measures and the mitigation monitoring plans developed for each issue area will be consolidated into a comprehensive mitigation monitoring program for each of the three projects as described above. The monitoring program will identify all mitigation monitoring requirements placed on the City and/or County and other agencies, and also the reporting requirements of the Applicant. The need for subsequent verification by on-site inspection will also be defined in the monitoring program; together with any"post construction" monitoring that may be required to evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation measures, and a dispute resolution 29-Apr-09 4-8 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR c3-/5 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology procedure in the event the monitoring program generates disputes between the relevant agency and the Applicant. The mitigation monitoring and reporting plan will provide a list, by topic, of all proposed mitigation measures. For each measure, a summary will be provided that details the requirements of the proposed measure, and what, if any, approvals are needed from various agencies. The plan will also include a table that provides the following information: • Impact • Mitigation measure and ID number • Location • Action required by the Applicant • Monitoring or reporting mechanisms • Timing of mitigation measure implementation • Effectiveness/compliance criteria • Party responsible for verification • Method of verification • Monitoring and reporting schedule These mitigation monitoring criteria will be developed for each issue area for each mitigation measure that is proposed. The draft mitigation monitoring plan will be provided to the City and County at the same time as the Administrative Draft EIR. A summary of the plan will be included in the Executive Summary of the EIR. 4.1.5 Prepare Public Draft EIR Preparation of the Public Draft EIR will involve incorporating all of the comments received from the City and County on the Administrative Draft EIR and producing a "camera ready" copy of the EIR for final review by the City and County. Once the City and County have signed off on the "camera ready" document, MRS will be responsible for printing the Public Draft EIR. MRS will be responsible for printing 75 copies of the Draft EIR with appendices as follows: 5 unbound, 3-hole punched; 1 unbound photo-ready copy; 70 bound copies and one electronic copy in original format [e.g., Word]); and, 30 CDs (with graphics) in .pdf format. An electronic copy of the documents suitable for website posting shall also be included on the consultant's web page with a link to our web page. MRS will also prepare 50 copies of the stand alone and bound Draft EIR Executive Summary. 4.1.6 Prepare Administrative Final EIR At the close of the public comment period on the Draft EIR, work will begin on preparing the Administrative Final EIR. This task involves preparing written responses to all the comments received on the Public Draft EIR and modifying the EIR document as needed to address the comments. 29-Apr-09 4-9 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology All the comment letters received on the Public Draft EIR will be numbered with unique codes and responsibility for responding to the comments will be assigned by the Project Manager and the Issue Area Coordinators. Draft responses will be developed for each comment, and will be assembled into a response to comment section that will be added to the EIR. As required by the comments, the EIR will be modified. Areas of the EIR that are modified in response to the comments will be marked with revision marks. As needed, the response to comments will provide guidance to the reader as to where changes have been made to the EIR, or where additional information in the EIR can be found that addresses the comment. MRS proposes to submit the Administrative Final EIR to the City and County that has all of the response to comments, as well as all of the changes to the public draft EIR. MRS will submit 8 hard copies, with appendices and mitigation monitoring program (all copies in oversized three ring binders). This will allow the City and County to review the responses and check that the appropriate changes have been made to the EIR. In developing the cost estimates for response to comments, we have assumed that no new analyses will be required in order to prepare the response to comments or the Administrative Final EIR. 4.1.7 Prepare Final EIR Preparation of the Final EIR will involve incorporating all of the comments received from the City and County on the Administrative Final EIR(which includes the response to comments) and producing a "camera ready" copy of the EIR for final review by the City and County. Once the City and County have signed off on the "camera ready" document, MRS will be responsible for printing the Proposed Final EIR. MRS will be responsible for printing 50 copies of the Final EIR with appendices as follows: 2 unbound, 3-hole punched; 1 unbound photo-ready copy; 47 bound copies and one electronic copy in original format [e.g., Word]), and 20 CDs (with graphics) in .pdf format. An electronic copy of the documents suitable for website posting shall also be included on the consultant's web page with a link to our web page.. 4.1.8 Public Meetings/Hearings In developing the costs for this project it has been assumed that team members will participate in approximately eight public meeting/hearings as detailed in Attachment A of the RFP. MRS will be responsible for developing presentations for these various meetings/hearings. MRS will also be responsible for developing the agenda for all of the public meetings, and documenting the results. It has been assumed that the City and County will be responsible for recording and transcribing the meeting, if needed, for the official record. 4.1.9 Assistance with Findings MRS has included time to assist the City and County with the preparation of findings pursuant to Sections 15091 and 15093 of the State CEQA Guidelines. These findings shall be prepared in a format approved by the County Department of Planning and Building and the City Community Development Department. 29-Apr-09 4-10 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0 3 -/� Attachent4.0 Stud Metho Y 9Y 4.2 Issue.Area Study Methodology The remainder of this section presents the proposed approach and study methodology for each of the issue areas. 4.2.1 Aesthetics/Visual Resources This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for aesthetics/visual resources. General Approach/Methodology MRS will establish the baseline setting and governing policies. We will then assess the proposed project's potential impacts given the short term impacts related to the Remediation Phase of the project and the two potential redevelopment scenarios defined by the City and the County, and provide an evaluation of the impacts associated with those projects in comparison to the existing aesthetic quality of the area. Baseline Environmental Setting The project site is located to the north and south of Tank Farm Road between South Higuera Street and Broad Street/State Route 227. The immediate area consists of nearly level to steeply sloping topography dominated by commercial and residential developments and undeveloped areas. Development within the surrounding area includes light and industrial development, the San Luis Obispo Regional Airport, agricultural land with scattered residences, and a residential mobile home park. The area proposed for development is on nearly level land at elevations between approximately 130 and 180 feet above sea level. Building development under both the City and County development options would cover approximately 800,000 square feet and be concentrated in the northeast corner of the property near Tank Farm Road and on the western boundary of the project site just north of Tank Farm Road. The primary viewing corridors include U.S. Highway 101, Broad Street/State Route 227, Tank Farm Road, Buckley Road, and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor. With the exception of Tank Farm and Buckley Roads, all the roadways and the Union Pacific Railroad corridor to the east of the project site, are identified as scenic corridors in the City of San Luis Obispo. The City development option would be subject to design guidelines in the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and Community Design Guidelines. The County development option would be subject to guidelines presented in the County's Inland Area Framework for Planning, the County's Agriculture and Open Space Element, the County's San Luis Obispo Area Plan, and the County's Title 22 — Land Use Ordinance. MRS will document the baseline environmental setting with photographs from critical public viewing locations. 29-Apr-09 4-11 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR /Q e3 �Iu Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) MRS will review the proposed project for impacts to aesthetics resources. The first phase of the project would include remediation and restoration activities across the site, which would require the temporary use of heavy equipment. The project would also involve the removal of the flower mound, which is a dominant feature at the site. The second phase would include development of commercial and industrial buildings covering approximately 800,000 square feet. Under the City development option, the development project would include 53 acres with approximately 800,000 square feet of floor space for business park land and Service and Manufacturing uses; 250 acres for open space and environmental mitigation; 15 acres for active sports fields; and, 14 acres for streets, sidewalks, and other frontage improvements. Under the County development option, the development project would include 53 acres with approximately 800,000 square feet of floor space for commercial and industrial services; 250 acres of open space and environmental mitigation; four acres for a wastewater treatment facility; 11 acres for sports fields; and 14 acres for streets, sidewalks, and other frontage improvements. The project would be visible from Tank Farm Road between South Higuera Street and Broad Street. The project would also be visible from Broad Street, Highway 101, and Buckley Road, as well as from a number of accessory roads located around the perimeter of the project area. The project would have the potential to silhouette against the South Street Hills to the north of the. project site as viewed from Tank Farm Road. MRS will generate photo simulations from all critical viewing locations showing the existing baseline and the simulations of both the proposed City and County projects. MRS will then prepare a viewshed analysis from the highway and major roads and will include, but not be limited to, the following: • Development of ratings and recommendations for the assignment of aesthetic values to protect views from Tank Farm Road, Highway 101, Broad Street, South Higuera, and Buckley Road, and to identify other; if any, potentially significant key viewing areas. • Up to eight visual simulations of the proposed development with modified topography will be prepared as part of the aesthetics/visual resources analysis. • Evaluation of night lighting. Short-term impacts to visual quality of the project site as viewed from Tank Farm Road would result from construction activities during the remediation and restoration phase of the proposed project. This phase would not affect the visual quality of the project site over the long-term. Build-out of the development phase would result in changes in the visual character of the project site from a semi-rural setting to a more urban and developed setting. The development would also result in an increase in daytime/nighttime light and glare within the area. These increases would be the result of new lighting at the proposed commercial areas, business parks, and new park facilities. Development of these sites would increase the amount of light and glare resulting from additional parking lots,building lights, and streetlights. 29-Apr-09 4-12 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0, 3-N Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology MRS will also assess the visual impacts associated with the project alternatives that are identified for further analysis as part of the alternative screening. Mitigation Measures Due to the potentially significant impacts to public views, a discussion of adequate and feasible mitigation measures would be included to ensure that visual resources are adequately protected. Some of those mitigation measures may include: • Minimization of the amount of equipment onsite and designation of staging areas; • Limit the height of proposed new structures; • Paint buildings with colors that blend with the surrounding area; • Utilize directional and shielded lighting. MRS will identify additional measures, as appropriate. Cumulative Impacts MRS will assess the potential cumulative visual impacts associated with the proposed project and other identified projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. For example, other proposed construction projects in the area have the potential to contribute cumulatively to visual impacts due to the use of cranes or other large construction equipment. 4.2.2 Agricultural Resources General Approach/Methodology This analysis will address potential impacts related to the removal of existing agricultural resources/uses on the site (cattle grazing), potential impacts of the proposed project on offsite adjacent agricultural operations, and potential impacts that the existing adjacent agricultural operations may have on the proposed future industrial and commercial services development of the site. The agricultural assessment will be done in close coordination with the County Agricultural Commission staff. One of the first steps will be to meet with the County Agricultural Commission staff to discuss the project and the issues that need to be addressed in the EIR. Baseline Environmental Setting The environmental setting section will provide context and background regarding the sites' current agricultural value/productivity. It will also describe the site in the context of surrounding agricultural operations. The Tank Farm Project site and surrounding vicinity is geographically situated in the upper reaches of the Los Osos Valley that have historically supported livestock grazing, hay cropping, and subsequently investment in a variety of intensified agricultural operations. The Tank Farm site likely supported livestock grazing and or the growing of various field crops prior to its industrial development. The preponderance of the Tank Farm site consists of nearly level to 29-Apr-09 4-13 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C 3 -ao Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology gently sloping terrain along a series of southwesterly trending creeks, similar to that of surrounding agricultural lands, many of which exhibit prime soil characteristics. Areas with appreciably steeper slopes occur in the northeasterly portions of the site, where it encroaches upon hills to the north that contain a number of rock quarries. Beginning in 1910, the development and topographic alteration of the site into a series of basins surrounded by prominent earthen berms to accommodate tank farm facilities and pipeline-pumping operations effectively removed the site from prevailing agricultural uses for the duration of tank farm operations and its decommissioning period. Currently, the site is suitable for grazing and portions of it have been leased for that purpose. Expansions of urban and suburban land uses south along South Higuera Street(to the west of the site) and Broad Street/Route 227 (east of the site) have resulted in significant conversion of agricultural land in areas near the site within the Urban Reserve Line of the City of San Luis Obispo. Areas immediately abutting the site still exhibit a semi-rural character, especially the lands lying to the north and south of the site. Interpretation of current aerial photography (2008, Tele Atlas Image, Digital Globe) confirms that approximately 32 acres of tilled cropland abuts the northwestern side of the site (between Tank Farm Road and Meissner Lane) that has been classified as prime farmland. Actively tilled cropland and hay-cropped land abuts the southern side of the site(near Esperanza Lane) and land used for livestock grazing also abuts the southern side of the site. An agricultural industry, a winery operation (Cottonwood Canyon Winery), has been located on Santa Fe Road between the site and the airport. The site's potential agricultural resource productivity has been disturbed both by extensive surface alterations and soil contamination by oil as a result of a catastrophic tank farm fire in 1926 and from incidental pipeline, pump, and storage facility leakages throughout the decades of routine on-site petroleum product handling and storage operations. Because of the topographic degradation and contamination of the site, its soils do not rank as prime nor do its combined agricultural resource attributes qualify the site as special-status farmland. Past uses of the site have now rendered much of it as suitable primarily for livestock grazing. