The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-27-2015 PC Agenda PacketCity of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the PlanningCommission regarding any item on this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm Street, during normal business hours. SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA Council Chamber City Hall -990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 May 27, 2015Wednesday6:00 p.m. CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA:Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items. MINUTES: Minutes of May 13, 2015. Approve or amend. PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary, may be scheduled for a future meeting. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearingor in written correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public hearing. Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org). The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation. If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six minutes. Planning Commission Agenda Page 2 The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs,and activities.Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance. 1.250 Tank Farm Road.TR 62-14: Review of a tract map to create 35 commercial lots, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; CS-SP zone; Coker ElsworthDevelopment, LLC, applicant. (Phil Dunsmore) 2.3 Highland Drive.GENP-1122-2015: Reviewthe Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan update, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; C/OS-40-PDzone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Robert Hill) COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3.Staff a.Agenda Forecast 4.Commission ADJOURNMENT Presenting Planners: Robert Hill and Phil Dunsmore PLANNINGCOMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Review of atentative tractmap to create 35 commercial lots withintheAirport Area Specific Plan along Tank Farm Road including an environmental determination (Mitigated Negative Declaration). PROJECT ADDRESS:265 Meissner / 250 Tank Farm `BY:Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner Phone Number: 781-7522 E-mail: pdunsmore@slocity.org FILE NUMBER:TR/ER 65-14 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION:Recommend the City Council adopt a resolution approving the tract map subject to findings and conditions including the adoption of aMitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. SITE DATA Applicant Coker Ellsworth Development LLC Representatives Fred H. Schott and Associates Zoning C-S General Plan Services and Manufacturing Site Area 20 Acres Environmental Status A mitigated Negative Declaration is recommended. SUMMARY The applicant has submitted a Tentative Tract Map (TTM) application to subdivide the subject parcel into 35 commercial lots. No commercial development is proposed at this time; however, recordation of the map would require the installation of public improvements, including new roads, water, and wastewaterand stormwater infrastructure. The Airport Area Specific Plan(AASP)was adopted in 2005to guide the annexation and development of properties within this area.Along with several other properties, the subject property was annexed into the City in 2007 and was given a zoning designation of Commercial- Service (C-S). Meeting Date:May 27, 2015 Item Number:1 PC-1- 1 PJD SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 2 1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW The Commission is being asked to make a recommendation on the proposed tract map to the City Council. The review of the map includes the review of proposed infrastructure to support future development. 2.0PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is a subdivision of a 20 acre vacant parcel into a35-lot tract map with various lot sizes ranging from 2,770-39,670 square feet. Other components of the subdivision include installation of public improvements, including new streets with curb, gutter and sidewalk and necessary infrastructure to serve future development including water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, and public utilities. Detention basins are proposed along Tank Farm Road and on the interior of the site to accommodateproject site runoff (Attachment 2, tentative map). No site development or building construction is proposed with this tentative tract map application. Any proposed future building construction will be subject to architectural review or other applicable discretionary entitlements, including but not limited to additional environmental review. EXHIBIT 1: Tract Map PC-1- 2 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 3 2.1SETTING The project site is located on the north side of Tank Farm Road approximately 2,000 feet to the east of the South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road intersection. The project site is within the Airport Area Specific Plan and is designated for service commercial development. The site is generally flat with a slight drop in grade of less than 1% from the north of the property to the south. The site contains no native vegetation or trees and the entire site has been consistently utilized for row-crop agriculture. The Tank Farm Lift Station is a City facility located at the Southeast corner of the project site. The Tank Farm Lift Station was completed as part of a project which constructed a sewer force main through the project site. The Tank Farm lift station, sewer force main, and other off site project components were evaluated as part of an expanded initial study/mitigated negative declaration adopted on March 28, 2007. Surrounding land and Zoning are as follows: West: Retail store (Farm Supply) zoned Service-Commercial (C-S) and row crops. North: Various service commercial and light industrial uses zoned Service-Commercial (C-S). East:Chevron Tank Farm property currently under County jurisdiction and designated for annexation into City limits. The Chevron Tank Farm property was decommissioned in in the late 1990’s and now a remediation and redevelopment of the site with service commercial and business park uses has been approved by the City and the County. An environmental impact report (EIR) is was certified for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project in December 2014. South: Various service commercial and light industrial uses zoned Service-Commercial (C-S). 3.0POLICY ANALYSIS The General Plan, the Airport Area Specific Plan, County Airport Land Use Plan and the City’s Subdivision Regulations provide guidance towards the future development of this site. The following analysis outlines policy guidance and specific site constraints. 3.1GENERAL PLAN Together, the City’s General Plan and the AASPprovide a framework to guide future land use and development decisions in this planning area. When private development proposals are proposed within the AASP, however, the Specific Plan is to be utilized as the guide for project review as it is the extension of the Citywide General Plan. 3.2AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN The AASP provides a comprehensive land use program for this planning area along with goals, policies, programs, guidelines and development standards to guide future actions. The primary focus of the AASP is to identify resource areas, airport hazards, and to provide a framework for planning around the petroleum contamination associated with the Unocal/Chevron Tank Farm site. When adopted in 2005, the AASP assumed subdivisionand development of the subject site as a commercial property. The zoning designation was initiated as C-S on this property in 2007. In accordance with the Specific Plan, “Areas designated Service Commercial are generally for PC-1- 3 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 4 storage, transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services that may be less appropriate in other commercial designations.” The proposed subdivision is intended to allow for future development of land uses that are consistent with the AASP. The AASP provides schematic plans for major infrastructure such as roads and utilities. For the subject property, a local road is planned to connect Tank Farm road to the north to Sueldo Road. This road connection is shown on the proposed subdivision map. Street “B” at Tank Farm Road also acts as the future access to commercial properties that are planned as part of the Chevron site development following completion of the remediation project on the Chevron property. The remediation project does not extend into the subject site and is not a component of this project. 3.3SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS In addition to the Subdivision Regulations,the specificplan regulates minimum lot sizes in the C-S zone and sets specific development standards. The minimum lot size allowed in the C-S zone is 9,000 square feet with a minimum width of 60feet and a minimum depth of 100feet. All of the lots within the proposed subdivision appear to exceed the minimum lot size standards with the exception of lots 34(2,770 square feet)and 35(4,000 square feet)which are located adjacent to the City’s wastewater lift station and alongside the access road to the future Chevron development sites. The proposed road (Street “C”) connection to the Chevron property essentially creates two remnant parcels that are too small to meet City standards and possibly too small to support development consistent with the C-S zoning. These substandard lots should be restricted from development and should be reserved for detention, landscaping, or integrated into the future Chevron site development. Staff has added a condition of approval to address this item. As an alternative, the Planning Commission could support these small lots if findings are made to support an exception to the City’s Subdivision Regulations. 3.4INFRASTRUCTUREANALYSIS Proposed Infrastructure Improvements Street System The Proposed new road system consists of a new local road connection at Tank Farm Road (Street “B”). Street B is designed as a local road with two 13-foot vehicle traffic lanes, an 8-foot wide parking lane, a 7-foot wide planter and a 5-foot wide sidewalk. A portion of the road also includes a 12-foot wide multi-use path that will ultimately extend into the Chevron property and extend north through other private properties to link Prado Road to Tank Farm Road. The proposed street system also includes 42-foot wideinterior local streets to serve commercial lots. The street system is designed to connect to Sueldo Street from its current termination point at the north of the parcel through the project site and to ultimately to Hind Street on the west when the adjacent vacant property develops in the future. EXHIBIT 2: Proposed Street “B”section PC-1- 4 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 5 Tank Farm Road Required tract improvements includewidening of Tank Farm Road and curb, gutter and sidewalk on the northern side of Tank Farm Road, consistent with adjacent properties to the west. The Class 1 bicycle path that is planned along the frontage of Tank Farm Road at the Chevron property to the east does not extend across the frontage of the subject site and instead extends northward towards Prado Road between this site and the Chevron property. Instead, a 7-foot wide,Class 2 bike pathis proposed at the frontage of the subject property as shown in the road section below. Grading, Drainage and Utilities The proposed development requires grading to incorporate detention basins and public improvements, however the site is generally flat, sloping less than 3 feet from north to south. In order to accommodate water quality control standards, the site must be designed to accommodate all site storm water drainage on-site. In order to accomplish this,significant detention basins have been incorporated into the proposed site plan.One of the two detention basins is 50-feet wide and is located parallel to Tank Farm Road at the front of the site. This basin is designed with a 3:1 slope, and a concrete retaining wall adjacent to the edge of the right of way as shown in the figure below. EXHIBIT 3: Proposed Detention Basinat Tank Farm Road PC-1- 5 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 6 Since the basinabuts the public right of way, a barrier fence will be required between the public sidewalk and the basin. The design of this interface is important since Tank Farm Road is considered a scenic view corridor and a barrier fence contiguous with the right ofway at the property frontage will alter the aesthetic appearance of the property. Staff has incorporated a mitigation measure that addresses this potential impact as there are few alternatives to re-design the required detention basin. A potential aesthetic bonus of the detention is the result of a 50+ foot building setback from Tank Farm Road due to the location of the basin and proposed development sites. This setback will aid in maintaining views from the Tank Farm Road corridor. Utilities Overhead utility lines currently front the site along Tank Farm Road and run through the interior of the site from south to north. As part of the tract improvements, overhead utilities will be required to be placed underground. Additionally, underground utility lines(water and sewer) will be required through the site. 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The Environmental Impact Report that was prepared for the Airport Area Specific Plan in 2005 assumed the subdivision and development of the subject property as a commercial property. Issues such as the conversion of prime agricultural land and airport safety were evaluated as part of the EIR. The review of the tract map is not exempt from further environmental review and required the preparation of an Initial Study to evaluate potential environmental impacts. Staff has prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration for review by the Planning Commission. The following discussion highlights some of the more significant topics of the environmental analysis. Aesthetics The initial study identified that the proposed drainage swale at the edge of Tank Farm Road may result in aesthetic impacts due to the barrier fence and manufactured design of the swale. The design of the swale and fencing may create aesthetic impacts along a scenic corridor. Staff is proposing a mitigation measure as follows: Detention basins shall avoid slopes that exceed 3:1 and shall avoid the use of concrete retaining walls. Any required barrier fencing shall be designed to avoid blocking views along the Tank Farm Road corridor while allowing a landscape planter with a minimum width of 5 feet between the fence and public sidewalks. Prime Ag Land The project site is classified asprime farmland pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site is also classified as having Prime agricultural soils in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. Lands in the vicinity of the project site are either already developed or,if within the AASPand in agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space), are already slated by the AASPfor eventual non- agricultural use. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements and the AASP/MASP Final EIR that was adopted in September 2003. The loss of prime farmland was determined to be asignificant, irreversible, adverse impactthat could not be mitigated PC-1- 6 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 7 and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies of the Land Use Elementand AASPwere adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, policy 3.2.18 requires the mitigation of the loss of agricultural land by securing agricultural and open space easements off-site where on-site protection is not feasible. Consistent with the AASP, development of prime farmland requires farmland of equal size and quality to be preserved in a permanent conservation easement. As an alternative, mitigation impact fees to assist with acquisition of off-site easements may be acceptable. The preferred location of the preserved farmland is within thesouthern portion of the airport area.Staff is recommending the following mitigation measure to address this: Implement policy 3.2.18 and/or Program 3.3.14 of the Airport Area Specific Plan by dedicating conservation easements for open space or agriculture on land within the San Luis Obispo region in an amount equal to or greater than the area to be developed or by payment of an in- lieu fee in an amount to be determined by the City’s Natural Resources Manager, consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. Airport Safety The project site is located within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) safety area S-1A and portions of the property are located within area S-1B as this property is in alignment with the flight path that originates from the San Luis Obispo County Airport.The site was designated for commercial uses under the existing airport land use plan and commercial uses are allowed within these airport zones, subject to a review of compatibility as each property develops. Since the project and proposed uses and densities are compliant with the AASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. Certain land uses will be restricted in the airport safety zones, such as land uses that exceed the allowed population or worker density for the subject zone. For example, housing and business such as day care are restricted in safety area S-1A. Potential Soil Contamination Portions of the subject property may contain underground contamination as a result of the adjacent Unocal/Chevron tank farm property. The MASP/AASP EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Airport and Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment.These materials are those associated with either fertilizer and pesticide use or with industrial activities associated with the Unocal/Chevron tank farm that was located to the east of this property.Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic materials. The adjacent Unocal site to the east is the location of the 1926 Tank Farm disaster that involved the burning and release of significant quantities of crude oil. The site was utilized for the storage and distribution of crude oil. Many on-site storage tanks and transmission lines were located throughout this region. Underground hydrocarbon contamination exists on adjacent sites and is known to exist on the subject property near the Tank Farm Road corridor. Grading and trenching within this area will be subject to specific mitigation measures designed to prepare for potential hazardous materials: PC-1- 7 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 8 A.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products (hydrocarbons), concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project applicant will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 (2003 AASP/MASP EIR to be activated. B.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might bepresent on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. 5.0 SUBDIVISION FINDINGS In order to approve the proposed tentative map, specificfindings must be supported by the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission should refer to the findings in the attached resolution prior to making a recommendation to City Council. Findings tailored for the specific subdivision have been crafted forthe project site in the attached resolution for the Planning Commission. 6.0CONCLUSION Although this property remains in active agricultureand is a site containing prime soils, its conversion to commercial development was assumed and evaluated with the adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan and its accompanying EIR. The subdivision and associated public improvements are the first step inevaluating future commercial development. Subsequently, new commercial development will require architectural review and land use approval prior to development. As proposed and conditions, the proposed subdivision implements Airport Area Specific Plan goals and policies. 7.0OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS TheNatural ResourcesManagerand staff from the Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments have reviewed the project, and the proposed environmental document. 8.0ALTERNATIVES 1.Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes or additional information in order to take an action at a future hearing. PC-1- 8 SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road) Page 9 2.Deny the parcel map based on findings of inconsistency with the General Plan, Airport Area Specific Plan or City’s Subdivision Regulations. 9.0 ATTACHMENTS 1.Initial Study 2.Reduced scale tract map 3.Resolution recommending the City Council approve the Tract Map PC-1- 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER 62-14 1.Project Title: Tank Farm Development (Tract 3009) 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 919 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3.Contact Person and Phone Number: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner pdunsmore@slocity.org (805) 781-7522 4.Project Location: 265 Meissner Road (APN 053-251-055) 5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: Representative Fred Schott and Skye Garrison Fred H. Schott & Associates 200 Suburban Road, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Applicant Coker Ellsworth P.O. Box 1238, Arroyo Grande, CA 93421 6.General Plan Designation: Services and Manufacturing 7.Zoning:Service-Commercial with Airport Area Specific Plan Overlay (C-S-SP) CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 1 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 10 8.Description of the Project: The proposed projectis a subdivision of a 20 acre vacant parcel into 35lot tract map with various lot sizes ranging from 2,770-39,670 square feet. Proposed circulation consists of the extension of Sueldo Street from its current termination point at the north of the parcel through the project site to Tank Farm Road to the southand other local streetsto serve proposed parcels. Other components of the subdivision include installation of public improvements, including new streets with curb, gutter and sidewalk and necessary infrastructure to serve future development including water, recycled water, sewer, drainage, and public utilities. Detention basins areproposed along Tank Farm Roadand on the interior of the siteto accommodate project site runoff (Attachment 2, tentative map).No site development or building construction is proposed with this tentative tract map application. Any proposed future building construction will be subject to architectural review or other applicable discretionary entitlements, including but not limited to additional environmental review. Proposed Tentative Tract Map CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 11 9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: The project site is located on the north side of Tank Farm Road approximately 2,000 feet to the east ofthe South Higuera Street and Tank Farm Road intersection. The project site is within the Airport Area Specific Plan and is designated for service commercial development. The site is generally flat with a slight drop in grade of less than 1%from the north of the property to the south. The site contains no native vegetation or trees andthe entire sitehas been consistently utilized for row-crop agriculture(Figure 2, below). The Tank Farm Lift Station is a City facility located at the Southeast corner of the project site. The Tank Farm Lift Station was completed as part of a project which constructed a sewer force main through the project site. The Tank Farm lift station, sewer force main, and other off site project components were evaluated as part of an expanded initial study/mitigated negative declaration adopted on March 28, 2007 (SCH# 2007011117). Surrounding land and Zoning are as follows: West:Retail store (Farm Supply) zoned Service-Commercial (C-S) and row crops. North:Various service commercial and light industrial uses zoned Service-Commercial(C-S). SITESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS Site Figure 1. Project site and vicinity Tank Farm lift station Chevron Property SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEFarm Supply Sueldo St. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 12 East:Chevron Tank Farm property currently under County jurisdiction and designated for annexation into City limits. The Chevron Tank Farm property was decommissioned in in the late 1990’s and now a remediation and redevelopment of the site with service commercial and business park uses in being proposed. An environmental impact report (EIR) is currently being prepared for the Chevron Tank Farm Remediation and Development Project. South: Various service commercial and light industrial uses zoned Service-Commercial (C-S). Figure 2: View to the South across the project site toward Tank Farm Road CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 13 10.Project Entitlements Requested: The applicant is requesting approval of a tentative tract map and environmental review. Future applications to be reviewed by the City may include construction permits for public improvements and Architectural Review of the new commercial building designs. 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Figure 3. Project frontage along Tank Farm Road looking to the west CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 14 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. X AestheticsGreenhouse Gas EmissionsPopulation / Housing X Agriculture X Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services X Air QualityHydrology / Water QualityRecreation Biological Resources X Land Use / PlanningTransportation / Traffic X Cultural ResourcesMineral ResourcesUtilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a no effect determination from Fish and Game. X The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE X This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). Site CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 15 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find thatthe proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects have been analyzed adequately in an earlier NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards,nothing further is required. Signature Date Doug Davidson, AICP For:Derek Johnson Deputy Director of Community Development Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 16 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysisin each section. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3."Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4."Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross-referenced). 5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D) of the California Code of Regulations. Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of thechecklist. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 17 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # 179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 X b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 1, 12 X c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 17, 19X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 3X Evaluation a) b)c) The project site is located along a portion of Tank Farm Road designated as having “high or moderate scenic value”. The project site is within the Airport Area Specific Plan which contains design standards to ensure the preservation of views and scenic resources. Other than required subdivision improvements, no building construction or site development is proposed withthis project. Subsequent proposed development will be subject to architectural review and will be required to comply withCommunity Design Guidelines and view protection requirements of the Airport Area Specific. There are no trees, rock outcroppings, or historic buildings on the site which could be affected by the proposed project. The project proposes to construct a drainage swale at the edge of the public roadway across the site frontage. The drainage swale abuts the public right of way and will be approximately 7 feet deep adjacent to the back of the public sidewalk. The grade change is proposed to be accommodated with a concrete retaining wall and a barrier fence at the back of the sidewalk. The concrete design and barrier design will create aesthetic impacts along a scenic corridorwith the introduction of fencing and a detention basin with engineered design features directly adjacent to the public roadway and sidewalk. d) The project will not introduce elements which would create new sources of light or glare. Future proposed development within the subdivisionwill be subject to architectural review and will be required to beconsistent with the scale, massing, character, and uses of surrounding development. The project is also subject to conformance with City Night Sky Preservation Ordinance requirements which set maximum illumination levels and require sufficient shielding of light sources to minimize glare and preservenight time views. All future proposed development will be required to conform to standards of the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance. The project does not have the potential to adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area. Conclusion: Less than significant impact with incorporation of the following mitigation measure: Mitigation Measures Section 1: A.Detention basins shall avoid slopes that exceed 3:1 and shall avoid the use of concrete retaining walls. Any required barrier fencing shall be designed to avoid blocking views along the Tank Farm Road corridor while allowing a landscape planter with a minimum width of 5 feet between the fence and public sidewalks. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 1, 14X b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? X c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 18 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Evaluation a) b) c) The project site is classified asprime farmland pursuant to the to the Farmland Mapping and monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency. The project site is also classified as having Prime agricultural soils in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan. Landsin the vicinity of the project site are either already developed or, if within the AASPand in agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space), are already slated by the AASPfor eventual non-agricultural use. The impacts of conversion of these lands to non-agricultural uses have already been evaluated both in the environmental documents for the City’s Land Use and Circulation Elements and the AASP/MASP Final EIR that was adopted in September 2003. The loss of prime farmland was determined to be asignificant, irreversible, adverse impactthat could not be mitigated and the necessary Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless, policies ofthe Land Use Elementand AASP were adopted to help compensate for, and thereby reduce the impacts from productivity lost as a result of the conversions to non-agricultural uses. Specifically, policy 3.2.18 requires the mitigation of the loss of agricultural land by securing agricultural and open space easements off-site where on-site protection is not feasible. Consistent with the AASP, development of prime farmland requires farmland of equal size and quality to be preserved in a permanent conservation easement.As an alternative, mitigation impact fees to assist with acquisition of off-site easements may be acceptable.The preferred location of the preserved farmland is within the southern portion of the airport area. Conclusion: Less than significant impactwith inclusion of the following mitigation: Mitigation Measures Section 2 A.See mitigation measure section 10, Land Use. 3. AIR QUALITY. Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 2X b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? X c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 19 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Evaluation a) b) d) San Luis Obispo County is a non-attainment area for the State PM10 (fine particulate matter 10 microns or less in diameter) and Ozone air quality standards. State law requires that emissions of non-attainment pollutants and their precursors be reduced by at least 5% per year until the standards are attained. The 1998 Clean Air Plan (CAP) for San Luis Obispo County was developed and adopted by the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) to meet that requirement. The CAP is a comprehensive planning document designed to reduce emissions from traditional industrial and commercial sources, as well as from motor vehicle use. Land Use Element Policy 1.18.2 states that the City will help the APCD implement the Clean Air Plan.The scale and scope of the project (single-family house in a developed neighborhood) falls below thresholds of significance in terms of long-term, operational air quality impacts. e) The project would remain consistent with allowed development in the Low-Density Residential zone and therefore would not include any potential land uses which would have the potential to produce objectionable odors in the area. c) However, temporary impacts from the construction of the project, including, but not limited to excavation and construction activitiesinvolving vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipmentduring the development of public improvements, has the potential to create dust and emissions that exceed air quality standards for temporary and intermediate periods. The project will not involve a cumulatively considerable net increase in any criteria pollutant for which the region is non-attainment because an increase in PM10 emissions will only occurtemporarily during excavation.However, standard dust control measures are included to offset the impacts to air quality associated with construction. Conclusion:Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation MeasuresSection 3: A.During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans.Approval and additional permits may be required from the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District.In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City Public Works Department prior to commencementof construction. 1.Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2.Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 3.Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed. 4.All areas disturbed by construction shall be re-vegetated with plant materials to the approval of the City Biologistand if involved, the Department of Fish & Game. 5.Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 6. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. 7. Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 11 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 20 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or indirectly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 12, 19X b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? X c)Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means? X d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? X f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? X Evaluation a) b) c)The project site contains no habitat for any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species. The project site has been utilized for agricultural operations, and is classified as “Agricultural/Disturbed habitats” in the City Land Use database. There are no riparian habitats or other natural communities which could be affected by the proposed project. The project site contains no federally protected wetlands that would be impacted by the proposed project. d) e) f) The project site is not situated in the area of a wildlife corridor. The movement of wildlife would not be affected by the project proposal. The project will not conflict with any policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, or tree preservation policy since there is no wildlife habitat, sensitive communities, riparian habitat, or any trees on the project site. There are no Conservation Plans, Natural Community Conservation Plans, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plans that apply tothe project site which could be affected by the proposed project. Conclusion: No Impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 12 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 21 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) 1,12, 15 X b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) X c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? X d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? X Evaluation a) There are no known historic resources on the project site which could be affected by the proposed subdivisionas the site has continuously been utilized for active agricultural cropland. No known structures or historic sites are associated with the property. b) c) d) The project site is not located inthe vicinity of any areas designated asburial sensitivity areas and the area has been highly disturbed in previous agricultural operations. Though the project site is not located near any burial sensitivity areas and the highly disturbed nature of the project site indicatesimpacts to cultural and paleontological resources are unlikely, there is the potential that gradingoperations or subsurface disturbance could result in impacts to previously unknown or unrecorded cultural resources. The following measures are recommendedto mitigate any potential archaeological or cultural impacts to a level of insignificance. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Mitigation MeasuresSection 5: A.If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. B.If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. A note concerning this requirement shall be included on the grading andconstruction plans for the project 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving: 4, 16, X I.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, asdelineated in the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? X II.Strong seismic ground shaking?X III.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?X IV.Landslides or mudflows?X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?X c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence, 20 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 13 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 22 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact liquefaction, or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property? X e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? X Evaluation a), b), c), d) A Soils Engineering Report was prepared for the project by Earth Systems Pacific. The report concluded that the site is suitable, from a soils engineering standpoint, for the proposed tract, provided the recommendations presented in the report are implemented in the design and construction. It should be noted that the recommendations apply only to the common tract improvements, not the future development on the individual lots. Soils engineering reports for individual lot development will be required to be submitted with the building permit application and will depend upon the specific building concepts and grading plans for the individual lots. e) The proposed project will be required to connect to the City’s sewer system. Septic tanks or alternative wastewater systems are not proposed and will not be used on the site. Conclusion:Less than significant impact 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1, 17, 18 X b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases. X Evaluation a) b) In addition to the criteria pollutants discussed in the above air quality analysis, the state of California recently passed Assembly Bill 32, the California Global Warming Solution Act of 2006 and California Governor Schwarzenegger Executive Order S-3-05 (June 1, 2005), both require reductions of greenhouse gases in the State of California. The proposed project will result in infill development, located in close proximity to transit, and to the amenities of the City. The project is consistent with City policies for infill developmentand efficient use of existing infrastructure. The commercial zoning for the property was established with the adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan and the accompanying EIR in 2005. Considering these characteristics of the proposed proposal, the project is therefore consistent with efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Individual site development will require review for compliance with the City’s Climate Action Plan. At this time, only the the creation of lots are proposed and no specific development project has been identified. Less than significant impact. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 14 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 23 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? 5X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? 19X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 4 X h)Expose peopleor structures to a significant risk ofloss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 4 X Evaluation a), b), d) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that historical agricultural activities and surrounding industrial activities of the Airport and Margarita Area may have released hazardous materials into the environment.These materials are those associated with either fertilizer and pesticide use or with industrial activities associated with the Unocal/Chevron tank farm that was located to the east of this property.Hazardous materials releases may have involved leaking underground or aboveground storage tanks, or similar events from other nearby properties that store or handle hazardous or toxic materials. The adjacent Unocal site to the east is the location of the 1926 Tank Farm disaster that involved the burning and release of significant quantities of crude oil.The site was utilized for the storage and distribution of crude oil. Many on-site storage tanks and transmission lines were located throughout this region. Underground hydrocarbon contamination exists on adjacent sites and is known to exist on the subjectproperty near the Tank Farm Road corridor. This project shall require an APCD permitand review by the Regional Water Quality Control Boardto address proper management of the hydrocarbon contaminated soil prior to the start of any earthwork. This permit shall include conditions to CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 15 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 24 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact minimize emissions from any excavation, disposal or related process. The project site is located in a candidate area for Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA), which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Serpentine rock commonly contains NOA and is common to the nearby South Street Hills. However, the project site has been consistently used for row-crop agriculture and the site does not contain known sources of serpentine rock near the surface. Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities at the site, the project proponent shall ensure that a geologic evaluation is conducted to determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM.This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. Construction-related and ground disturbing activities may involve the use of materials that could contaminate nearby soils and water resources in the project area. Existence of such potential hazards could cause construction workers and other people to be exposed to dust or emissions containing such hazardous materials or to organic pesticides, herbicides, and other hazardous materials. The MASP/AASP EIR further determined impacts related to development of allowed business parkand service commercialland uses could result in operations-related exposures to hazardous materials and short-term surface water quality degradation from accidental release of hazardous materials during construction. The MASP/AASP EIR required 3 mitigation measures that would reduce such impacts to less than significant, HAZ 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1.These mitigation measures shall apply to the project. Since the project proposes subdivision of land suitable foruses there is potential for impacts related to development of business park and service-commercial uses that would involve the handling or disposal of materials used onsite, or the delivery, use, manufacture and/or storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities. Mitigation Measure HAZ 2.1 is applicable to the subject project and is required to be brought forward as a condition of approval. Additionally,business using hazardous materials in sufficient quantities will be required to file a report with the Fire Department, as required by the California Health and Safety Code. The project site is not on a list of hazardous materials sites pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. c) The project site is not located within a one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school. e) f) The project site is located within the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) area S-1A and portions of the property are located within area S-1B. The site was designated for commercial uses under the existing airport land use plan and commercial uses are allowed within these airport zones, subject to a review of compatibility as each property develops.Since the project and proposed uses and densities are compliant with the AASP, the project is also compatible with the policies and objectives of the Airport Land Use Plan. g) The project has been reviewed by the Fire Marshal to assurecompliance with adopted fire/emergency-related codes. He has determined that the project will not conflict with any emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan.However, the project site is located outside of the City’s four-minute emergency response zone. h) The Safety Element of the General Plan identifies the site as having a low potential for impacts from wildland fires. Conclusion: Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The project does have the potential to have significant impacts from hazards and hazardous materials but can be mitigated to less than significant. Mitigation MeasuresSection 8: A.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying, when they are known, CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 16 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 25 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact site/development-specific construction activities that will involve hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products(hydrocarbons), concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction- related activities, the project applicant will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2(2003AASP/MASP EIRto be activated. B.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture,and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitarywaste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. C.According to the APCD the project site is a candidate area for NOA, which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. The project applicant is responsible for conducting a geologic evaluation of the project siteto determine if NOAis present. If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? 