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The proposed remediation and subsequent long-term redevelopment of the Tank Farm site would impact its potential to support and/or sustain productive on-site livestock grazing, and could potentially also indirectly impact adjacent and nearby agricultural land uses. Proposed development of the site would permanently withdraw the site's agricultural resources from use in productive agriculture and would in some instances juxtapose developed business park and commercial services facilities with prevailing row crop agriculture on adjacent properties. The impact assessment associated with each of these project phases is described further below. Site Remediation Impacts. Remediation of the Tank Farm site would be a complicated process. The remediation would involve direct grading disturbances to approximately 111.85 acres of existing terrain surfaces in a number of areas dispersed about the site. Site grading would 29-Apr-09 4-14 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C 3 'a Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology involve the excavation of an estimated 635,350 cubic yards of earthen materials, of which as much as 157,000 cubic yards of contaminated soils would have to be removed from the site. The remediation efforts would simultaneously have to protect selected sensitive habitats where possible and would require other areas to be set aside for the stockpiling of excavated materials suitable for backfilling in engineered caps at a number of contaminated former oil reservoir sites. Topsoils would also be reserved for re-use on-site and would also be imported as needed. Given the complexity and wide-ranging nature of the remediation programs, a free ranging leased cattle grazing operation would not be compatible with the remediation efforts and would be suspended as the plans are implemented. The remediation program would directly impact the existing leased cattle grazing operations by causing its cessation. To gauge the impacts to the value of productive agriculture on-site and its contribution to that in the vicinity, we will consult with County Staff and Agriculture Commission officials to assist in the determination of the quality of on-site grazing land, the size and type of the cattle lease operations, and the projected value of such operations. MRS will also undertake evaluations of potential impacts to adjacent agricultural operations that may result from remediation activities. MRS will consider potential impacts to nearby and adjacent cropland, including the potential for impacts from fugitive dust that may be generated during remediation operations. County and City of San Luis Obispo Development Options. While remediation of the site will require a cessation of cattle grazing activity, the re-development of the site will permanently withdraw on-site agricultural resources from production. The analysis of impacts to site and vicinity agricultural operations resulting from site remediation activities will provide the basic insight for understanding the consequences of the withdrawal of the site's agricultural resources from production. The completed project will introduce new developed and open space and recreational uses of the site that do not now occur. Compatibility issues between future uses of the site and prevailing adjacent and proximal agricultural operations will be evaluated, such as potential traffic conflicts between agricultural vehicles and increased automobile traffic and the potential for restrictions in pesticide use. Mitigation Measures Where possible, feasible measures to protect agricultural resources would be developed and evaluated. Residual effects would be evaluated in cases where mitigation measures would not completely eliminate impacts. Cumulative Impacts MRS will assess the potential cumulative agricultural resources impacts associated with the proposed projects and other identified projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. For example, other proposed development projects in the region, within agriculturally zoned parcels may have the potential to contribute cumulatively to agricultural resources impacts due to a decrease in viable agricultural land. 29-Apr-09 4-15 Chevron Tank Fam Project EIR 0- 3 -ate �= o Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology 4.2.3 Air Quality and Climate Change This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the proposed projects and alternatives impacts for air quality and climate change. General Approach/Methodology The general approach to the air quality assessment will be to develop a baseline upon which impacts associated with the proposed project and alternatives could be evaluated. The analysis will cover potential impacts from emissions of criteria air pollutants, toxic air contaminants, odorous events, asbestos, lead and greenhouse gasses. The potential impacts from increased emissions of criteria pollutants will be assessed against the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District's(SLOAPCD) threshold criteria as detailed in the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (April 2003) and state and federal ambient air quality standards. Emissions will be quantified for operational onsite and offsite emissions utilizing the most current version of the URBan EMISsions (URBEMIS) software. The URBEMIS software model estimates air pollution emissions from a wide variety of land use projects and includes numerous factors associated with development projects as well as the ability to quantify mitigation measures. URBEMIS is recommended for use by the SLOAPCD. Construction remediation emissions will be estimated based upon equipment and load factor use using detailed construction emission calculation spread sheets. Emissions will also be estimated from soil offgassing, if applicable, and emissions associated with pipeline draining activities. These emissions levels will be calculated as part of the construction and remediation activities. The project region in San Luis Obispo County is currently in violation of the state standards for ozone (03) and respirable particulate matter (PM10). The station closest to the project site located at 3220 South Higuera Street (about % mile from the project site to the north west), had exceedances of the state standards for ozone in 2008 (CARB website). Other areas of the County had exceedances of particulate matter (the Higuera Street station does not measure particulate matter). The evaluation of project air quality impacts will focus on potential 03 precursor (reactive organic compounds [ROC] and nitrogen oxides [NOJ), PM10 and PM2.5 emissions. The SLOAPCD CEQA handbook presents methods to evaluate air quality impacts for CEQA purposes. The MRS air quality staff has previous experience in the evaluation of emission sources and impacts of projects in San Luis Obispo County, and they are familiar with SLOAPCD handbook used to assess proposed emissions. Additional modeling to assess the potential localized impacts to the ambient air quality standards will be performed using the Industrial Source Complex (ISC) air dispersion model, particularly in relation to potential exceedances of NO.,, PMio and PM2.5 air quality standards associated with construction grading and earthmoving activities. 29-Apr-09 4-16 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0-3-C� 3 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Carbon monoxide "hot spots" analysis will be performed associated with increases in traffic due to the project. The modeling software CALINE4, or the most recent version, will be used in combination with intersection and roadway geometry and vehicle traffic levels. Emission factors as generated by the most recent version of EMFAC (which is also incorporated in the URBEMIS software) will be used. CO hot spot guidance will be used as specified by the carbon monoxide protocol developed by the UC Davis Institute for Transportation Studies (ITS 1997) and recommended by the California Department of Transportation for conducting CO hot spots analysis. Toxic emissions will primarily be associated with diesel engines used during remediation and construction and during operations related to industrial facilities. Some toxic emissions may also be generated by the wastewater treatment facility proposed as part of the County option. Guidance will be sought from the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) on the assessment of impacts from any of the toxic air pollutant sources that are identified. Toxic emissions are a potential concern for emissions related to diesel combustion as diesel has been identified as a health concern by CalEPA. Diesel combustion sources will include construction equipment, particularly related to grading and earthmoving, and operational trucking related to future industrial uses of the property. Increases in diesel impacts will also be assessed along primary transportation corridors. Diesel toxic impacts associated with diesel construction equipment or heavy duty diesel trucks associated with industrial activities will follow the guidelines specified by the SLOAPCD or by the SCAQMD for mobile diesel emissions. Impacts of other toxic pollutants from stationary sources will be evaluated and, if above the prescribed screening levels, will be assessed using the most recent version of the Hotspots Analysis and Reporting Program (HARP) developed by CARB. HARP will utilize local meteorological conditions, emission factors, and emission sources' parameters, e.g., stack dimensions, gas velocities, exhaust temperatures, equipment coordinates, and will assess the cancer risk as well as the level of acute and chronic health impacts from the emission of toxic pollutants. Additional toxic emissions may be associated with earthmoving activities of soils that have BTEX or other hydrocarbon contamination. If these types of soils are moved or hauled offsite as part of the proposed project or alternatives, additional analysis will be conducted to assess the emissions and potential toxic impacts of soil offgassing. Extensive soil offgassing models are available and were utilized as part of the Guadalupe EIR prepared by MRS. Odor emissions may also be associated with remediation activities. Odorous compounds could emanate from hydrocarbon affected soils during excavation and soil handing activities. An odor analysis will be conducted utilizing odor thresholds published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. 29-Apr-09 4-17 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4A Study Methodology Odors may also be associated with the proposed wastewater treatment facility as part of the County option. The potential for odors from the wastewater treatment facility will also be assessed based on other, similar facilities. The demolition of existing facilities may have asbestos or lead containing materials. The handling of these materials is addressed under existing SLOAPCD and NESHAPs rules and these will be incorporated into the analysis. In addition, the proposed project site is located in an area that is specified by the SLOAPCD as potentially having naturally occurring asbestos. Earthmoving and grading activities will therefore require additional analysis related to potential asbestos exposure. Potential fugitive dust emissions from the demolition of the flower mound will also be addressed in the air quality section of the EIR. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions will be estimated for the remediation, construction and operations utilizing primarily URBEMIS, which includes estimates for CO2 emissions, these will be used to estimate the CO2 portion of the GHG emissions. Emissions of other GHG pollutants, such as methane, will utilize the CARB Compendium of Emission Factors associated with CARB GHG emission reporting requirements. All GHG emissions will be converted to a CO2 equivalent basis to estimating the significance of GHG emissions. Baseline Environmental Setting The existing air quality and meteorological conditions will be characterized to provide an environmental setting that the proposed project emissions will potentially impact. The existing and projected air quality will be described without the project for the selected study area. Regions that exceed the Ambient Air Quality Standards(AAQS) or are close to the AAQS will be identified as being most sensitive to increases in ambient concentrations of the air pollutants. A detailed description of the baseline air pollutant concentrations and trends in the region will be prepared based on data from the South Higuera Street monitoring station (the closest station to the site) and other monitoring stations in San Luis Obispo County. Regional toxic air contaminant concentrations and trends will also be characterized based on the available data from CARB and the SLOAPCD. Impacts from the emissions of inert pollutants will generally be limited to the vicinity of the project and transportation corridors. Thus, for the project location, a study area that includes southern San Luis Obispo County will be selected. The operational use of the area by industrial facilities could cause a significant truck traffic increase. Thus, existing traffic conditions within the affected road network will be analyzed in detail to establish a baseline for potential CO"hotspots" analysis. This analysis could be used for soil handling options which may utilize significant trucking requirements. 29-Apr-09 4-18 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0, 3 -as Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology The environmental setting includes characterization of the area with regard to the existing air quality, the regional meteorology, and the applicable air regulations. Much of this information has already been compiled for other EIRs in the County and this information will be utilized. Existing data will be updated and refined as it applies to the current project. Federal, state, and county air quality regulations will be reviewed to identify those items that apply to the project including issues such as toxic emissions, CO "hotspots" due to increased traffic, and odorous compounds emissions. Discussions with regulatory agencies will be carried out to identify pending regulations that might affect the proposed project. GHG emission baseline will address the current status of regulations at both the Federal and State levels, such as any recent CARB requirements, as well as the status of local air district GHG emission thresholds, particularly the SCAQMD. The SCAQMD is currently developing specific thresholds for determining the significance of projects related to their GHG emissions levels. In consultation with the SLOAPCD, the City and the County, GHG thresholds will be developed. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The principal objectives of the impact assessment are to determine the impacts of project emissions on ambient air quality and human health and to identify potentially significant impacts. Impacts will be determined by assessing emission inventories and by conducting air quality modeling. All air quality modeling will be conducted in accordance with EPA and CARB guidelines, as well as with input from the SLOAPCD. Modeling will be conducted related to CO "hot spots," toxic diesel emissions associated primarily with construction equipment and truck transport, toxic emissions associated with stationary sources and localized impacts (NO,, PM, etc.) that may exceed the air quality standards. For criteria pollutants, only inert modeling is proposed in this project, as emissions thresholds could be used to determine significance for ozone precursors (ozone is classified as nonattainment and any incremental increase above a minimum emissions threshold will be considered significant). Emission spread sheets that list equipment and load factors will be used to estimate construction emissions related to remediation activities and the construction of industrial, wastewater treatment and recreational facilities. Operational emissions associated with industrial or recreational uses of the project site will also utilize URBEMS. Offsite emissions associated with vehicle traffic will utilize URBEMIS, which incorporates the most recent EMFAC emission factors as a part of the model. An emission spread sheet based upon equipment lists and load factors will also be used to estimate demolition emissions associated with the remediation phase of the project. The demolition emissions will include any emissions associated with the removal of the flower mound. 29-Apr-09 4-19 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Emissions associated with the wastewater treatment facility, which would be part of the County development option, and associated with other activities, such as pipe draining, will be calculated separately utilizing standard emission factors for similar types of facilities. These will then be added to the other calculated construction emissions. Air dispersion modeling will be conducted related to localized exceedances of air quality standards utilizing the ISC model. A meteorological dataset for use in the dispersion modeling analysis will be compiled using data from nearby monitoring stations. If there are some missing observations, data from other monitoring stations located in the same air basin will be used or boundary layer meteorological theory will be used to estimate parameters such as mixing height. Modeling associated with CO hot spots will be conducted using the CALINE4 model along with intersection configuration and traffic levels and emissions. Emissions will be based on the most recent EMFAC model. Impacts will be determined based on exceedances of the State and Federal 1 hour and 8 hour CO standards. Impacts of diesel emissions, both associated with remediation, construction and industrial operations, will be modeled using the ISC model and the CARB unit risk factor related to cancer for diesel particulate matter. These will be compared against the CARB thresholds for increased cancer risk to determine significance of diesel toxic emissions. Other toxic emissions will be screened and, if exceeding the screening level will be modeled using the HARP model. The results of the HARP modeling will be compared against the CARB thresholds for increased cancer, acute and chronic risk to determine significance of toxic emissions. Activities that could produce odors emissions will be identified. These could include hydrocarbon impacted soil handling activities related to grading or remediation. Compounds which could create odor problems will be identified using odor thresholds as published by the American Industrial Hygiene Association. Potential odor emissions associated with the wastewater treatment facility (part of the County option) and their potential impacts on nearby residences, particularly at the trailer park or existing recreational areas located immediately to the east of the project area, will also be examined. The potential impacts associated with asbestos and lead will be examined based on demolition material potentially containing asbestos or lead paint, and naturally occurring asbestos. The project area is located within an area designated by the SLOAPCD as potentially having naturally occurring asbestos. Requirements associated with asbestos handling and potentially asbestos containing dust as specified in NESHAPS and by the SLOAPCD will be included in the mitigation measures.. 29-Apr-09 4-20 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 -'Z:). -�L Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Emissions of greenhouse gasses will also be assessed for all remediation and construction activities and operations. GHG emissions will be quantified in the same manner as criteria pollutants, with emission factors and tabulated in columns next to the criteria pollutants. Regulatory requirements will address recent GHG emission regulation, such as AB 32 and developments at the SCAQMD. GHG, including carbon dioxide (from combustion), methane (from combustion and fugitive emissions), nitrous oxide and hydrofluorocarbons will be addressed. GHG emissions will be assessed for both direct (located on-site) and indirect (from mobile sources and electricity generation) and will address life-cycle issues such as transportation. URBEMIS will be utilized for estimated of CO2 emissions and the CARB compendium of GHG emissions factors will be utilized for non-0O2 GHG pollutants. Electrical generation GHG emissions will utilize an analysis on power plant emissions conducted by the EPA in the eGRID program, updated to address the most recent status of power plants that feed electricity to Central California. The construction GHG emissions will be amortized over a 25 year period and added to the operational GHG emissions. This combined number will be used to determine the significance of GHG emissions. Mitigation Measures Impacts associated with both construction and long-tern operational activities will be quantified. Mitigation of project emissions will be required for significant impacts. Generally, for non- attainment pollutants, a project is required to reduce emissions to the maximum extent possible using control measures, and then to provide offsets for the remaining operational emissions liability. Mitigation measures are also required for temporary impacts such as fugitive dust and combustion emissions from construction activities. The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality handbook includes mitigation measures that will be applied to substantially reduce emissions. Mitigation measures for diesel emissions will utilize the CARB Diesel Risk Reduction recommendations towards the use of catalysts to reduce diesel hydrocarbon and PM emissions and the guidance in the currently proposed CARB regulation "Reduction of Emissions of Diesel Particulate Matter, and Other Pollutants from In-use Heavy-duty Diesel-fueled Vehicles". The SLOAPCD CEQA handbook also includes the use of diesel particulate catalysts as a mitigation measure. Additional mitigation measures related to fugitive dust are also in the SLOAPCD CEQA handbook and these will be included in the mitigation measures. Additional measures specified by other air districts, such as the SCAQMD, may be added as applicable, to further reduce emissions. Mitigation measures related to potential odors at the site will address the best engineering practices implemented at other similar facilities, such as other wastewater treatment facilities or other remediation projects. Mitigation measures will be developed in accordance with the SLOAPCD current Rules and Regulations, Clean Air Plan and CEQA Handbook. 29-Apr-09 4-21 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR � 3 �a$ Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Rule and requirements related to asbestos and lead handling and naturally occurring asbestos will be included in mitigation measures to reduce the impacts associated with asbestos or lead materials. These may include an asbestos dust mitigation plan which will address stabilizing of unpaved areas and storage piles and limits on vehicles speeds. Mitigation measures related to lead paint impacts will be focused on reducing potentially lead containing dust with measures such as manual removal of paint materials, cleaning of areas and limits on operations during windy periods. Mitigation measures will also be developed to reduce GHG emissions. These could include the use of construction related lower GHG emission fuels or operational aspects of the project, such as roadway bike lanes and access to public transportation for the industrial and recreational areas, that will be incorporated into the URBEMIS model to quantify their associated emission reductions. We will coordinate closely with the APCD on classification of the impacts as to significance and thresholds, utilizing both the most recent CARB and the SCAQMD actions on GHG significance thresholds. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative air quality impacts associated with future projects near the site and other approved projects in the area are of primary interest to regulators and planners in San Luis Obispo County, especially with the stringent requirements for emissions controls required in non-attainment areas under the California Clean Air Act. Cumulative emissions for pollutants will be estimated for all projects in the vicinity of the proposed project. These emissions will be obtained from the EIR/EIS documents for the projects or for similar projects, ATC permits issued by the APCD, the recent update to the Clean Air Plan. Checks will be made with regulatory agencies to identify any proposed projects for the area. Sources of information needed for this analysis will include previous environmental analyses for other projects in the area, Applicant data submitted as part of the project and as part of the facility permit requirements, as well as specific emission profiles for equipment proposed for construction and operations. 4.2.4 Biological Resources This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for biological resources. General Approach/Methodology. The biological resources analysis will begin with a comprehensive review of all relevant background materials. This will include peer review of technical studies prepared on behalf of Chevron in support of the proposed restoration and development project. The reports will be 29-Apr-09 4-22 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology evaluated for general content, accuracy, and consistency with local, state, and federal regulatory requirements. Specific documents of relevance to the EIR analysis include: • General Biological Resources Studies—Phases 1, 2, and 3 (Rincon Consultants) • Botanical Resources Study(Padre Associates/WSP Environment and Energy) • Wetlands Studies (Padre Associates/WSP Environment and Energy, Jenesis, and EDAW Inc.) • Burrowing Owl Survey Report(Padre Associates) • California Red-legged Frog Survey Report(Padre Associates) • Fairy Shrimp Survey Report (Rincon Consultants) Due to the extensive amount of previously collected data that is available, no further resource- specific studies are proposed as part of the scope of work. Field reconnaissance will be conducted to familiarize the project team with the physical and biological characteristics of the site and to verify general accuracy of the maps and other information contained in the above- referenced background materials. The Biological Resources Section of the Draft EIR to be prepared will contain a description of the site's biological attributes (derived largely from the background review as noted above), as well as individual narratives on the current status of sensitive and special status plants, animals, and habitats. Specific elements will include those attributes that were the focus of previous studies (e.g. wetlands; rare and special status plant and wildlife species, fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog; and burrowing owl). Accuracy of resource maps prepared on behalf of the applicant will be confirmed through field verification. These will include maps of vegetation, wetlands, and occurrences of rare plants and wildlife. The need for additional or revised mapping will be identified. Additional mapping is not included in the scope of work for this proposal. Baseline Environmental Setting Biological resources include terrestrial habitats and biota, including vegetation, wildlife, and potentially sensitive wildlife and threatened and endangered species. A preliminary review of previous studies commissioned by Chevron suggests that these documents contain a thorough inventory and description of the biological resources of the project site. Development of the Environmental Setting would be a matter of synthesizing and verifying the accuracy of this information for integration into the EIR. This would be accomplished through background review and field reconnaissance. Technical studies on wetlands and special status species (e.g. fairy shrimp, California red-legged frog, burrowing owl) will also be reviewed for adequacy and consistency with established 29-Apr-09 4-23 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 30 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology agency standards and protocols. Once verified, this information will be used to develop summary narratives describing the known or potential local and regional occurrence of special status plants, wildlife, and biotic communities.. Existing information will be augmented by a broader background search for relevant sources of information. These may include other environmental studies in the project area, search of museum collections, interviews with local biologists familiar with the flora and fauna of the project area, and a more current review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Consultation with state and federal wildlife agencies (California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) will be made, as appropriate to specific issues areas such as wetlands and state and/or federal listed species. Additional field studies, other than general reconnaissance, are not proposed as part of the EIR investigation. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The EIR will include a thorough discussion of potential impacts to biological resources that could result from the proposed remediation, restoration and development under both the County and City scenarios. Direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts will be analyzed consistent with criteria set forth in the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). Impacts will be discussed in context with local land use policies and ordinances, including the Airport Area Specific Plan. Both short- and long-term impacts to biological resources will be considered. The Remedial Action Plan and Project Execution Plan will be used as a basis for determining potential for, and significance of, short-term impacts during project implementation. Remedial actions proposed for wetland areas will be a specific focus of the analysis. Methods and techniques proposed to minimize intrusiveness and promote soil stability, proper site drainage, and habitat rehabilitation will be scrutinized. Monitoring and maintenance components of the RAP will be evaluated to determine the possibility of long-term impacts. Project alternatives will be individually evaluated and compared in terms of their relative impacts (both deleterious and beneficial) to biological resources. A discussion of the disadvantages and merits of each alternative will be provided. A discussion of residual impacts of the proposed project that are expected to remain after implementation of recommended mitigation measures will be included. Mitigation Measures Mitigation proposed as part of the project design (e.g. habitat mitigation contained in the RAP) will be evaluated for adequacy, efficacy and consistency with accepted standards. Additional measures designed to avoid or offset significant impacts to biological resources will be developed as necessary. Mitigation Measures will be consistent with the planning and land use 29-Apr-09 4-24 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 -3I documents adopted by the City and County of San Luis Obispo. A discussion of residual impacts of the proposed project that are expected to remain after implementation of recommended mitigation measures will be included. Restoration plans (specifically the "Habitat Mitigation Plan" referenced in the RAP) will be thoroughly reviewed. Measures to improve or enhance site restoration, habitat rehabilitation, and resource management plans will be included as mitigation, as appropriate. Cumulative Impact Assessment Cumulative impacts will be evaluated from local and regional perspectives. Development projects approved, pending, or planned for the project area will be considered in the cumulative impact analysis. The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans EIR will be reviewed in this context. In addition, the planning departments of the City and County of San Luis Obispo will be contacted regarding projects in the vicinity. 4.2.5 Cultural Resources/Archaeology This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for cultural, historical, archaeological and paleontological resources. General Approach/Methodology. The Chevron Tank Farm property contains an extensive historic period archaeological site associated with the Union Oil Company's use of the land between 1910 and 1950. A disastrous fire at the site in 1926 was a significant event within the local community. It was recognized as an environmental disaster of previously unknown proportions. Thor Conway's 2008 archaeological surface survey of the study area identified 57 cultural features as well as 287 isolated finds associated with the former Union Oil Company Tank Farm or local ranching activities predating industrial development of the 340 acre property. Conway identified several different historical property types on the site, including trash dumps, refuse scatters, structural remains, and landscape features. Most of these properties appear to be associated with one of two principal historical themes that have patterned the historical record of the study area: • Ranching—late 1800s to present • Refuse scatters; • Landscape features; and • Structural remains • Oil Transportation and Storage— 1910-1950s. • Landscape features and structures,built 1910-1913 • Reservoir#2—UOC construction 1910 • Tank farm expansion features—post dating 1914 • Evidence of the 1926 fire 29-Apr-09 4-25 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 6,3 -39-, 4.0to y Cb nt 3 The initial survey completed in June 2008 was a reconnaissance level study to identify archaeological and structural remains and supply preliminary documentation and planning data. Conway recommended that the content, age, integrity, and extent of each of these archaeological features be documented more thoroughly, and each feature be evaluated for significance and eligibility to the California Register of Historical Resources. In addition, Conway discovered eight isolated prehistoric artifacts. He noted that "each isolated [prehistoric] artifact does have the potential to become an archaeological feature upon further study. Subsurface testing is used to confirm the status of an isolated archaeological fmd as a true, single occurrence, or as a representative of a buried site or feature" (Conway 2008: 18). Chevron will be conducting a Phase II assessment at the site. Due to the potentially significant impacts to cultural resources, the Initial Study and further discussions with the County and City required analysis by qualified professionals to include, but not be limited to: 1. A peer review of the Phase I and Phase II survey of the project site and a detemrnination of whether additional field work should be required. 