10X b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? X d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the courseof a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 21 X e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm waterdrainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 21X f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? 12 X h)Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 17 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 26 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact failure of a levee or dam? i) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X Evaluation a), b) Theproject will not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Site development will be served by the City’s sewer and water systems and will not use or otherwise deplete groundwater resources. c) d) e) f) g) h) i) The project site is not within a designated flood zone and is noted as an area outside the 0.2% annual chance zone on the adopted flood hazard maps. Physical improvement of the project site will be required to comply with the drainage requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan (WWMP). This plan was adopted for the purpose of insuring water quality and proper drainage within the City’s watershed. The WWMP requires that site development be designed so that post-development site drainage does not exceed pre-development run-off. This can be achieved through a combination of detention and use of pervious surfaces to increase water absorption on-site. A Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Reportprepared by Fred H. Schott & Associates, describes that the proposed system follows the natural flow of drainage to Tank Farm Creek, just east of the project site. The analysis concluded that by keeping the same general flow and direction, as existing conditions, impact on plans and animals downstream will be minimized. Compliance with the WWMP is considered adequate to mitigate potentially significant impactsrelated to runoff, drainage, flood hazards and water quality. Plans submitted for a building permit application will be evaluated by the Public Works Department and must be designed in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the WWMP. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 1, 3, 18, 19X b)Physically divide an established community?X c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural communityconservation plans? X Evaluation a), b),c) The proposed project is consistent with applicable General Plan policies and regulations and there are no proposed deviations for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. The project has been designed to be consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). The project would not divide an established community and there are no applicable habitat conservation plans or community conservation plans on the subject property. However, the AASP/MASP EIR that was adopted in 2003 for this project site identified an impact to agricultural and open space resources as a result of commercial zoning and commercial development of this vicinity. Although adopted as an overriding consideration, the EIRrequires mitigation in the form of a 1:1 replacement of open space land. The mitigation is triggered upon development or subdivision of the property. This property will be required to implement the 1:1 open space replacement or the payment of an in-lieu fee as specific by Policy 3.2.18 and Program 3.3.14 ofthe Airport Area Specific Plan: Policy 3.2.18: Mitigate Loss of Ag and Open Space Land To mitigate the loss of agricultural and open land in the Airport Area, development shall help protect agricultural and open space landsto the south and east bysecuring protected areas at least equal to the area of new development, where onsite protection is not available. Program 3.3.14: Greenbelt In-Lieu Fee CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 18 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 27 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Where dedication is not feasible, an in-lieu fee will be assessed onthe acreage of development, equivalent to the purchase of an equivalent acreage of open space land or easements in the greenbelt south of the Airport Area. Conclusion: Less than significant impacts with incorporation of the following mitigation: Mitigation Measures Section 10 A.Implement policy 3.2.18 and/or Program 3.3.14 of the Airport Area Specific Plan by dedicating conservation easements for open space or agriculture on land within the San Luis Obispo region in an amount equal to or greater than the area to be developed or by payment of an in-lieu fee in an amount to be determined by the City’s Natural Resources Manager, consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. 11. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of people to or generation of “unacceptable” noise levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element, or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? 8 X b)A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinityabove levels existing without the project? X c)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? X d)For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 8,18, 19X Evaluation a)d) According to the Airport Land Use Plan noise contours, the site is located within an area susceptibletoaircraft noise that may reach50decibels (dB) due to projected noise generated from the airport. This exposure level is well below any mitigation threshold established by the Noise Element. In addition, service and manufacturing land uses are not considered noise sensitive. Therefore, noise impacts to future land uses on the project site would be considered less than significant. The ambient noise levels near Tank Farm Road at this site due to traffic noise sources currently exceed 60 db during most daytime hours. b) Construction of the proposed project will temporarily increase ambient noise levels. This type of noise is regulated by the City’s Noise Ordinance, which regulates times of construction and maximum noise levels that may be generated. If noise levels exceed the Noise Ordinance thresholds, the property owner would be subject to possible citations. c) The project will not expose people to the generation of excessive groundborne noise levels or vibration. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or 19 X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 19 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 28 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Evaluation a) b) The population added by this project is within the General Plan’s projection and will not induce substantial growth into the area or result in population exceeding local and regional growth projections. The project site is bordered by urban development and development of the site represents an in-fill development opportunity. This type of development is encouraged because it can take advantage of existing facilities for water, sewer, storm drainage, transportation and parks. The project site does not currently contain residential uses; therefore, housing or people will not be displaced by the project. Conclusion: Less than significant impact 13. PUBLIC SERVICES.Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection?X b)Police protection?X c)Schools?X d)Parks?X e)Roads and other transportation infrastructure?X f)Other public facilities?X Evaluation a) In 2009, following the completion of the rezoning of this site to accommodate commercial land uses, the City’s Fire Department Master Plan identified a portion of this site as being outside of the City’s adequate emergency response time. The Fire Master Plan identifies 4-minutes as adequate response time. This project site is located just outside the 4-minute zone as identified in the response time maps. The City’s Airport Area Specific Plan, policy 7.9.3 responds to this potential deficiency and requires that each development be evaluated for potential fire and life safety impacts. The City’s Fire Marshall has identified that development may occur at this site without significant potential for life/safety impacts. Conditions of approval that include installation of hydrants, building sprinklers, and other improvements will be included as part of the future development project. Policy 7.9.3: Interim Safety Improvements Until a permanent facility is developed that enables the City to achieve its response time objectives, new development in the Airport Area may be required to finance other improvements that will contribute to alleviating current deficiencies, as identified in the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Master Plan (2009). This policy will be implemented on a case by case basis through conditions of approval when project specific fire and life safety impacts are identified. b), d), e), f) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build out of the MASP and AASP will not result in any significant impacts related to any of the above-listed services due to the ability to off-set service needs through the City’s Development Impact Fee program established via the City General Plan and augmented by the development fee program in MASP and AASP and concluded that no further mitigation was necessary. Additionally, the project will not result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of, or need for, new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which might have the potential to cause significant environmental impacts. In accordance with the AASP, the project is subject to City and AASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated with increases in demand of public services. c) The school districts in the state have the authority to collect fees at the time of issuance of building permits to offset the costs to finance school site acquisition and school construction, and are deemed by State law to beadequate mitigation for all CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 20 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 29 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact school facility requirements.Any increases in demand on school facilities caused by the project are considered to be mitigated by the district’s collection of adopted fees at the time of building permit issuance. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 14. RECREATION. Would the project: a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? X b)Include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Evaluation a) b) Commercial development does not typically addto the demand for parks and other recreational facilities.Therefore the City’s parkland policies only require residential subdivisions to provide for parkland impact fees. Since the vicinity is within the Airport Safety zones, any future residential density will be severely limited. It is not likely that commercial development of the property will increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks. b) The project does not include the construction or expansion of recreation facilities. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b)Conflictwith an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roadsor highways? X c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? 19 X d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X e)Result in inadequate emergency access?4 X f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 21 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 30 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact g)Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards, noise, or a change in air traffic patterns? Evaluation a)The proposed project is consistent with adopted plans for circulation within the AASP by providing a north/south connection between Tank Farm Road and Sueldo Street. For non-motorized travel, the project will be required to construct Class II bike lanes onthe Tank Farm/Sueldo Road connection consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan. A Class I bike path easement and construction is required along the eastern property line within the existing sewer easement area, linking with the adjacent Chevron property and providing future access to Prado road to the north in conjunction with other properties. The bike path easement and construction will allow for the completion of planned circulation improvements to continue across the northwestern portion of the Unocal Property and allow the eventual connection with Prado Road. The project is proposing and will be required to design for vehicle and non-motorized travel consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan and consistent with the circulation plans reviewed in the MASP/AASP EIR. b) The proposed project is consistent with circulation and land use plans as evaluated in the MASP/AASP EIR. The MASP/AASP EIR evaluated planned roadway improvements called for in the Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans and provided an analysis of levels of service which would result from project development and planned lane configurations. The MASP/AASP EIR found that impacts on roadways would be less than significant with development projects contributing their fair share through fees, assessments, dedications, and roadway improvements called for in the MASP & AASP. c) d) The Airport Area Specific Plan requiresthat the project provides roadways that are designed and development in accordance with adopted city standards thereby assuring predetermined standards necessary to limit safety hazards and provide adequate emergency access. Thus, there is no impact as result of the project. e) The project is subject to the City’s parking requirements as it is outlined in the AirportArea Specific Plan for each varying land use. The project build-out is required to fulfill all necessary parking requirements and therefore there is no evidence of inability to comply with onsite or offsite parking standards. No impact. f)Future lot development with commercial buildings will require review by the ARC for compliance with City’s policies and standards supporting/requiring alternative transportation, such as, bus turnouts and bicycle parking. g) The AASPhas already been found to not conflict with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). Therefore, as the subject project complies with the pertinent requirements of the AASPregarding allowed land uses and development densities and standards, the project is not in conflict with the ALUP. Conclusion: Less than significant impact. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 22 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 31 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 16. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? 