2. An evaluation and discussion of the cultural importance of any on-site and/or surrounding cultural resources. 3. Review of geologic formations and proposed grading to discuss potential impacts to paleontological resources. 4. Recommendation and discussion of adequate and feasible mitigation measures, if any, to ensure that known and unknown archaeological and, if applicable, paleontological resources are adequately protected. Baseline Environmental Setting To evaluate the Chevron Tank Farm site complex, it will be necessary to establish a historic context, assess the content and physical integrity of the site and features within it, examine the unique or representative qualities of each feature, and determine whether such features have the potential to provide important historical information which cannot be obtained from other sources. The historical research is necessary for the development of the context. It is only after the historic context is prepared that the California Register criteria can be applied and an evaluation of significance made. !E plans to accomplish these goals using a combination of archival research and artifact analysis. RESEARCH AND CONSULTATIONS Archaeological Records Searches. Because Conway recently completed a detailed records search for this project, fE does not propose to conduct additional records searches at the Central 29-Apr-09 4-26 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR e-3 -33 Attdorunt4.0 Study� 3 Coastal Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System, housed at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Additional Information Center research will only yield redundant information. k's in-house files also contain additional relevant information on prior archaeological studies within the City and County, locations of nearby archaeological sites, and the nature of the sites, features, and artifacts that have been recovered previously from the vicinity. Archival Research. Historical industrial sites such as the Chevron Tank Farm are evaluated within the broader context of regional social and economic patterns, settlement, land use, and commercial/industrial developments. Within that context, site-specific archival research can provide details on land ownership, site utilization, and diachronic changes in site function, technology, and operation. Although Conway's 2008 report includes preliminary historical research and oral history, additional site-specific research is necessary to develop more specific contexts for significance evaluation. The site-specific research also will aid the field team in interpreting feature function and identifying the archaeological and historical data potential of features and structural remnants at the site. fE staff will visit several local repositories to gather data to construct the regional and site- specific historical summaries. We will examine historical maps, photographs, newspapers, government records, and other data available from these sources. fE also maintains an extensive in-house library of reference reports and publications—with some directly relevant to the study area. At a minimum fE will conduct archival research at the locations listed below: • San Luis Obispo City/County Library Local History Room; • San Luis Obispo County Historical Society and Museum; • San Luis Obispo County Archaeological Society; • County Recorders Office and Assessment Records; • California Polytechnic State University, Robert E. Kennedy Library local history collections; • Unocal files; • Local newspaper collections; • On-line collections and records. In addition, fE will contact the California State Archives, the U.S. Geological Service, State Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources, and other non-local sources via phone and internet. Native American Consultation. State law and Best Management Practices call for early consultation with local Native American tribal representatives during project planning and development, and inclusion of tribal representatives during studies of Native American sites. It does not appear that such consultations occurred during Conway's Phase I surface survey. fE will initiate such consultations by contacting the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) in Sacramento to request a search of their confidential Sacred Lands Files 29-Apr-09 4-27 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 -3y' Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology and advise us of any potential conflicts or concerns. We will also request that the NAHC provide us with a list of local tribal contacts. �E will then prepare and send letters describing the project to these and any other local representatives identified by the City, County, or the NAHC. The letters will invite tribal representatives to consult on potential impacts to tribal resources. To ensure effective consultation, we will follow up with phone calls to each of the individuals or groups on the list. We will also offer to meet personally with any tribal individuals or groups who wish to receive a presentation about the project. We recommend that any such meetings be held with individual tribes or representatives, rather than as a group. Paleontological Research. k will perform a preliminary assessment of paleontological sensitivity following the standard guidelines of the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology. We will examine topographic and geological as well as other readily available peer-reviewed literature sources to identify sensitive stratigraphic units and sites within the study area. To obtain information on previously identified fossil sites within and near the Project area, we also will search existing fossil collection databases at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM), the Museum of Paleontology of the University of California, Berkeley, and Paleodatabase.org. Based on these data sources, we will assess paleontological resource sensitivity within the project area and develop recommendations regarding project-related impacts to such resources. We do not propose to conduct a field survey or mapping of paleontologically sensitive localities at this time. Such field studies, if necessary and appropriate, are more efficiently performed during subsequent stages of the project. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) )E will prepare a comprehensive evaluation clearly and concisely documenting the methods and findings of the cultural resource investigation, including both archival and the field research efforts conducted by Chevron. The report will include an introductory section summarizing the scope of work and methods used during the archival and field phases of the project in addition to other relevant environmental information pertinent to the context of the project area and region. The body of the report will present a detailed historic context for the site and its surrounding region, synthesizing data gathered during the research phase of the project. The historic context will form the basis for our research design, which will present our theoretical assumptions, biases, and rationales. Data limitations will be discussed, and relevant research questions will be explicated clearly. These questions will be tailored to the property types encountered and the kinds of data that each property type is known or likely to contain. The research design will be the framework within which our significance evaluation will be made. The report will describe each feature documented at the site. Feature discussions will typically include a general discussion of the content, extent, and chronological placement. The function and association of each feature will then be interpreted by incorporating the historical and archaeological data with relevant archival information. 29-Apr-09 4-28 Chevron Tank Farm Project EM C3 -3� Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology 2E will assess the site and its features in terns of the California Register eligibility criteria, taking into account each feature's key associations and potential for addressing the previously stated research questions. Historical data gathered through the archival research will be used to place the physical remains and landscape features within their correct historic context. Detailed assessments of physical integrity will be made and any modifications that have occurred over time will also be discussed. The site also will be compared with other contemporary industrial sites (such as the Unocal Tank Farm at Avila). This comparison will consider historic context and function, physical integrity of the property when compared to others, and geographical location. The draft report will include all maps, drawings, and other graphics to be included in the final document. fE will revise the draft report in light of comments received from the City and County. As appropriate, copies of maps, field notes, journals, archival data sheets, and photographs will also be submitted with the final report. Mitigation Measures The results of the archival research, field investigations, and significance evaluations will be analyzed to determine potential project impacts to important cultural resources. This analysis, along with recommended mitigation measures, will be compiled for inclusion in the cultural resources section of the EIR. Mitigation measures will be developed to avoid or treat significant archaeological resources that cannot be feasibly avoided by the proposed project. Residual project impacts remaining after mitigation measure implementation will be described. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative cultural resources impacts resulting from the proposed project and similar past, present, and probable future projects in the vicinity also will be described. 4.2.6 Geological Resources This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for geological resources, including drainage, sedimentation, and erosion. General Approach/Methodology. The geology and geotechnical resources will be reviewed and evaluated to assess hazards ranging from seismic regime to expansive soils. Geologic hazards at the site are anticipated to include liquefaction, lateral spreading, seismic settlement, high groundwater, differential shaking, slope deformation, erosion, and expansive soils. Baseline Environmental Setting The baseline environmental setting will describe the regional and local geologic setting, including stratigraphy, soils, drainage, faulting, and earthquakes. The impact evaluation will focus on potential geologic hazards, including active faulting in the vicinity of the site and liquefaction. The project is located on nearly level to steeply sloping in some areas. The area 29-Apr-09 4-29 Chevron Tank Farm Project EM C3-3� Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology proposed for development is outside of the Geologic Study Area designation. Potential geologic hazards, such as seismically-induced ground shaking, fault rupture, and liquefaction, will be discussed in general terms with respect to potential infrastructure failure. The property lies south of the City of San Luis Obispo, but within an unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County. The majority of the site is generally flat with the exception of the northwest portion of the site where some moderately descending slopes exist. The proposed project site is underlain by alluvial deposits of varying thicknesses overlying a -melange of sedimentary and metavolcanic deposits from the Franciscan Formation. The alluvium unit ranges in thickness from zero feet in the northwest corner of the property to 180 feet thick in the southwest comer of the property. The alluvial deposits consist of unconsolidated to consolidated conglomerate, gravel, sand, silt and clay. Locally the bedrock is highly fractured and weathered Franciscan Formation. One of the common metamorphic rocks in the Franciscan Formation is serpentinite. The presence of serpentinite deposits provides a possibility for naturally occurring asbestos. The site is located in proximity to several active and potentially active faults. These studies will include further assessment and review of the hazards associated with the high regional seismic activity. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) RJR will review reports prepared for the site and surrounding area to assess the regional and local geologic conditions. Available published geologic and geotechnical data for the site and surrounding area available from the State and other sources will be reviewed and assessed. In addition, RJR will perform a detailed site reconnaissance to assess available and existing conditions. RJR will perform a detailed peer review of the applicants geologic and geotechnical reports and perform the necessary independent assessment of the site. The impact assessment will include consultation with both of the City and the County Public Works Departments, the City and County Departments of Planning and Building, reference to the San Luis Obispo County Land Use Ordinance(including the Safety Element) and County GIS mapping. In addition to mapping of significant areas that pose geologic hazards, the impact assessment will incorporate at a minimum the following project setting components: • Underlying formations, • Faulting, • Slope stability, • Potential liquefaction hazards, • Potential landslide hazards, 29-Apr-09 4-30 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C--3 Attachment 4.0 Study Methodology • Erosion, • Sedimentation, • Drainage, and • Flood Hazards. Finally, the evaluation will include a discussion of impacts associated with topographical alteration (or saturation of soil, as applicable) including removal of the flower mound, stability of roads, cut slopes, fill slopes, drainage structures, and other improvements. Upon completion of the analysis, RJR will prepare a technical section for the EIR addressing all geologic and geotechnical Hazards, potential impacts and available mitigation measures. Mitigation Measures Mitigation to reduce impacts associated with geologic hazards or topographic alteration will be developed as needed. This would include any impact due to erosion and sedimenation, as well as any impacts drainage at the site. Mitigation for reducing the effects of significant impacts will also be developed emphasizing conveyance of surface water runoff during remediation operations and establishment of erosion control measures such as silt fences to minimize sedimentation entering nearby drainages. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts to geological resources associated with the proposed project and other foreseeable projects also will be evaluated. Possible sources of impacts will be similar to those associated with the proposed project; however, the severity of the impact may be altered by the influence of other existing or planned projects. Given the local nature of the geological impacts of the project it is likely that few cumulative impacts will be identified. 4.2.7 Hazards and Hazardous Materials This section presents the scope and approach for assessing potential safety and hazardous materials impacts associated with the proposed project, alternatives and cumulative projects. General Approach/Methodology The proposed project could introduce potentially hazardous activities during the remediation and construction due to equipment fueling or explosives handling that is proposed for use in removal of the flower mound and during the operation of industrial facilities that may use and transport hazardous materials. The project could increase development in areas designated as higher risk due to the proximity of the airport and the potential for airplane crashes. The project could also present hazards and risk to wildlife or human health through the exposure of wildlife or humans to existing site contamination including hydrocarbons, arsenic and lead. The safety and hazardous materials analysis will quantify the current risk baseline and evaluate potential changes in risk associated with the proposed activities and alternatives. For potential operations of future industrial activities, include the wastewater treatment plant proposed under 29-Apr-09 4-31 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0,3 -3$ Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology the County option, the analysis will utilize established risk guidelines to evaluate the significance of potential incremental risk increases/decreases. If remediation would require the movement of large quantities of contaminated material to the landfill or other locations, the risks associated with the transportation of materials will be quantified and assessed. For assessing the Airport safety and hazards issues, the analysis will utilize the existing Airport Area Specific Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan and their associated designation of restrictive safety areas. Fire hazards will also be addressed for remediation, construction and operational phases of the project. The hazards associated with the use of explosives for the removal of the flower mound will also be evaluated. MRS will contact the company that Chevron has identified for conduction the explosives work and obtain more detailed information of the method and approach that will be used to remove the flower mound. For the environmental risks to wildlife and humans, the analysis will utilize the existing studies completed by Chevron for the proposed project, including the Avocet Feasibility study and the associated Risk Assessments. Considerable work has been done by the SERRT, a multi-agency group that has been formed to address surface and near-surface issues associated with remediation at the site. SERRT members have been actively involved in the development of the human health risk assessment and the ecological risk assessment. The SERRT was also involved in the development of the Remedial Action Plan (RAP), but has not approved a final RAP. Both of these risk assessments have been certified by the SERRT. As part of our peer review of these documents, we will draw upon the work that has been done by the SERRT. The following studies would be peer reviewed by our subcontractor, Risk Science Associates: • Remedial Action Plan (RAP): There are multiple references to human health, ecological risk, and occupational health in the RAP that will be reviewed and evaluated for completeness and appropriate referencing. • Feasibility Study (FS): There are many references to a human health risk assessment and ecological risks throughout the 2007 FS. This study relies upon the 2004 baseline human health risk assessment(HHRA)prepared by McDaniel Lambert, Inc. (as part of a cooperative process involving the RWQCB, SLO EHD, OEHHA, and the APCD) and a predictive ecological risk assessment(pERA) prepared in 2004 as a collaborative process between BBL Sciences, the RWQCB, and the City of San Luis Obispo. The potential terrestrial and aquatic ecological receptors at the SLO Tank Farm site were evaluated and possible terrestrial aquatic ecological risks associated with the SLO Tank Farm site were assessed. The FS, HHRA, and pERA will be reviewed and evaluated. 29-Apr-09 4-32 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C2.3'31 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology • Risk Management Study (RMS): The primary objective of the RMS report isto provide recommendations from the Surface Evaluation, Remediation, and Restoration Team (SERRT) to agencies and Unocal for management of ecological risk throughout the site. This report will be reviewed and evaluated. • Surface Hydrocarbon Inspection and Mitigation Plan (SHIMP): This plan focuses on basic procedures for the handling and protection of all sensitive biological resources, including entrapped or contaminated wildlife, in or near the surface expressions of petroleum hydrocarbons on the site. These surface expressions consist of high concentrations of high- molecular-weight hydrocarbons. This plan will be reviewed and evaluated for appropriate ecological protections. The peer review will involve assessing each of the above studies as to completeness, technical accuracy and whether correct procedures/protocols are followed. The peer review will also identify factors that, if varied due to construction irregularities or seasonable variability, could cause changes in the assessment results. Baseline Environmental Setting A key component of the safety and hazardous materials analysis will be establishing the baseline. The baseline will primarily address the ecological and human health aspects of the hazardous materials located at the site as described in the existing studies listed above. Baseline conditions related to human health would rely on the work conducted in the McDaniel Lambert 2004 Human Health Risk Assessment along with review by Risk Science Associates. Baseline conditions related to ecological risk would rely on the work conducted in the BBL Sciences 2004 Predictive Ecological Risk Assessment along with review by Risk Science Associates. These studies address a range of contaminants, including arsenic and lead. Baseline safety issues related to the airport activities would rely on the Airport Area Specific Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The safety and hazardous materials impact analysis will address issues related to hazardous materials use during remediation and construction, such as equipment fuel and fueling or blasting materials. It will address hazardous materials use and transportation during potential future operations, such as the wastewater treatment plant potential use of chlorine or sulfur dioxide gas, for example, or other industrial facilities potential use of hazardous materials. Impacts will be determined based on risk criteria established by CEQA Appendix G, and County and City adopted thresholds. Transportation risk associated with the movement of contaminated materials on highways will be assessed by examining the numbers of trips and associated accident rates along applicable 29-Apr-09 4-33 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR (23 ,140 Attachment ;'3 4.0 Study Methodology highway segments. Increasing truck traffic along highways could increase transportation risk due to accidents. Impacts related to Airport safety would rely project compliance with the applicable safety areas established by the existing Airport Area Specific Plan and the Airport Land Use Plan. Fire risk will address potential areas where fire could arise, such as hot work, refueling, grassland area activities, etc. A fire could potentially impact nearby areas including recreational, residential areas (the mobile home park to the east) or businesses. The impact assessment will also address the handling and use of the explosives proposed to be used for the removal of the flower mound. Ecological and human health impacts would be defined by the existing studies listed above and adherence to the designated exposure limits as defined by the RWQCB and others. Our peer review will also identify potential factors that, if varied due to construction irregularities or other factors, could cause exceedances of these limits. These factors would result in potential mitigation measures to ensure a sufficient margin of safety related to ecological and human health risk. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures will be proposed for each issue that has the potential to impact public safety, human health or ecological risk. The mitigation measures will be evaluated in terms of feasibility, adequacy and most importantly, effectiveness. Two key considerations in the application of specific mitigation measures will be the specific phase or activity of the proposed project or alternative, and the location of people in proximity to project-related activities. Mitigation measures could take the form of preventative measures related to fueling of construction equipment, including designated refueling areas and containment; the use and storage of blasting materials; limits on future industrial hazardous materials use or additional margins of safety related to the caps and containment of materials related to ecological and human health risk. Mitigation related to transportation of contaminated material could include measures such as hiring practices, vehicle speed limits, drug testing, etc. MRS has conducted extensive analysis for the County of Santa Barbara on the transportation of gas liquids and the effectiveness of mitigation measures. Cumulative Impacts The cumulative impact analysis will consider future projects in the region. While risk is generally localized in the immediate vicinity of a facility and does not increase with the development of relatively distant projects, transportation hazards associated with unrelated projects throughout the County can result in a cumulative risk. The cumulative impact assessment will focus on cumulative hazards for reasonably foreseeable projects that would have the potential to increase cumulative risks. 29-Apr-09 4-34 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0,3-q Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology 4.2.8 Noise and Vibration This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the noise related project and alternatives impacts. General Approach/Methodology Remediation, construction and redevelopment activities for the proposed project and alternatives could increase noise levels in the vicinity of the site and along transportation corridors. The noise impact analysis will focus on remediation/construction equipment and activities related to the ongoing operations of the industrial and commercial uses. Truck transportation related to remediation, construction and operations of commercial and industrial uses could also produce noise impacts to communities located near the construction site and along transportation routes. Remediation, construction and operation activity noise levels will be calculated based on the construction schedules and equipment lists developed in the project description. The impact analysis will be based on the relationship between projected noise levels (and the duration of these levels) and applicable policies and requirements of the County Noise Elements and City Municipal Code. Impact criteria will include the noise/land use compatibility guidelines supplemented by annoyance and sleep disturbance criteria as appropriate. Additional criteria may be added to address sudden, peak noise impacts associated with blasting or concrete breaking. The project remediation and construction would generate noise and vibration due to a number of activities, including construction equipment operations (graders, front loaders, etc), blasting associated with the removal of the flower mound, and concrete breaking and possible concrete grinding. Noise generated by equipment and activities will be estimated using existing databases on equipment and activity noise levels as available from the EPA and various other sources. In addition, noise measurements related to construction work conducted by MRS on other projects will be utilized, in particular related to construction equipment. Equipment specific noise data will be utilized where appropriate. In addition, as truck and vehicle traffic levels would most likely be increased along the transportation routes, the increases in noise as a result of increased truck and vehicle traffic will be assessed. Federal Highway Administration models for estimating traffic noise will be utilized to assess increased traffic impacts. Community populations with potential exposure to traffic noise will be identified and mapped, including businesses and residences along South Higuera Street, recreational areas, such as the Damon-Garcia sports fields, and residential areas such as the trailer park along Tank Farm Road or areas to the north-west of the proposed project site off of S. Higuera Street north of Prado Road. Operational noise sources may include pumps located at the wastewater treatment facility under the County option. Estimates of noise from pumps and other wastewater operations would utilize existing databases on pump noise in combination with distances to sensitive receptors. 29-Apr-09 4-35 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR e3 - C�_ Attagy4.0 Stud e t 3 Baseline Environmental Setting From our review of the project materials and knowledge of the project area, our proposed approach is to gather sufficient baseline information to address the issues outlined in the RFP and any other issues that are identified. We propose to utilize the existing material to the fullest extent feasible in our study to perform the following tasks: • Describe the existing noise environment throughout and around the site by compiling and reviewing existing noise data for the study area, including general plans, noise elements and the Airport Area Specific Plan, and by taking supplemental, site .specific noise measurements. • Measure noise levels at up to six locations in the study areas to confirm and update existing noise measurements. Noise measurements will be taken near residences, sensitive ecological areas and recreational areas in the vicinity of the proposed project location and transportation routes. • Compile impact criteria based on a review of the County Noise Elements, City Municipal Code and EPA reports(for peak noise, annoyance and sleep disturbance criteria). Baseline noise measurements will focus on impacts to existing sensitive receptors, including residential areas and recreational areas. Baseline noise levels will also rely on the community noise levels developed as part of the San Luis Obispo County Noise Element Technical Reference Document, which defines noise levels at 41 different sites in the County and the Airport Area Specific Plan. Additional community noise monitoring will be conducted to supplement this data. This noise monitoring will be conducted by MRS staff utilizing a Quest 1900 data logging sound level meter at locations near the project site and along pertinent transportation corridors. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) Noise impacts will be assessed on the basis of the change in the ambient noise environment in the study area that would be caused by remediation, construction, transportation, and operation activities. The various elements of the project will be evaluated to determine which of them will influence ambient noise levels. The next step will be to determine how much change will be expected. The analysis will proceed as follows: • Calculate noise levels and the duration of the impact for sensitive receptor locations in the noise study area utilizing existing equipment-specific noise level databases and measurement studies. • Determine the elements of the project that will cause a noticeable change over the measured background noise levels generated by remediation, construction, transportation and operation activities and associated traffic. • Evaluate ground home vibration levels associated with equipment and activities such as the removal of the flower mound. 