10, 19X b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X c)Require or result inthe construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? X e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? X Evaluation a)b) c) d) e) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build-out of the AASPwill not result in any significant impacts related to delivery of domestic water, wastewater collection or treatment, or storm water drainage/retention and concluded that such impacts related to build-out of the AASPwere less than significant and no mitigation was deemednecessary.The project proposes to provide all water, sewer, and storm drain facilities necessary to adequately serve the subject project, including distribution, collection and other infrastructure capacity as required by the AASPfacility plansand the City’s Storm Drain Master Plan/Waterway Management Plan. The project is also subject to City and AASP established Development Impact Fees that are charged in conjunction with approval of development projects to offset costs associated withoff-site city-wide utility system impacts related to needed periodic maintenance and upgrades. f) g)Solid waste collection within the City will be provided by a private operator under a City franchise and disposal is expected to continue at Cold Canyon Landfill until 2018. The project must be consistent with the City’s Source Reduction and Recycling Element which requires that recycling facilities be accommodated on the project site and a solid waste reduction plan for recycling discarded construction materials must be submitted with the building permit application.The project is also required by the ordinance to include facilities for recycling to reduce the waste stream generated by the project.The project will fully comply with existing federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste. Conclusion:Less than significant impact CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 23 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 32 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 17. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X The project site does not contain any habitat for fish or wildlife and there are no historical resources or known significant archaeological or paleontological resources on the project site. Mitigation measures have been established in the event any resources are encountered during the construction phases of the project which would reduce potential impacts to less than significant levels. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects) X The project is consistent with the AASP. The MASP/AASP EIR address cumulative impacts resulting from the implementation of both specific plans and noted that with the application of proposed mitigation measuresimpacts would be reducedto a less-than-significant level for all environmental resources except for land use.A Statement of Overriding Considerations addresses significant and unavoidable impacts associated with the AASP. c) Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantialadverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X With the incorporation of mitigation measures for air quality and hazardous materials, adverse impacts will not occur to human beings either directly or indirectly. 18. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. In 2004 the City of San Luis Obispo certified an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) and the related Facilities Master Plan. The subject projectlies within the boundaries ofthe AASP. Therefore, this prior MASP/AASP EIR evaluation considered impacts and mitigation related generally to potential development of the subject site and others pursuant to the MASP & AASPand related Facilities Master Plan. The prior MASP/AASP EIR,certified by the City Council along with the adoption of the MASP and Facilities Master Plan on October 12, 2004, by Resolution No. 9615(2004 Series),contained a variety of mitigation measures to be incorporated as discrete components of the AASP or as policies or development standards to be implemented through site specific development proposals. Further on August 23, 2005, by Resolution No. 9726 (2005 Series), the City Council re- certified, with additional mitigation, the MASP/AASP EIR for the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and adopted the Plan. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 24 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 33 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) allows Lead Agencies (the City) to use the analysis of general matters contained in a broader EIR, such as for a general or specific plan, with later EIRs or Negative Declarations on narrower projects; incorporating by reference the general discussions from the broader EIR, and concentrating the later EIR or Negative Declaration solely on the issues specific to the later project. The environmental assessment approach is referredto as “tiering”. The environmental analyses above for this projecttake into account the environmental conclusions of the prior EIR as they are applicable to the proposed site specific project. As such, mitigation measures adopted in the prior EIR that are applicable to the subject site-specific project, and therefore must be incorporated into the proposed project to effectively mitigate the prior identified impacts, are listed below. Some of these mitigation measures are verbatim from the prior EIR, others have been refined to more specifically clarify how they are applicable to the site specific project by way of Conditions of Approval, in order to be properly implemented. The Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans and Final Program EIRis available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 919Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. b)Impacts adequately addressed.Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. N/A c)Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site- specific conditions of the project. N/A 19. SOURCE REFERENCES 1.City of SLO General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element 2.SLO County Air Pollution Control District, CEQA Air Quality Handbook, December 2009 3.City of San Luis Obispo Zoning Regulations 4.City of SLO General Plan Safety Element, July 2005 5.CA Department of Toxic Substances Control Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List (Cortese List) 6.City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, April 2006 7.City of SLO General Plan Housing Element, 2010 8.City of SLO General Plan Noise Element, May 1996 9.Cortese List Data Resources, California Environmental Protection Agency website: http://www.calepa.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/CorteseList/ 10.City of SLO Water and Wastewater Element, July 6, 2010 11.City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code 12.City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database 13.USDA, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County 14.Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California ResourcesAgency: http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ 15.City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Mapand Burial Sensitivity Map 16.San Luis Obispo Quadrangle Map, prepared by the State Geologist in compliance with the Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Act, effective January 1, 1990 17.City of San Luis Obispo Community Design Guidelines 18.Airport Land Use Plan, May 2005 19.Airport Area Specific Plan 20.Soils Engineering Report, Earth Systems Pacific, prepared September 10, 2008 21.Hydrologic and Hydraulic Analysis Report, March 28, 2012, prepared by Fred H. Schott and Associates Civil and Structural Engineers CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 25 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 34 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Mitigation Measures Section 1, Aesthetics: A.Detention basins shall avoid slopes that exceed 3:1 and shall avoid the use of concrete retaining walls. Any required barrier fencing shall be designed to avoid blocking views along the Tank Farm Road corridor while allowing a landscape planter with a minimum width of 5 feet between the fence and public sidewalks. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineering staff will inspect the construction operations toverify conformance with specifications and mitigations. Mitigation Measures Section 2, Agricultural Resources: A. See Land Use, Section 10 Mitigation Measures Section 3, Air Quality: Short term construction impacts A. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of construction. 1)Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2)Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 3)Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed. 4)All areas disturbed by construction shall be re-vegetated with plant materials to the approval of the City Biologist and if involved, the Department of Fish & Game. 5)Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 6)All truckshauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. 7)Equipment must be washed down before moving from the property onto a paved public road; and visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. x Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineeringstaff will inspect the construction operations to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 26 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 35 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Mitigation Measures Section 5, Cultural Resources A.If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. B.If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. x Monitoring Program Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Mitigation Measures Section 8, Hazards Preparation and Implementation of a “Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” A. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project applicant will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: “The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a.Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b.Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, thePhase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. x Monitoring Program: The “Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to “Stop Work” (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 27 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 36 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER #179-08, 265 Meissner Road SourcesPotentially Significant Issues Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Preparation and Implementation of an “Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” B. As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. x Monitoring Program: The “Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” will be required to be submitted by a project applicant to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. Conduct a Geologic Evaluation to Determine if NOA is Present C. According to the APCD the project site is a candidate area for NOA, which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. The project applicant is responsible for conducting a geologic evaluation of the area that will be disturbed to determine if NOA is present.If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM(Air Toxics Control Measure). If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with theAPCD. x Monitoring Program: The geologic evaluation will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and APCDfor review prior to any grading activities. IfNOA is found at the site the Asbestos ATCM shall include an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program subject to the approval of the APCD. Mitigation Measures Section 10, Land Use A. Implement policy 3.2.18 and/or Program 3.3.14 of the Airport Area Specific Plan by dedicating conservation easements for open space or agriculture on land within the San Luis Obispo region in an amount equal to or greater than the area to be developed or by payment of an in-lieu fee in an amount to be determined by the City’s Natural Resources Manager, consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. x Monitoring Program: A conservation easement shall be recorded or in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 28 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2014 ATTACHMENT 1 PC-1- 37 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-1- 38 Attachment 3 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIONOF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A TENTATIVETRACT MAP NO. 3009 CREATING 35LOTS FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 TANK FARM ROAD (TR/ER 65-14; TRACT #3009COKER-ELLSWORTH) WHEREAS, the Planning Commissionof the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California, onMay 27, 2015, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 65-14, a tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 20-acre site into 35lots; and WHEREAS, the May 27, 2015public hearing was for the purpose of formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo regarding the project; and WHEREAS,notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissionreviewed and considered the initial study of environmental impact as prepared by staff; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commissionhas duly considered all evidence, including the testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff, presented at said hearing. BE IT RESOLVED,by the Planning Commissionof the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures and Mitigation Monitoring Program. Based upon all the evidence, the City Council makes the following CEQA findings in support of the Tentative Map 65-14 (Tract No. 3009): 1.The proposed project is consistent with the requirements of the AirportArea Specific Plan Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) certified and adopted by the City Council, dated September 2003, and this approval incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as applicable. 2.A supplemental initial studyhas beenprepared for TM #3009 addressing potential environmental impacts which were not identifiedor detailedin the FEIRfor the AirportArea Specific Planfor detailed subdivision/development. The Community Development Director has recommended that the results of that additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) of environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of additional mitigation measures to those imposed by the FEIR, all of which are incorporated below. 3.All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately inthe referenced FEIR and IS- MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project,and the mitigation monitoring program being followedas design and public improvements PC-1- 39 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 2 TR/ER #65-14 construction proceed: REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS Mitigation Measures Section 1, Aesthetics: A.Detention basins shall avoid slopes that exceed 3:1 and shall avoid the use of concrete retaining walls. Any required barrier fencing shall be designed to avoid blocking views along the Tank Farm Road corridor while allowing a landscape planter with a minimum width of 5 feet between the fence and public sidewalks. Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineering staff will inspect the construction operations to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations. Mitigation Measures Section 2, Agricultural Resources: A. See Land Use, Section 10 Mitigation Measures Section 3, Air Quality: Short term construction impacts A. During construction/ground disturbing activities, the applicant shall implement the following particulate (dust) control measures. These measures shall be shown on grading and building plans. In addition, the contractor shall designate a person or persons to monitor the dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, to prevent transport of dust off site. Their duties shall include holiday and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the City Public Works Department prior to commencement of construction. 1)Reduce the amount of disturbed area where possible. 2)Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering frequency will be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever possible. 3)Dirt stock pile areas (if any) should be sprayed daily as needed. 4)All areas disturbed by construction shall be re-vegetated withplant materials to the approval of the City Biologist and if involved, the Department of Fish & Game. 5)Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site. 6)All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil,or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code Section 23114. 7)Equipment must be washed down beforemoving from the property onto a paved public road; and visible track-out on the paved public road must be cleaned using wet sweeping or a HEPA filter equipped vacuum device within twenty-four (24) hours. PC-1- 40 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 3 TR/ER #65-14 x Monitoring Program: Community Development Department staff will insure that project plans incorporate the mitigation measures. City engineering staff will inspect the construction operations to verify conformance with specifications and mitigations. Mitigation Measures Section 5, Cultural Resources A.If excavations encounter significant paleontological resources, archaeological resources or cultural materials, then construction activities that may affect them shall cease until the extent of the resource is determined and the Community Development Director approves appropriate protective measures. The Community Development Director shall be notified of the extent and location of discovered materials so that a qualified archaeologist may record them. B.If pre-historic Native American artifacts are encountered, a Native American monitor should be called in to work with the archaeologist to document and remove the items. Disposition of artifacts shall comply with state and federal laws. x Monitoring Program Requirements for cultural resource mitigation shall be clearly noted on all plans for project grading and construction. Mitigation Measures Section 8, Hazards Preparation and Implementation of a “Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” A.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying, when they are known, site/development-specific construction activities that will involve the hazardous materials. The plan shall be prepared before construction activities begin that involve hazardous materials and shall discuss proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated with the presence of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related activities, the project applicant will cause Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 to be activated. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2 states: “The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each proposed public facility (e.g. streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed. The following Phase II environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil and/or groundwater contamination. a.Soil Contamination. For soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If PC-1- 41 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 4 TR/ER #65-14 soil contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) will be notified and a work plan to characterize and possibly remove contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted and approved. b.Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase II assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB. x Monitoring Program: The “Construction-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” will be required to be submitted to the City Community Development Department and Fire Department for review prior to commencement of any site preparation or construction work involving hazardous materials. No site preparation or construction work may commence before said plan has been approved by the City. Any site work commenced without City approval of said Plan will be subject to “Stop Work” (cease and desist) orders as may be issued under the authority of the City Fire Department. Preparation and Implementation of an “Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” B.As stipulated in the MASP/AASP EIR, the applicant shall prepare a plan identifying hazardous materials management practices as might be required by state and local laws and regulations regarding delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of any such regulated materials might be present on site for any operations-related activities. This plan would identify the proper handling and disposal of materials uses or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary waste. By the filing of said Plan, the City Fire Department will be on notice to provide regular and routine fire and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety codes. x Monitoring Program: The “Operations-Related Hazardous Materials Management Plan” will be required to be submitted by a project applicant to the City Community Development Department and City Fire Department for review prior to the establishment of any operations-related activities. Conduct a Geologic Evaluation to Determine if NOA is Present C. According to the APCD the project site is a candidate area for NOA, which has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by the ARB. The project applicant is responsible for conducting a geologic evaluation of the area that will be disturbed to determineif NOA is present. If NOA is found at the site the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos ATCM (Air Toxics Control Measure). If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed with the APCD. PC-1- 42 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 5 TR/ER #65-14 x Monitoring Program: The geologic evaluation will be required to be submitted by a project proponent to the City Community Development Department and APCD for review prior to any grading activities. If NOA is found at the site the Asbestos ATCM shall include an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program subject to the approval of the APCD. Mitigation Measures Section 10, Land Use A. Implement policy 3.2.18 and/or Program 3.3.14 of the Airport Area Specific Plan by dedicating conservation easements for open space or agriculture on land within the San Luis Obispo region in an amount equal to or greater than the area to be developed or by payment of an in-lieu fee in an amount to be determined by the City’s Natural Resources Manager, consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. x Monitoring Program: A conservation easement shall be recorded or in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to recordation of the parcel map. Section 2.Tract Map Approval with Findings & Conditions. The City Council does hereby approve application TR/ER 65-14 (Tract Map #3009, “Coker Ellsworth”), a tentative tract map to create up to 35commerciallots, based on the following findings, and subject to the following conditions being incorporated into the project: Findings: 1.As conditioned, the design of the Tentative Tract Map is consistent with the General Plan because the proposed subdivision respects existing site constraints, will incrementally add to the City’s commercial land inventory, results in parcels that meet minimum areastandards, and will be consistent with thelot sizes and project amenities established by the Airport Area Specific Plan. 2.The site is physically suited for the type and density of development allowed in the C-S zoning district. 3.The design of the tentativetractmap and the proposed improvements are not likely to cause serious health problems, substantial environmental damage or substantially and unavoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat, since further development or redevelopment of the proposed parcels will occur consistent with the tentative map, the Airport Area Specific Plan and the requiredarchitectural reviewprocess, which will allow for detailed review of any development plans to assure compliance with City plans, policies, and standards. 4.As conditioned, the design of the subdivision will not conflict with easements for access through (or use of property within) the proposed subdivision, and the project is consistent with the pattern of development prescribed in the Orcutt Area Specific Plan. PC-1- 43 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 6 TR/ER #65-14 Conditions: Public Works 1.The subdivision shall be recorded with a final map. The map preparation and monumentation shall be in accordance with the city’s Subdivision Regulations, Engineering Standards, and the Subdivision Map Act. The map shall use U.S. Customary Units in accordance with the current City Engineering Standards. A separate application, checklist, and final map review fee shall be paid at the time of final map processing. 2.The required subdivision improvement plans and supporting documents shall be submitted to the City along with a separate application, checklist, engineers estimate of probable costs, and the improvement plan review fees in effect at the time of submittal. 3.The subdivider shall dedicate a 10’ wide public utility easement and street tree easement across the frontage of each lot. Said easement shall be adjacent to and contiguous with all public right-of-way lines bordering each lot. 4.The final map shall include all public road offers of dedication for the widening of Tank Farm Road, the Sueldo Street extension, and for new local Streets A – D. The final map shall show and label all existing and proposed public and private easements, public utility easements, and any quit-claim of the same. The final map submittal documents shall clarify any development restrictions related to the existing easements. 5.Any easements including but not limited to provisions for all public and private utilities, access, grading, drainage, slope banks, construction, common driveways, and maintenance of the same shall be shown on the final map and/or shall be recorded separately prior to map recordation if applicable. Said easements may be provided for in part or in total as blanket easements. 6.Access rights shall be dedicated to the City along Tank Farm Road except at approved road connection locations shown on the tentative map. 7.The subdivider and/or contractor shall coordinate a pre-construction meeting through the Public Works Department prior to commencing with any demolition, grading, or subdivision improvement work. The subdivider or contractor shall provide written notice and a tentative construction schedule to the adjoining developed properties with immediate access off of the proposed Sueldo Street extension. The notice shall be provided to the City of San Luis Obispo and to the Maino and the Promega Biosciences properties located at 3591 Sueldo and 277 Granada respectively. 8.The developer shall provide a street naming plan an addressing plan for the subdivision per the city street naming and addressing policies and standards. Street naming shall be established prior to map recordation and subdivision improvement plan approvals. PC-1- 44 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 7 TR/ER #65-14 9.The improvement plans shall include provisions and details for commercial mail box unit(s) (MBU’s) to the satisfaction of the Post Master and the City of San Luis Obispo. 10.The final curb ramp locations, orientations, and receiving ramp requirements for all “T” intersections and knuckles shall be designed in accordance with the latest City Engineering Standards, Cal Trans Standards, and ADA guidelines in effect at the time of development. The curb ramps crossing Street B at Tank Farm Road may be required to be designed as directional ramps. A preliminary analysis shall be reviewed and endorsed by the Public Works Department prior to development and submittal of the final improvement plans. 11.Unless otherwise approved for deferral by the City Engineer, a standard driveway approach and/or common driveway approach shall be installed at each lot. Any common driveway approach shall be accompanied by an appropriate common driveway/private access easement. 12.The final improvement plans and map shall justify the proposed alignment of Street D with the existing offer of dedication for the westerly extension of the road across the Farm Supply property. The plans and/or separate exhibits shall clarify the existing and proposed grades, existing building locations, and ultimate street sections and transitions across the westerly tract boundary. 13.A separate building permit, electrical permit, and/or plumbing permit shall be obtained for the upgrade, alteration, and/or relocation of any on-site utilitiesor the drilling or abandonment of any water well. Any required utility alterations shall have all work completed and final inspections approved to the satisfaction of the Building Official prior to recordation of the map. 14.The improvement plan submittal shall show and label all existing water wells and appurtenances. The plans shall include the existing well located in the northeast portion of the parcel near Lot 16. The plan shall clarify the proposed disposition of each water well and appurtenances. Existing overhead electrical serving any wells to remain shall be placed underground in conjunction with the subdivision improvements. The improvement plans shall show and label any minimum water well setbacks from the proposed sewer mains/laterals, recycled water mains/services, and dry wells in accordance with current State regulations. An RP principle backflow device shall be provided on the user side of each domestic water meter on each lot proposing the use of well water or recycled water for irrigation. 15.The subdivider shall place underground, all existing overhead utilities along the Tract boundaries to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and utility companies. The improvement plan submittal shall show all existing and proposed wire utilities, easements, and any new infrastructure needed to re-feed existing neighboring development. No new utility poles shall be placed within the public right-of-way unless specifically approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department. The developer may consider, with the approval of PGE and the City, the relocation of the existing overhead services to underground services within the new public streets to accommodate zero setback building construction as allowed in the C-S zone. PC-1- 45 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 8 TR/ER #65-14 16.The subdivider shall install street lighting and all associated facilities including but not limited to conduits, sidewalk vaults, fusing, wiring, and lumenaires per City Engineering Standards. The current standard includesLED lighting and is required within this subdivision. Off-site street lighting improvements, alterations, or upgrades may be required along roadways leading to and from the proposed development to complete the necessary public improvements. 17.Utility connections shall be provided to each lot in accordance with the subdivision regulations and the City Engineering Standards in effect at the time of plan submittal. 18.Final grades and alignments of all public and/or private water, sewer and storm drains shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Public Works Director and Utilities Department.Unless otherwise waived or deferred by the Utilities Department, a public sewer main shall be extended in Tank Farm Road along the tract boundary as required for orderly development. 19.The improvement plan submittal shall include a sewer service study and additional off- site analysis of the proposed “Unocal” sewer main extension to Tract 3011 and the adjoining Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP) properties. The study scope shall be established and approved to the satisfaction of the Utilities Department. The study shall establish the minimum depth and size of the required sewer for the manhole at the intersection of Street B and Street E. 20.Final fire hydrant locations at intersections and at mid-block locations shall comply with the adopted Fire Code and City Engineering Standards and shall be approved to the satisfaction of the Fire Department. 