29-Apr-09 4-36 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 -113 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology • Evaluate projected noise levels and incremental noise increases against appropriate significance criteria, including criteria related to peak noise levels associated with blasting type activities and vibration criteria. • Evaluate potential conflicts as a result of noise on surrounding residential, agricultural and recreational land uses. Calculations will be made to estimate noise levels at noise sensitive locations in the vicinity of locations surrounding the site and along candidate transportation corridors. Remediation, construction and operational noise will be modeled using an existing procedure such as the one developed for the EPA titled "Regulation of Construction Activity Noise," in which construction equipment source levels are defined and combined with information on distance to receiver, duration of equipment usage, operating characteristics, etc. These methods will define peak and average noise exposure levels (Leq and CNEL). Source noise levels will be obtained from the available technical literature and previous equipment measurements conducted by MRS. Traffic noise will be modeled using an existing procedure such as the Federal Highway Administration's "Traffic Noise Prediction Model", a highway noise model which could be utilized to analyze trucking impacts to community noise levels. The alternatives analysis will examine the potential impacts associated with the identified alternatives. The noise impacts of the alternatives will be assigned a significance level and will also be compared to those from the proposed project. The impact discussion for this project will identify any noticeable change in the existing contribution that would result from construction and operation activities and the significance of that change. A change of 3 dBA is generally regarded as the threshold of noticeable change in an ambient noise environment. Mitigation Measures We propose to identify practical, feasible measures to mitigate the significant adverse impacts of the project and alternatives on noise that are identified in the impact section. For each measure, a discussion will be provided as to whether the mitigation measure would, by itself or in concert with other proposed measures identified in this analysis, fully or partially mitigate the impact it addresses. Mitigation measures.will be developed in consultation with the lead agencies and responsible agencies as appropriate. Mitigation measures addressed will include the use of alternative transportation routes that could reduce noise impacts to the community, monitoring of truck speeds to ensure lower speeds used in sensitive areas, the use of equipment specific to trucks to reduce noises associated with exhaust, limitations on construction times during the day and weekends, the use of noise barriers strategically placed to reduce the noise associated with concrete breaking or grinding, or operational pumps related to the wastewater plant, and the use of alternative equipment which 29-Apr-09 4-37 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 ' �`f Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology would reduce noise levels. Alternative routes will be coordinated with the traffic and circulation section to ensure minimal impacts to traffic and circulation conditions. Cumulative Impacts Cumulative impacts will be addressed for two areas: cumulative impacts associated with other proposed projects in the area that might have a significant combined noise impact on receptors, and cumulative impacts associated with reasonably foreseeable increases in the numbers or locations of receptors, such as residential and other development projects near the proposed site. We will determine whether other construction projects might coincide with project construction and operation activities and thereby increase noise impacts. Cumulative long-term noise impacts will also address future activities in the project area. Potential long-tetra impacts will ultimately depend on the location and time frame associated with the cumulative projects. 4.2.9 Population and Housing General Approach/Methodology The project site does not currently generate a substantial employee population, and it does not generate a residential population or include housing. The proposed project would introduce jobs and an employee population at the site. This increase could augment demand for housing within commuting distances. The focus of this section will be to assess the proposed project's population and housing impacts as they relate to applicable housing policy and ordinance requirements, as described below. The analysis will also address the proposed project's effect with respect to jobs/housing balance. This section will briefly identify the relationship between the project and potential growth inducing effects on housing demand and energy usage, however, a separate Growth Inducement section of the EIR will be provided that will focus on these types of effects. Baseline Environmental Setting Existing conditions will be described in terms of on-site population, housing, and employment, existing forecasts used in the applicable planning documents for the area, and applicable policies and ordinances that address regional population and housing growth issues. For the County Development Option, these include County General Plan Housing Element, and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance. For the City Development Option, these include City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) Site Remediation. Remediation of the project site would begin with demolition of the existing on-site buildings that house Chevron office uses. However, as there are no residential structures on-site, remediation is not expected to substantially affect the County or City residential population (i.e., no current residents would be displaced as a result of the project). With regard to housing the temporary workers involved with remediation activities, according to the Initial 29-Apr-09 4-38 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C 3 -411S Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Study, the current supply of County and City hotels is expected to be sufficient to accommodate the demand. The EIR will briefly describe these temporary impacts during remediation. San Luis Obispo County Development Option. The project site is currently within the County's jurisdiction. Under the County Development Option, the analysis would include a discussion of the County's Home Investment Partnerships (HOME) Program, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program, the County's revised Housing Element, and the Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, which are all focused on the provision of affordable housing in the County and may require, as specified in the Initial Study, that future commercial development pay a fee to support the development of new affordable housing. Further, the EIR analysis will quantify the net employee population (considering the current Chevron employees at the project site) that is expected to be generated by the proposed project and discuss whether this increase would substantially affect the jobs/housing balance in the County. Factors in this analysis include whether future employees of the project are current County residents, or whether the employee base would be drawn from outside the County. In the latter case, a net increase in the employee population may induce housing growth. However, the proposed project would not result in an increase in housing or population at the project.site, nor would it displace an existing residential population or housing. According to the Initial Study, temporary workers involved with construction activities are expected to be accommodated by the County supply of hotel rooms and would therefore not increase the demand for County housing. City of San Luis Obispo Development Option.,In the event that the project site is annexed to the City of San Luis Obispo, the project would be subject to the City's AASP. The discussion of population/housing in the City Development Option EIR analysis would be similar to the County Development Option analysis. However, the. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan Housing Element includes an Inclusionary Housing Requirement, wherein commercial projects within City limits or in the City's expansion area are required to build two affordable dwelling units per acre or pay an in-lieu fee equal to five percent of the building valuation. The proposed project is part of the growth anticipated in the AASP, as described in the Program EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans. The EIR will discuss the extent to which growth under the proposed project (which requires an amendment to the AASP) would be consistent with the growth anticipated under the adopted AASP. Mitigation Measures If potentially significant impacts are identified, mitigation measures will be proposed, where possible, to reduce the impact to a level of insignificance. Cumulative Impacts MRS will determine whether other projects may coincide with facility construction and operational activities and thereby increase demand for housing services. Cumulative long-term impacts will also address future activities in the project area. Potential long-term impacts will ultimately depend on the location and time frame associated with the cumulative projects. 29-Apr-09 4-39 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 _ L Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology 4.2.10 Public Services and Utilities General Approach/Methodology The objective of the Public Services and Utilities Section of the EIR will be to identify the proposed project's impact on those agencies that serve the public in the project area. These services include fire and police protection, solid waste disposal and energy services (roads shall be addressed in the Transportation Section of the EIR). Impacts to schools are commensurate with a project's increase in residences and residential population. Because both the County and City Projects do not propose any residential units, it is anticipated that impacts to schools will will be insignificant, and therefore, limited discussion will be provided on schools. We will describe the existing conditions of the project site in terms of service and utility providers for each jurisdiction. We will then quantify the direct and indirect service demands associated with the project, and/or qualitatively discuss the proposed project's contribution to such effects, based on County and City generation rates. Baseline Environmental Setting For each service and utility, the existing setting section will identify the location of the nearest and/or serving facility, staffmg and equipment levels, and an assessment of the capability of the service or utility to meet existing demand. We understand that County and City Development scenarios will be served by different Police and Fire departments. Our analysis will include consultation with both City and County departments. The same solid waste and energy service providers serve both development scenarios. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) Specific tasks to identify potential impacts to services and utilities will include but not be limited to the following: • Identification of the fire protection service providers serving the project area and potential/expected response times from the fire stations, analysis of the adequacy of reliable or adequate fire flow, water pressure, and other fire department resources during a major fire, and analysis of emergency access routes; • Identification of the police protection service providers serving the project area and potential/expected response times from the police stations, and analysis of the adequacy of police department resources; • Identification of the solid waste collectors and landfills serving the proposed project site and available capacity of area landfills and analysis of increased demand on these agencies/facilities; and • Identification of the energy provider serving the project area and analysis of increased demand on such facilities. • Identify the local schools serving the project area and look at their current capacity and projected enrollment. 29-Apr-09 4-40 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C° 3 � 4.0 At Met�oWnt Impacts resulting from implementation of the project and subsequent increase in demand for public service and utility services will be determined based upon the degree to which the proposed project results in an increase in staffing or infrastructure/facilities (such as a new/expanded landfill), or increase in service area boundaries. Any impacts that may result from the construction of new or expanded infrastructure/facilities will also be identified, quantified, and discussed as impacts of the project. The project's public service and utility impacts in the context of other development proposed in the local vicinity will also be described in the cumulative context. Following the discussion of existing conditions and impact analysis, adequate and feasible mitigation measures to minimize potential public service and utility impacts shall be included, if needed. Mitigation Measures Envicom/MRS will identify mitigation measures, as appropriate. These may include procedures to maximize recycling and minimize the generation of solid waste. Cumulative Impact Assessment Envicom/MRS will assess the potential cumulative public services and utilities impacts associated with the proposed project and other identified development projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. For example, a proposed residential development in the area could cumulatively affect the availability of potable water. 4.2.11 Recreation This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for recreation. General Approach/Methodology As described in the Initial Study, the proposed project is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts on existing recreational resources and would provide a beneficial impact in providing new recreational resources. The EIR section will elaborate on these findings. It will describe the project's potential effects on existing recreational facilities in the area (during construction and operation) and will assess the recreational benefits provided by the project in the context of identified recreational demands in the area. Baseline Environmental Setting The existing conditions section will describe the on-site and nearby recreation amenities and discuss the regulatory framework of applicable plans, policies, and ordinances that address recreation for both the County and City jurisdictions as well as the Airport Land Use Plan. There are currently no formal, established recreational facilities or uses on the project site, but joggers and bicyclists currently utilize Tank Farm Road. Two County trails occur in the project site 29-Apr-09 4-41 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 03 - to Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology vicinity: the Bob Jones Pathway/San Luis Obispo Creek Natural Area and the Juan Bautista de Anza Historical Trail. The City's Damon-Garcia Sports Fields Complex and South Street Hills open space and trails system are also located in the project site vicinity. As the existing site population consists of commercial employees, the project site does not currently exert a substantial demand on recreational amenities. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The analysis of recreation in the EIR will address the potential effects resulting from implementation of the proposed project on recreation amenities under two phases: site remediation and development, for two separate development options: the San Luis Obispo County Development Option and the City of San Luis Obispo Development Option.. Site Remediation. There are no recreational facilities or uses at the project site, and therefore this phase of the proposed project would not be expected to adversely impact existing recreational amenities. However, Tank Farm Road is used by joggers and bicyclists and as such; the EIR analysis will include a discussion of potential remediation activities that may affect recreational uses. San Luis Obispo County Development Option. The project site is currently within the County's jurisdiction. As such, development of this analysis would necessitate consultation with the County Department of General Services, Parks and Recreation Division. Under the County Development Option, the proposed project would include 11 acres of sports fields. Our analysis would 1) discuss the existing County recreation amenities in the project area, 2) identify the existing recreation demand and any deficiencies, and 3) discuss the recreation regulatory framework, which would apply the County General Plan Parks and Recreation Element to the proposed project. The EIR analysis will address both construction period and operational period impacts to County recreational facilities resulting from the project. As described above for the remediation period, the EIR analysis will discuss the effect of construction activities on recreational uses on Tanks Farm (the Initial Study/RFP indicates that Tank Farm Road would be improved in several locations and that a traffic safety plan would address construction activities and recreational users traveling on Tank Farm Road). The analysis will also evaluate the effect of the project in contributing to an increased demand on County recreational amenities, and whether the proposed I acres of sports fields would alleviate the County demand for recreational facilities. As the proposed project consists of commercial and industrial land uses, it is not expected to result in adverse impacts to recreational facilities; rather its impact is anticipated to be beneficial, as the project would provide recreational facilities (per the Quimby Act and County General Plan Parks and Recreation Element, the dedication of fees for parkland is normally limited to residential subdivisions). City of San Luis Obispo Development Option. Under the City Development Option, the project site would be annexed to the City. To prepare the recreation EIR analysis for this option, we would consultant with the San Luis Obispo Parks and Recreation Department (SLOPRD). 29-Apr-09 4-42 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C _�-ql Attachrnent3 4.0 &uMethodology Under this Development Option, the proposed project would include 15 acres of sports fields. With the exceptions of 1) addressing the proposed project's impact to recreational facilities in the context of the City General Plan Parks and Recreation Element and Master Plan and 2) discussing existing and proposed City recreational facilities as well as the AASP widening of Tank Farm Road to a 100-foot right-of-way, the EIR analysis for this Development Option will resemble that for the County Development Option as described above. Mitigation Measures The most likely impacts to recreational resources would originate from noise impacts to users of the Damon-Garcia Sports Field Complex as a result of blasting that will occur within the Flower Mound area immediately to the south west of the fields within the project area. Typically, mitigation measures identified in the visual and noise areas may also serve to minimize impacts to recreation. Cumulative Impacts Envicom/MRS will assess the potential cumulative recreation impacts associated with the proposed project and other identified projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. 4.2.12 Transportation/Circulation This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternatives impacts on transportation/circulation. General Approach/Methodology Overland Traffic Consultants will prepare a traffic impact study for the proposed projects consistent with City and County of San Luis Obispo guidelines. The format of the study will display a cover page, executive summary, introduction, existing environmental setting, project conditions, cumulative with no project conditions, cumulative with project conditions, pedestrian & bicycle, transit, access &circulation,parking assessment, and construction evaluation. One of the fust steps that will be undertaken will be to meet with the City and County Public Works department to discuss the approach that will be used for assessing traffic impacts. As part of a preliminary traffic assessment, preliminary estimate of future traffic conditions will be evaluated with both the City model and the SLOCOG model. These results will be shared with the City and County Public Works and a determination will be made as to what modeling methodology will be used for the EIR analysis. The project consistent with City of San Luis Obispo and the project consistent with County of San Luis Obispo will both be analyzed for potential traffic impacts. The two proposed projects will be evaluated under the remediation and restoration phase and development phase. Some analysis has been previously conducted for the remediation and restoration phase. This previous work will be reviewed for completeness for the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and supplemented as necessary. 29-Apr-09 4-43 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR e3-5o Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Baseline Environmental Setting The transportation system around the Airport Area is comprised of several major transportation routes serving and providing access to the project area. These routes include U.S. Highway 101, Prado Road, Broad Street/State Route 227, South Higuera Street, Buckley Road, Industrial Way, Orcutt Road, South Street, Los Ranchos Road, Madonna Road, Los Osos Valley Road, and Tank Farm Road. U.S. Highway 101 is the primary regional transportation route serving the project area, with nearby access at Los Osos Valley Road, Prado Road, South Higuera Street, and Madonna Road. Public transit in the project area is provided by SLO Transit, the City's transit agency, and the countywide San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Agency. Both provide fixed-route bus service within San Luis Obispo; however, SLO Transit provides most of the bus stops serving the Airport Area. The project area is on the outskirts of the city bike system and is not fully served by existing bicycle paths or lanes. Although there are bicycle lanes located on South Higuera and Broad Streets, there are minimal width lanes along Tank Farm Road. Future development will access onto the following public road(s): Tank Farm Road, a one lane parkway arterial road. The identified roadway is operating at acceptable levels. As part of the baseline discussion, Overland will: • Describe study area streets and neighboring land use; • Collect new traffic count data information at up to 15 intersections (including those requested by Caltrans as deemed appropriate by the City and County); • Conduct a current field evaluation of the project area including roadway conditions, parking, pedestrian amenities, and transit services; • Calculate existing (AM & PM) peak hour traffic and load on key roadways identified by the pertinent agencies. • Identify and evaluate existing construction and operational traffic safety issues for the different pertinent road ways. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) Overland will prepare a full traffic impact study, including a select zone analysis and interchange analysis. The analysis will include,but not be limited to the following- Estimate project traffic generation using industry standard traffic generation rates for the commercial, industrial and recreational park development (City option) for the City and County proposals. • Consultation with the California Department of Transportation, the County Public Works Department, City of San Luis Obispo Public Works Department, and the California Highway Patrol. • Analysis of traffic impacts resulting from changes in land use acreage and locations, proposed circulation changes, and the restoration effort following the City's Traffic Impact 29-Apr-09 444 Chevron Tank Farm Project EM C3-SI 4.t Stuffy e Analysis Guidelines. Include impacts of trucks during restoration effort and suggest mitigation measures. Include traffic analysis of the following scenarios: 1) existing conditions, 2) project only conditions, 3) existing and project conditions, 4) cumulative conditions, and 5) cumulative and project conditions. Include a select zone analysis per Caltrans' Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impacts Studies. • Analysis of intersections and interchanges. Interchange analysis for the US 101/Los Osos Valley Road (LOVR) Interchange and the US 101/Madonna Road Interchange including a queue analysis of the ramp operations as well as the various ramp intersections. Include in the analysis of the US 101/LOVR Interchange the facilities preferred alternative as depicted in the Environmental Document and Project Report for the US 101/LOVR Interchange Reconstruction Project. Analyze impacts to both the US 101/Madonna Road and US 101/LOVR Interchanges with and without the anticipated 101/Prado Road facility in place. • Analyze Caltrans suggested intersections including State Route 227/Tank Farm Road, SR 227/Buckley Road, SR 227/Industrial Way, SR 227/Orcutt Road, SR 227/ South Street, SR 227/Los Ranchos Road. • Research and document other development projects in the study area.. • Determine potential future conditions using the City's future traffic model. • Incorporate discussion and evaluation of likely future ramp conditions as needed. • Discuss project access, internal circulation, and parking requirements. • Discuss potential construction traffic impacts. Mitigation Measures Identification and discussion of feasible mitigation measures, if any, which could be included in the project to minimize potential impacts related to traffic capacity or traffic safety. Cumulative Impacts Conduct a cumulative assessment of long-term traffic impacts which correlates with the proposed 25-year phasing plan and other related projects identified by the City and the County in the Cumulative Development Scenario. Review Congestion Management Program requirements. As appropriate, identify mitigation measures and if significant impacts can be reduced to less than significant levels. 4.2.13 Wastewater General Approach/Methodology. RJR will perform a preliminary evaluation of the proposed wastewater treatment plan for each of the proposed development options. RJR will assess the plans for efficiency, service capacity, fiscal impacts, compliance with regulatory agencies, and environmental effects. RJR will conduct a record search to review and compile available plans and reports for the site, facilities, and surrounding areas. 29-Apr-09 4-45 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Particularly in the case of the County option, RJR will assess the proposed wastewater treatment plant design in relation to the geologic/hydrogeologic conditions of the proposed site. RJR will also consult with regulatory agencies including City Utilities Department, County Environmental Health Division, County Building Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. Baseline Environmental Setting The proposed project site consists of a large, relatively flat 332-acre property that was previously developed for petroleum storage. The majority of the site was utilized for petroleum storage with only a small portion in the northwest corner designated with office buildings. The existing site maintains no major wastewater facilities or sewer lines. Some of the constraints and characteristics of the existing site include depth to bedrock, weathered nature of the bedrock, steep slopes, soil/alluvial permeability, and high groundwater conditions. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The proposed development of the Tank Farm site involves the development of an approximately 800,000 square foot business park with approximately 160,000 square feet of leasable floor area. Thus, a wastewater treatment plan will need to be implemented to accommodate future business and commercial use. The proposed wastewater treatment plan for the County development involves utilizing 4 acres of the site towards a waste water treatment facility. Development of on-site wells and an on-site wastewater treatment facility are included in the proposed County development design. The wastewater treatment design will be dependent on existing site conditions relating to depth to bedrock, groundwater levels, soil/alluvial permeability and thickness, and slopes. The proposed wastewater plan for the City development will rely on the City of San Luis Obispo to provide water, sewer, and public services as the City is currently in the process of installing a sewer trunk line in Tank Farm along the property's frontage. Chevron will then extend the utilities to the developable areas. The wastewater analysis will include a discussion of existing regulations applicable to both development scenarios. In addition, the analysis will identify and discuss any potential constraints for an on-site waste water system and potential impacts to groundwater resources or other surrounding developments. Mitigation Measures RJR will identify mitigation measures, as appropriate. 29-Apr-09 446 Chevron Tank Farm Project EM C 3 -s"3 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Cumulative Impacts RJR will assess the potential cumulative wastewater impacts associated with the proposed projects and other identified development projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. 4.2.14 Water Resources This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for water resources. General Approach/Methodology. Through research, peer review, and coordination with regulatory agencies, RJR will prepare a Water Supply Assessment (WSA) that describes the relationship between projected demands on the existing water supply and the availability of that supply under normal and dry years as required by Senate Bill 610 (SB 610) and City (or County) Resolution. RJR will analyze the water supply issues pertaining to each of the two development options. The WSA includes a review of the project water supplies and existing and future development as described in each of the two development options. The water demands created by this development are then related to the available water supply in normal, single dry and multiple dry years and the sufficiency of that supply to meet the demand is analyzed. The WSA is based upon and intended to fulfill the requirements of SB 610 described below. SB 610 (Costa) became effective January 1, 2002. The stated intent of SB 610 is to strengthen the process by which local agencies determine the adequacy and sufficiency of current and future water supplies to meet current and future demands. SB 610 amended the California Public Resources Code to incorporate Water Code findings within the CEQA process for certain types of projects. SB 610 amended the Water Code to broaden the types of information included in Urban Water Management Plans ((UWMP) — Water Code Section 10620 et. seq.) and to add Water Code Part 2.10 Water Supply Planning to Support Existing and Planned Future Uses (Section 10910 et. seq.). Part 2.10 clarifies the roles and responsibilities of the Lead Agency under CEQA and the "water supplier' with respect to describing current and future supplies compared to current and future demands. Water Code Part 2.10 defines the "Projects' that are subject to a WSA and the Lead Agency's responsibilities related to the WSA. A WSA is required for: 1. A proposed residential development of more than 500 dwelling units, 2. A proposed shopping center or business establishment employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 500,000 square feet of floor space, 3. A proposed commercial office building employing more than 1,000 persons or having more than 250,000 square feet of floor space, 29-Apr-09 4-47 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 -s`{ =� AttaA04.0oun t 3 - y 4. A proposed hotel or motel, or both, having more than 500 rooms, 5. A proposed industrial, manufacturing, or processing plant, or industrial park planned to house more than 1,000 persons, occupying more than 40 acres of land, or having more than 650,000 square feet of floor area, 6. A mixed-use development that includes one or more of the uses described above, 7. A development that would demand an amount of water equivalent to or greater than the amount of water required by a 500-dwelling-unit project and, 8. For Lead Agencies with under 5,000 water service connections, any new development that will increase the number of water service connections in the service area by ten percent or more. Under Part 2.10,the Lead Agency must identify the affected water supplier and research whether the new demands are included in the suppliers' UWMP. If the UWMP includes the demands it may be incorporated by reference. If not, the Lead Agency must prepare the WSA (Water Code Section 10912(c)). The Urban Water Management Planning Act requires the supplier to document water supplies available during normal, single dry, and multiple dry water years during a 20-year projection and the existing and projected future water demand during a 20-year projection. The Act requires that the projected supplies and demands be presented in 5-year increments for the 20-year projection. In order to comply with the SB 610 requirements the WSA includes the following information: • A description of the water service area including climate, current and projected population and other demographic factors that affect water management planning. Demographic data is presented in 5-year increments for 20-years. • A description and quantification of the existing and planned water sources. • A description of the reliability and vulnerability of the water supply to seasonal or climatic shortages in the average water year, single dry water year and multiple dry water year. Contingency plans including demand management and conjunctive use potential are discussed. • A description of current and projected water demands among all user classes in 5-year increments. • A description of all water supply projects and water supply programs that may be undertaken by the Agencies and the Subregional Water Reclamation Project to meet the total projected water use. • A description of demand managementmeasures employed and scheduled to be employed. In addition, because the project may utilize ground water as a possible supply source (under the County option), the WSA will include: L9-Apr-09 4-48 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 3 -55' Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology • A discussion of whether and how adopted or authorized groundwater management plans affect the project's use of the San Luis Obispo valley basin. • A description of any groundwater basin (or basins) from which the project site pumps groundwater. • A description of any court orders, decrees adopted by the court or the State Water Resources Control Board and a description of the amount of groundwater the development has a legal right to pump under the order or decree if the basin has been adjudicated. • Information that characterizes the condition of the groundwater basin and a description of the measures currently being taken by the proposed development to minimize any potential for overdraft conditions occurring (the groundwater basin used by the proposed development is not overdrafted). • An analysis of the location, amount, and sufficiency of the groundwater from the basin or basins from which the proposed project will be supplied to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed projects. • Determine the sufficiency of the supply to meet the project demands under normal, single dry and multiple dry years. • Identify existing water supply entitlements and water rights for the proposed project and quantify water received in prior years pursuant to these existing entitlements and rights. • Describe the groundwater basin from which the proposed project will be supplied, if applicable. The description must include information regarding overdraft in the basin. The amount and location of groundwater pumped by the proposed development must be quantified, based on reasonably available information. • Describe and analyze the amount and location of groundwater projected to be pumped by the proposed development from a basin from which the project will be supplied. The assessment must include an analysis of the sufficiency of groundwater from the basin to meet the projected water demand associated with the proposed project. • Provide information related to capital outlay programs for financing delivery of water supply. • Provide information on federal, state, and local permits for construction of necessary infrastructure and regulatory requirements associated with delivery of the water supply Baseline Environmental Setting The baseline environmental setting will describe the regional and local hydrologic setting, including the encompassing watershed, groundwater, surface water runoff, and general water quality. It will be prepared based on a review of published hydrologic maps, published geologic/hydrologic reports, as well as the City and County's General Plan. The proposed site development is located within the San Luis Obispo Valley groundwater basin. The basin spans approximately 12,700 acres and is bounded on the northeast by the Santa Lucia Range, on the southeast by the San Luis Range with all other sides bounded by impermeable 29-Apr-09 4-49 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C e3 Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Miocene and Franciscan Rock Formations (DWR, 2004). It should be noted that the proposed development is located 3 miles northwest of the closest state water well. According to State of California Department of Water Resources (2001), San Luis Obispo County derives 49.4 percent of their urban use water supply from groundwater, while obtaining 50.6 percent of its urban use water supply from surface water(mainly reservoirs). Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) The proposed development under the City option intends to use existing City water services and extend the water main and utilities to developable areas of the project site. Thus, water supply will be dependent on the City's water resources. The proposed development under the County option proposes the use of on-site wells as the water supply for the site. In this case, the water supply for the proposed development will be derived from groundwater. The impact analysis will include Consultation with the City Utilities Division, County Public Works Department, Environmental Health Division, and Regional Water Quality Control Board. The analysis will include the items delineated in the General Approach/Methodology section above. Mitigation Measures RJR will provide a discussion of mitigation measures that could be imposed on the project to minimize potential impacts related to groundwater availability and water quality. Feasible water conservation measures would also be included in the analysis. Cumulative Impacts RJR will assess the potential cumulative water resources impacts associated with the proposed projects and other identified development projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. 4.2.15 Land Use/Policy Consistency Analysis This section presents the scope and approach for assessing the project and alternative impacts for land use and policy consistency. General Approach/Methodology The proposed development options provide general parameters for future development of the project site, including land use types, locations, and sizes. The arrangement of land uses under these options varies somewhat from that anticipated under the applicable planning documents and as such amendments to these plans would be required. Under the County Development Option, the site would remain unincorporated and therefore proposed development would be subject to the County General Plan and the County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Under the City Development Option, the City would annex the site and the City's Airport Area 29-Apr-09 4-50 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR Attachment 3 4.0 Study Methodology Specific Plan (AASP) would be the applicable plan. Consistency of the proposed development options, particularly with regard to the proposed land use plan amendments, will be a key issue for the project. As described further below, each development option will be assessed for its consistency with applicable plans and policy. The purpose of the policy consistency analysis is to determine whether or not the proposed project would result in an inconsistency with applicable land use plans and policy that have been adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. (Policy analysis is not particularly relevant for the remediation phase of the project, except to the extent that this phase would constrain or determine future land use at the site. The remediation component would commit certain areas of the site to for habitat restoration; however these uses would be considered as part of each of the development options.) Land use compatibility issues will be addressed in a number of other sections of the EIR, including agricultural resources, noise, and air quality. In addition, many of the policies contained in the applicable land use plans are designed to assure compatibility with surrounding uses, including the airport. The land use compatibility discussion will draw on the conclusions of these other analyses. However, rather than reiterating these impacts as compatibility impacts, this analysis will address the overall compatibility of the proposed land uses as arranged within the site as well as the compatibility of the proposed development with surrounding land uses. The analysis will focus on adjacency issues and potential conflicts that would constrain or otherwise affect land use functions. Baseline Environmental Setting The environmental setting section will identify and describe existing land uses at the site, land uses adjacent to the site, and predominant land uses and land use patterns in the surrounding area. The description will be supported by a graphic depicting these uses. This section will also identify and describe applicable land use plans, including the County of San Luis Obispo General Plan, the County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP), the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan, and the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Land use designations for the site set forth in these plans will be described and mapped, overall plan goals will be listed, and applicable policies will be identified. The San Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Policies and Procedures will also be described, as these will be used in consideration of the proposed annexation. Impact Assessment(Project and Alternatives) Each development option (City and County) will be assessed separately. The proposed development plan for each option will be compared to the land use plans in the applicable document. The differences will be clearly described in terms of overall changes (e.g., total acreages dedicated for each land use) as well as more detailed changes (e.g., changes to specific locations of uses within the site). The policy consistency analysis will address the overall project but will focus on the proposed plan amendments. The analysis will assess the proposed 29-Apr-09 4-51 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR C3 -� 4.0 AuQQJ=nt 3 development in relationship to airport safety zones set forth in the AASP (City Option) or County ALUP (County Option). Analysis will include consultation with the City and County Planning Departments, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service the Airport Land Use Commission, and the Air Pollution Control District. The land use compatibility analysis will examine changes in the arrangement of land uses within the site and assess the potential for juxtapositions that would result in conflicts between uses. As described above,this analysis will be informed by other applicable sections of the EIR. Mitigation Measures Mitigation measures would be developed in close coordination with other issue areas. The primary task of the land use mitigation section is to assess the effectiveness of these interdisciplinary mitigation measures in reducing or avoiding land use impacts. Where possible, feasible measures to eliminate land use impacts and to avoid preclusion of future land uses would be developed and evaluated. Residual effects would be evaluated in cases where mitigation measures would not completely eliminate impacts Cumulative Impacts MRS will assess the potential cumulative land use impacts associated with the proposed projects and other identified development projects recently completed, planned, or reasonably foreseeable in the area. For example, a proposed land use change that would increase the population and/or population density in the vicinity of the proposed project could result in an impact. 29-Apr-09 4-52 Chevron Tank Farm Project EIR 0- 3 -5-7 6.0-Pr 6.2 Project Deliverables In developing the proposed schedule, considerable thought was given to providing the City and County with draft work products for their review throughout the course of the project. This approach serves a number of useful purposes. First, the City and County have an early opportunity to review work products and to provide comments as to format and document structure that can then be incorporated into future deliverables. Second, it allows the City and County to more actively participate in the development of the project documentation. Third, it assures that the final work product is developed in a collaborative manner with the City and County. Table 6-2 provides a list of key deliverables, proposed due dates, and the duration of the City and County comment period. Table 6-2 List of Deliverables, Proposed Due Dates and Duration of City and County Review Period Milestone Due Date Estimated City and County Review Period worlds s Draft EIR Style Guide May 28,2009 10 Draft Project Descri tion June 10,2009 10 Draft Alternative Descriptions/Screening Analysis July 21 2009 10 Draft Cumulative Project Descriptions August 4 2009 10 Applicant Document Peer-Review Report July 15 2009 10 Draft Environmental Setting Sections August 28 2009 15 Administrative Draft EIR November 12 2009 25 Camera Ready Public Draft EIR January 13,2010 5 Administrative ' Final EIR and Response to Comments May 11 2010 15 Camera Read Final EIR June 15,2010 4 1. The dates assume the City and County issues a notice to proceed on May 8, 2009. 29-Apr-09 6-2 Chevron Tank Farm EIR Proposal C 3 -�O 6 Attachment -4 6.0 Project Schedule This section of the proposal provides a project schedule and a listing of the proposed deliverables to the City and County. A detailed project schedule is presented, along with a discussion of the basis for the proposed time frame. All the proposed deliverables for the project are shown in the schedule. 6.1 Proposed Schedule The project schedule shown in Figure 6-1 provides a comprehensive indication of the organization and preparation that has been given to the management plan. All relevant project milestones and deadlines have been identified. The schedule shows the time allotted for fieldwork and analysis, document writing, and City and County review of draft documents. Table 6-1 provides a list of the key milestone dates from the proposed schedule. Table 6-1 Key Milestone Dates Nwestone .Date Weelof Contract DraftEIR S le Guide to City and County May 28,2009 3 Draft Project Description to.City and County June 10.2009 4 Draft Alternative Descriptions/Screening Analysis to City and July 21,2009 10 County Draft Cumulative Project Descriptions to City and County August 4.2009 13 Applicant Document Peer-Review Report to City and County July 15,2009 9 Draft Environmental Setting Sections to City and County August 28,2009 16 Administrative Draft EIR to City and County November 12,.2009 27 Release of Public Draft EIR(45-day public commentperiod) January 29 2010 38 Public Workshop on EIR February 18 2010 41 Public Comment Meeting on EIR March 11 2010 44 Administrative Final EIR and Response to Comments to City May 11,2010 53 and County Final EIR to City and County June 30,2010 60 1. The dates assume the City and County issues a notice to proceed on May 8, 1009. A critical item in assuring project success is management and control to assure that tasks are completed on time and that the appropriate information is transferred to the dependent tasks. The management tools described in Chapter 3.0 are designed to ensure that work tasks are accomplished in the proper order and that the critical information is transferred to all the dependent tasks. The schedule presented in Figure 6-1 has assumed various lengths of time for City and County reviews of the deliverables. These review periods have been based upon similar projects. However, it should be noted that if the City and County's review cycles are longer, then the schedule might have to slip accordingly. 29-Apr-09 6-1 Chevron Tank Farm EIR Proposal C 3' Attachment Eo E o 3 p" N � m Liz O O O Cl O t N O tn O w l- �O v M V O O b O �O V) O w kn 7 O) M I M O1 M O v C4 Q 1/1 01 m M a V7 M 00 �O l-- �o M r- N N O� 00 M � \O v1 R C R N fA kn V M N h MN of N N W) V7 \ O \0 �G F U befA 69 &Svj 61) 60) 69 s9 es 66 fA fA be 69 -• s°pnGo F O C C p O > w .. �o 00 00 00 O1 M V1 M h R v 00 M �o O 00 N \ Q M V O h 00 O N O 00 lc ^ O I M O V RE .--� �D �O � R O 9 + 7 W 0 a C4 0 O r- N Cp 0o Wi 0 lO 00 5`O�Hlll (r w V106 N V) 00 00 M O -. �o h r � v 0i 69 69 69 ^ d9 69 9 fA 6 69 — 69 M R en E V 69 fA v) 69 fn fA 69 fA Nw e4 O .. V W U 0 d' N N N V) O) kn N V) 00 M N 00 V7 b - p l� 00 Qo M O ^ V) Cn �o a en M 00 l� M 1� 00 �O O' N V1 l- � V'1 �p 00 l� .. b � O wm O O VY [- -+ --. 00 N Vl \0 � '+ N 00 % �O O� .--� M M r- en N 69 7 M M ^ 'T N fA ^ ^ M .--� ^ M r- �+ 00 M ^ Gn 69 69 69 6n 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 69 V9 ^ Zq 69 F y. h V -y N M - �o 7 l+ M 00 - 7 O O V)tq C v 00 O 00 ^ N M M M M IO ^ O M M � Q 00 O 00 O o h O^ 00 a\ -'T hq� N N R 00 h h � N �q C e'. h N_ c, - r- n Oi 00 - %O M Oi O 00 N M O\ V n fp M 69 49 w 69 69 69 - 69 N --� ^ N M h 00 �I O 69 bs 69 69 69 V) 69 69 69 69 6q d4 ydr d M en R Q � m N p+ n N M R C W O ao C r 0 — M (o9 O W) 69 M O O D R Q V'1 00 e} N. M M N --� O' V� V) h 01 V� Lf 00 N k M M R V M N ^� M N O �O \O )D M ^ 69 69 M N N 69 M — 69 fA — 60 - RI ON �I 69 69 69 69 69 fn fA f,9 N en fin A 00 OD ,a. v M N 7 00 O M 00 O M 00 M 00 00I ry O N N ff 1 M V N N N O n M CN 00 O C O R �_ O C z d Q U m C �+ N O cc O y y p o C o v r Q U C L N m L N C C a.S U R V Y y .0c o p ra u `u ami q d c o m m p Z � a 3 E : a y ® 'o d o 0 .y a U a � cC ¢ ¢ ¢ 0.1UC7xzo° o: aF Q �IIIIIIIIIII����� lll � I Attachment 5 EIR Services Authorization ER Number: ER 92-08 Specification Number: 92-08 PROJECT TITLE: Chevron Restoration and Redevelopment Project APPLICANT: Chevron Land and Development APPLICANT ADDRESS: 4051 Broad Street, Suite 230, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Request by Chevron Environmental Management Company to the City of San Luis Obispo to restore and redevelop the former 332-acre San Luis Obispo Tank Farm property. The applicant is requesting from the City amendments to the Airport Area Specific Plan, and the City's General Plan Land Use Policy map, and a Conditional Use Permit to allow for restoration and redevelopment of the project site, a commercial land division, architectural review of public improvements only (no buildings), and a development agreement. The project is located at 276 Tank Farm Road, adjacent to the southern boundary of the city of San Luis Obispo. PROCESSING FEES: 1. Consultant Fee (Firm: Marin Research Specialists, Inc.) ..................... $243,945.00 . (Revenue Account 600-2468) 2. Administration Fee (30% of Consultant Fee).................................... $73,183.50 (Revenue Account 100-45480) 3. Report Reproduction Fee/Advertising Fee.......................................$ 0 (Revenue Account 100-45480) 4. Other Fees (Specify: )....................................$ 0 5. Total Fees.................................................................................$317,128.50 Authorization and Assurances The cost to the applicant for consultant services (as stated in line 1 above) is based on the total cost included in the consultant's proposal for preparation of the Chevron Restoration and Redevelopment Project EIR, as detailed in Exhibit °A. Date Brian Leveille, Project Manager As applicant for this project, I hereby accept the fees for the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and agree to deposit with the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, the amount shown on line 5 above. Upon receipt of this sum, the Community Development Director is authorized to employ a qualified consultant to complete the EIR. Date William Almas, Chevron Land and Development