21.The subdivision improvements and future lot development shall comply with the Waterway Management Plan Drainage Design Manual, Stormwater Ordinance, Post Construction Stormwater Regulations as promulgated by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and any modifications or updates to the same. Future development or redevelopment of the lots within the subdivision will require a site specific soils report, grading and drainage plan and final drainage report based on the regulations in effect at the time of development. 22.A final drainage report shall be submitted with the subdivision improvement plan submittal. The final report and improvement plans shall comply with City Engineering Standards and the Drainage Design Manual unless an alternate analysis is approved by the City Engineer. The project soils engineer shall review the proposed improvement plans and drainage strategy for consistency with the recommendations in the soils report. The soils engineer shall provide specific recommendations regarding the drainage of the basins and proposed dry well construction. 23.An operations and maintenance manual will be required for the post-construction stormwater improvements. A private stormwater conveyance agreement will be required and shall be recorded prior to final inspection approvals. The proposed Lot 1 and Lot 16 PC-1- 46 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 9 TR/ER #65-14 basins shall be maintained by the underlying property owner(s) or by a property owner association. Individual lot development will require similar documentation and agreements at the time of development. 24.The subdivision grading plan shall include details of the proposed interim detention/retention for the undeveloped lots in accordance with the proposed drainage and post construction stormwater compliance strategy. 25.The subdivision grading plan shall clarify the final street and pad grades. The plan shall clarify the limits of pad construction, slope banks, and/or retaining walls needed to achieve the designed pad heights. The plan shall evaluate any upslope and off-site watersheds that might be tributary to the subdivision. The plan shall show how any historic run-on from adjoining properties will be accepted and conveyed or diverted to a safe point of disposal. The subdivision improvement plan submittal shall demonstrate compliance with the Parking and Driveway Standards for upsloping driveways and parking lot development for a sample lot with the greatest street to pad grade differential. 26.EPA Requirement: General Construction Activity Storm Water Permits are required for all storm water discharges associated with a construction activity where clearing, grading and excavation results in land disturbance of one or more acres. Storm water discharges of less than one acre which are part of a larger common plan of development or sale, also require a permit. Permits are required until the construction is complete. To be covered by a General Construction Activity Permit, the owner(s) of land where construction activity occurs must submit a completed "Notice of Intent" (NOI) form, with the appropriate fee, to the State Water Board’s SMARTS system. The required Waste Discharger Identification (WDID) number shall be included on the public improvement plans for reference. 27.Street trees are required as a condition of development. Street trees shall generally be planted at the rate of one 15-gallon street tree for each 35 linear feet of property frontage along Tank Farm Road. The trees shall be planted in accordance with the landscape plan for the detention basin(s) to the satisfaction of the Planning Department and the Public Works Department. The City Arborist shall approve the tree species and planting requirements. Street tree planting for individual lots will be required at the time of lot development and as a condition of the building permit. 28.All boundary monuments, lot corners and centerline intersections, BC's, EC's, etc., shall be tied to the City's Horizontal Control Network. At least two control points shall be used and a tabulation of the coordinates shall be submitted with the final map. All coordinates submitted shall be based on the City coordinate system. A computer disk, containing the appropriate data compatible with Autocad (Digital Interchange Format, DXF) for Geographic Information System (GIS) purposes, shall be submitted to the City Engineer. Transportation 29.The intersection of Street B & TankFarm is planned as a collector intersection with access to Buckley towards the North and accessto the Prado towards the North. Adequate space shalltobe provided for future traffic controls and turning lane capacity (Thru lane with Left and Right turn pockets). The City’s circulation element establishes PC-1- 47 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 10 TR/ER #65-14 roundabouts as the preferred intersection control type, therefore the applicant shall layout an FHWA multilane roundabout at this intersection and set building footprints so as not to conflict with future construction of a roundabout. 30.Driveway locations for parcels shall comply with the Transportation Research Board’s Access Management Manual. Driveways may need to be shared between properties and/or adjusted to provide adequate spacing between other driveways and intersections. 31.Design of TankFarm road shall be consistent with applicable specific plan cross sections, coordinate with cross sections planed or constructed by Chevron, and shall begin to transition back to existing cross-sections only at the property line. 32.Street B shall be designedto comply with City design standards relating to curvature and tangent sections. Utilities 33.Blowoffassemblies shall be installed at each end of the proposed 12” recycled water main. 34.A hydrant assembly shall be installed at east end of the proposed 12” potable water main. Planning Requirements 1.Proposed lots 34 and 35 do not meet minimum lot size requirements and shall be reserved for public improvements, detention basin requirements,or merged with adjacent lots to meet the minimum required size of 9,000 square feet. If the lots remain below the lot size minimum, a covenant, easement or other mechanism restricting private development of the sites shall be provided with the final map. 2.Public improvement plans shall include complete landscape plans that include street trees, drought tolerant landscape and ground cover mulch. A landscape plan for the detention basin areas shall be designed to naturalize the basins with ground cover and shrubs to prevent erosion and to maintain aesthetics, while minimizing weeds and invasive species. 3.At the time of submittal of a request for a final map, the subdivider shall provide a written report detailing the methods and techniques employed for complying with all required environmental mitigation measures as adopted herein. 4.In order to be consistent with the requirements of the AirportArea Specific Plan and County Airport Land Use Plan, the property owner shall grant an avigation easement for the benefit and protection of the City of San Luis Obispo, the County of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County Airport via an avigation easement document prior to the recordation of the final map. 5.All owners, potential purchasers, occupants (whether as owners or renters), and potential occupants (whether as owners or renters) shall receive full and accurate disclosure concerning the noise, safety, or overflight impacts associated with airport operations prior to PC-1- 48 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 11 TR/ER #65-14 entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 6.Provisions for trash, recycle, and green waste containment, screening, and collection shall be approved to the satisfaction of the City and San Luis Obispo Garbage Company. Proposed refuse storage area(s)and on-site conveyance shall consider convenience,aesthetics, safety, and functionality. Ownership boundaries and/or easements shall be considered in the final design. Any common storage areas shall be maintained by the HOAand shall be included in the CCR’s or other property maintenance agreement accordingly. The solid waste solutions shall be shown and noted on the submittal(s) for Architectural Review Commission (ARC) approvals. 7.The subdividershall develop a Construction Management Plan for review and approval by the Public Works and Community Development Directors. The plan shall be submitted prior to the issuance of a building permit for proposed project buildings and/or a phase of buildings. In addition, the contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the Construction Management Plan components and provide their contact names and phone numbers. The Construction Management Plan shall include at least the following items and requirements: a.A set of comprehensive traffic control measures, including scheduling of major truck trips and deliveries to avoid peak traffic and pedestrian hours, detour signs if required, directional signs for construction vehicles, and designated construction access routes. b.Notification procedures for adjacent property owners and public safety personnel regarding when major deliveries and more intensive site work may be occurring, c.Location of construction staging areas which shall be located on the project site, for materials, equipment, and vehicles. d.Identification of haul routes for movement ofconstruction vehicles that would minimize impacts on vehicular and pedestrian traffic, circulation and safety, and noise impacts to surrounding neighbors. e.The applicant shall ensure that the construction contractor employs the following noise reducing measures: 1)Standard construction activities shall be limited to between 7:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday. 2)All equipment shall have sound-control devices no less effective than those provided by the manufacturer. No equipment shall have un-muffled exhaust pipes; and 3)Stationary noise sources shall be located as far from sensitive receptors as possible, and they shall be muffled and enclosed within temporary sheds, or insulation barriers or other measures shall be incorporated to the extentpossible. f.Temporary construction fences to contain debris and material and to secure the site. g.Provisions for removal of trash generated by project construction activity. h.A process for responding to, and tracking, complaints pertaining to construction activity. i.Provisions for monitoring surface streets used for truck routes so that any damage and debris attributable to the trucks can be identified and corrected. j.Designated location(s) for construction worker parking. 8.Pursuant to Government Code §66474.9(b), the subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City and/or its agents, officers and employees from any claim, action or proceeding against the City and/or its agents, officers or employees to attack, set aside, void PC-1- 49 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series)Attachment 3 Coker Ellsworth Page 12 TR/ER #65-14 or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. On motion by , seconded by and on the following roll call vote to wit: AYES: NOES: None REFRAIN: None ABSENT: None The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of _____________________________ Doug Davidson, Secretary Planning Commission PC-1- 50 PLANNINGCOMMISSION AGENDA REPORT SUBJECT:Legislative Review Draft,Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update and environmental review for the project. PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Mgr. APNs: 052-601-009, 010, 011 and 067-601-009Phone Number: 805-781-7211 3Highland Drive, San Luis Obispo, CA E-mail: rhill@slocity.org FILE NUMBER:ER/GENP 1122-2015 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director RECOMMENDATION Recommend to the City Council that the Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update and an Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted. SITE DATA Applicant City of San Luis Obispo Representative Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager Zoning C-OS / 40 General Plan Open Space Site Area Approx. 352 acres Application ER Status Complete Initial Study determined Negative Declaration SUMMARY The City’s Natural Resources Program seeks adoption of the Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update that will continue to guide the management and stewardship of the site over the next ten years. Bishop Peak Natural Reserve (“BPNR”or “Reserve”) is one of the most iconic and well-loved landmarks in the entire region offering spectacular panoramic views of the City below and the surrounding region beyond, remarkable plant and wildlife diversity, and pleasant hiking and passive recreational opportunities. The City’s first ever conservation plan was prepared for BPNR and subsequently adopted by City Council in 2004. A conservation plan is generally intended to have a 7 to 10 year time horizon, at which time it should be updated. Over a decade has passed since the plan's initial introduction and a number of new challenges have emerged, including continued natural resources protection; neighborhood compatibility in the areas around the two primary trailheads; increased use pressureleading to needs for trail maintenance and heightened levels of enforcement; and, emergency response access and Ranger Meeting Date:5/27/15 Item Number: PC-2 - 1 PJD ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 2 patrol.With these issues in mind, this Conservation Plan Update serves as an opportunity to assess the current state of the Reserve, monitor the implementation of the existing plan, and to establish timely strategies for further protection and enhancement of the Reserve.For these reasons, BPNRis now the subject of a Conservation Plan Update process in order for the property to continue tobe managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan, while incorporating new information and addressing the ongoing management concerns that have identified by staff as well as members of the public. Overview of Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Bishop Peak Natural Reserve is a 352-acre property located in the northwest part of the City of San Luis Obispo (Attachment 1). It is comprised of three separate open space parcels that were assembled during a period of over 20 years;in 1977 the heirs of the Gnesa Ranch donated the land above the 800-foot elevation (approximately 104 acres) to the State Parks Foundation; this land is now managed by the County of San Luis Obispo. In 1995, an additional 140 acres was donated to the City of San Luis Obispo as the Ferrini Ranch Open Space. In 1998, 108 acres was purchased from Ray Bunnell.The property features a trail that goes from the official access points at Patricia Drive and Highland Drive to the summit, a distance of two miles with an elevation gain of 1,000 feet.Another trail known as the Felsman Loop traverses several canyons in the northern part of the Reserve and provides interesting views of oak woodland, chaparral, and coastal sage scrub, as well as attractive views of the surrounding area. At 1546 feet above sea level, the three-pointed summit is the tallest and most distinctive of the peaks that make up the string of Morros known locally as the nine sisters. BPNRis jointly managed by the City and County of San Luis Obispo. 1.0CONSISTENCY WITH EXISTING POLICY The City’s General Plan has several areas where use and management of open space is addressed. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE) is where the most pertinent policy direction is found. The list below is not exhaustive but highlights a few key policies that are pertinent tothe management and operation ofBishop Peak Natural Reserverelative tothe City’s General Plan. COSE Policy 8.5.5: Passive Recreation –The City will consider allowing passive recreation where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources and where there are no significant neighborhood compatibility impacts... Particular focus and ongoing deliberation pertaining to this COSE policy is warranted.As evidenced by testimony and correspondence received from numerous neighbors, there are significant and ongoing concerns about neighborhood compatibility stemming from the operation of BPNR. Among these reported concerns are overburdened street parking; traffic speeds and safety; noise, trash, and nuisance factors; and, increasing after-hours use of the Reserve resulting in safety issues as well as resource protection issues. Ultimately, one of the primary goals of the Conservation Plan Update is to resolve the tension between resource protection, neighborhood compatibility, and passive recreational use of BPNR. PC-2 - 2 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 3 COSE Program 8.7.1(E): Protect Open Space Resources – The City will manage its open space holdings and enforce its open space easements consistent with General Plan goals and policies and the Open Space Ordinance. The Conservation Plan Updatecalls for a renewed commitment to adherencewiththis program by providing for certain actions to restore or enhance the site, as well as calling for increased levels of regular patrol andmonitoring in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations, municipal code chapter 12.22. COSE Program 8.7.2(J): Enhance and Restore Open Space - The City will… adopt conservation plans for open space areas under City easement or fee ownership. The plans shall include a resource inventory, needs analysis, acceptable levels of change, grazing, monitoring, wildlife, management and implementation strategies, including wildfire preparedness plans. The Conservation Plan Updateaddresses and includes discussion of each of the areas identified in this program. In particular, it includes updatedresource inventories; identifies a handful of new site needs to be attended to; acknowledges that levels of acceptable change (LAC) have been exceeded in some areas and proposes corrective measures; and, it provides detail to a previously identified grazing management and stream corridor enhancement project in the lower pasture. 2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION Site Information/Setting Site Size 352 acres Present Use & Development Vacant open space held for conservation and passive recreation Topography Level to Very Steep (slopes often greater than 50%) Access Highland Drive, Patricia Drive, Highway 1, Bridle Ridge Road (via easement) Surrounding Uses/Zoning Agriculture / Ranchette properties; Residential 3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS Management Considerations The Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Updateprovides a framework to address the continued long-term site stewardship of the property. In addition to issues identified in 2004, the BishopPeak Conservation Plan Updateplaces arenewed emphasis in the following areas: 1.Natural Resources Protection. In keeping with the principles of the Conservation and Open Space and Element of the General Plan, the plan prioritizes protection of Natural Resources, providing for passive recreation where compatible. Many of the issues addressed in the Conservation Plan Update stem from this objective, seeking to enhance natural resources while minimizing impacts of recreational uses. An updated biological PC-2 - 3 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 4 inventory was completed by the local firm Terra Verde Environmental Consulting, Summary and Results of a Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California,that identifies 201 botanical species, nine plant communities, and 54 wildlife species. Of those, two plant species, one plant community, and seven wildlife species are considered to be under some level of protective special-status.Of note, Terra Verde identified seven different bat species that were previously indistinguishable due to the advent of relatively new, full spectrum acoustic survey technology that was not available in the 2002-2004 timeframe when the prior conservation plan was underway; three of these are special-status species. In addition, a Cal Poly senior project undertaken by Ms. Jessica Engdahl under the guidance of Dr. John Perrine and City Biologist Freddy Otte revealed numerous terrestrial wildlife species using the Reserve at night with the use of remote sensing wildlife game cameras deployed at several fixed monitoring stations. 2.Trail Network Maintenance.The existing trail network faces erosion, widening and trail cutting and expansion of unofficial trails, each presenting a threat to the experience of recreational users,as well as the protection of natural resources. Weathering and vandalization of signage and lack of adequate signage may further compound these issues.Recent counts of users accessing BPNR suggest that over 150,000 visitors a year enterthe Reserve, and most of the trails within BPNRare approaching 20 years or more of continuous use since they were first installed. 3.Neighborhood Compatibility Improvements. With a high volume of visitors and access limited to residential trailheadswith no off-street parking facilities, some impacts are felt disproportionately by surrounding neighborhoods. Outreach to neighboring residents indicates that issues include night hiking, camping, roadway safety, litter and noise. Lack of consistent enforcement of existing municipal code was also identified as an area of primary concern. 4.Rock Climbing Management.While climbing is an approved, historicuse that pre-dates the City’s ownership of the Reserve, new fixed anchor “bolted” routes and access trails have expanded over the last decade presenting a challenge to management objectives. Recent site visits identified establishment of an unpermitted stone and concrete bench,as well as unauthorized pruning ad herbicide application to vegetation. 5.Unauthorized Foothill Boulevard Access.The trailhead on Foothill Blvd.is a very popular access to BPNR and yet it remains an unapproved trailhead that relies on a trail running through privateranchproperty. This creates a number of problems in terms of trespass, safety, aesthetics, resource protection and enforcement. PC-2 - 4 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 5 6.Emergency Access and Ranger Patrol Improvements. Current emergency access points limit the speedand response timewith which fire fighters and paramedics can respond to incidents atthe Reserve. With an average of 2-3 calls for emergency response every month and an increase of fire hazard due to sustained drought conditions, a more efficient access point may increase safety for visitors to the Reserve and neighbors living in the wildland-urban interface zone. Recommendations Active management of the Reserve is necessary to protect valuednatural resources while facilitating approved activities where compatible. Updated wildlife inventories and photo monitoring analysis have shown that theBPNR is home to a wide variety of plants and animals and the Reserve requires continued management to protect these species. With over 150,000 visitors per year and over 200 plantspecies and 54 wildlife species, protection of natural resources at the BPNR relies largely on adequate management of human impacts. This entails the limitation of the recreational footprint by limiting the distribution and nature of uses and enforcing the laws that articulate these limitations. In addition to the issues and tasks outlined in the previous conservation plan, the 2015 update calls for the consideration of the following initiatives to provide for the continued stewardship, restoration, and management of the Reserve. Natural Resources Protection Biological surveys arethe basis for natural resource management at the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. The City has conducted a biological inventory and an evaluation of photo monitoring points and aerial photography comparing 2004 to current conditions,and will continue to monitor the Reserve on a regular basis. The City will need to respond to these surveys by focusing on protection of habitat areas with an emphasis on sensitive species. While the biologicalinventory shows the presence of sensitive species such as the Townsend’s big-eared bat and Pallid bat, further investigation willneed to be done to identify their distributionand abundance throughout thecliffs and cave features within the Reserve. The City should also consider maintaining additionalwater in the stock pondby excavating silt that has accumulated in order to provide a water source for wildlifeand insect prey-base for species such as bats. Garbage and dog feces present an issue for both resource protection and neighborhood compatibility. While “leave no trace” or “pack it in - pack it out” principles encouraging user- based management of litter are less resource intensive, they have not proven to be effective in a municipal open space setting such as Bishop Peak Natural Reserve. In response the City willto establish wildlife-proof garbage receptacles at trailheads along with “mutt mitt” dispensers for dog owners. Neighborhood Compatibility With no dedicated parking for BPNR, the impacts of visitation volume arefelt largely by surrounding residents. TheCity willconduct a formal traffic study and will continue to monitor traffic patterns on Highland Drive and Patricia Drive and apply traffic management strategies PC-2 - 5 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 6 where appropriate. In keeping with the mission of reducing impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and complying with principles of the LUCE, the City willadvocate and work towards improved access by alternative modes of travel including bus and bicycleas a demand- reduction strategy. Night hiking creates a disturbance to sensitive nocturnal wildlife within the Reserve and nearby residents and is expressly prohibited under the City’sOpen Space Regulations. Night hiking may be deterred by a combination of mechanisms including continued enforcement, neighbor and police partnerships, clearer articulation of fines on signage, and through employment of night time parking restrictions on Highland Drive and Patricia Drive. The Conservation Plan Update introduces a Good Neighbor Policy for the first time as a means of articulating the City’s pledge to both residential and agricultural ranch property neighbors: 1.The City will ensure pro-active outreach and communications with neighbors. 2.The City will promote partnership efforts with neighbors and other citizens to provide stewardship and care for the land and surroundings. 3.The City will use best practices to educate open space users about the importance of respecting neighbors and private property, as well as adherence to Open Space Regulations. 4.The City will actively address citizen concerns in a timely manner. 5.The City will not actively promote Bishop Peak Natural Reserve as destination location through media outlets, advertisements, and publications. Trail Network Maintenance The BPNR is one of the most heavily visited open spaces in the City’s open space networkand the trail system bares much of the resulting pressures. The major issues facing the trail system are erosion, poor signage and presence of unofficial “use trails.” The City willupgrade existing signage along the trail network, increase the availability of maps and other technological aids, and install two new informational kiosks to educate the public and improve wayfinding. Erosion is a significant problem throughout the Reserve, most notably at trail junctions and near the summit. The City willcontinue to implement trail rehabilitation projects and monitor their effects. Special emphasis should be placed on areas of high conservation value such as riparian areas and areas of very high use such as the summit trail. Qualitatively, Levels of Acceptable Change have been exceeded in the upper reaches of summit trail, and a reclassification of this area from “Management / Trail Corridor” to “Restoration” appears warranted pursuant to the Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City ofSan Luis Obispo (2002; see pgs. 8- 10). Unofficial use trails are present throughout the Reserve. This may be due in part to lack of clear signage, as referenced above. Trails that are redundant, unsustainable or that represent a threat to natural resourceswill be decommissioned and given proper signage to encourage rehabilitation. PC-2 - 6 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 7 Rock Climbing While climbing is a historic and permitted use within the Reserve, climbing activities should not interfere with roosting areas for bat and raptors, rare plant protection, and overall management goals for the Reserve. Climbing areas should be identified, protected and monitored. Unauthorized installation of climbing bolts and establishment of climbing use trails should be addressed. For the most part, climbers areoutstanding stewards of the rock and surrounding environment. At present it appears that there are just a few “bad actors” and increased attention to climbing areas is warranted in order to interact more with the climbing community and raise awareness ofOpen Space Regulations 12.22.050(N) pertaining to climbing activities, which are as follows: 1.Rock-climbing is permitted only within specific designated areas on city open space lands. Said areas shall be identified by the [Parks and Recreation] director, who may also make reasonable rules concerning such use, including but not limited to requirements for waivers of liability as a condition of permission for such use. 2. No person shall set or install climbing bolts in any designated climbing area without the written approval of the director. 3. The director shall appoint a committee of persons interested in climbing to advise him or her on matters affecting designated climbing areas, including but not limited to reviewing requests for new climbing routes, inspections of climbing areas, climbing bolts installed therein, or other matters pertaining to the operation and maintenance of the area. The Conservation Plan Update introduces a climbing management policy for the first time as a way of articulating specifically to the climbing community the City’s expectations for resource protection and sustainable use of the Reserve’s cliffs and rock faces. Foothill Blvd. Trail Due to concerns of roadway safety at the unofficial trailhead at Foothill Blvd., conditions should be monitored for increases in roadway conflicts. The City will requirea formalized trailheadand parking areaconsistent with Chapter 8 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan(See Program 8.15North Side of Foothill [Bishop Knoll]: “Development shall provide a parking lot and trail access to Bishops Peak.”) The junction of the bootleg trail originating at Foothill Blvd. continues to erode, presenting aesthetic concerns and trail management issues at multiple points of intersectionwith the summit trail. These junctions should be managed to reduce proliferation of use trails, reduce erosion, and limit impacts to surrounding vegetation. Ideally, the establishment of a new trailhead at the Bishop Knoll site would also provide an opportunity to restore and re-route sections of the upper trail as it approaches the Reserve. Any site work in this area will require close coordination with the County of San Luis Obispo. PC-2 - 7 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 8 Emergency Responseand Ranger Access The prior 2004 conservation planincluded the consideration of emergency access as one of its goals: 3.27The establishment of a connection road across the site for emergency and maintenance access that will eliminate the requirement for access through the Brittany Court development at the end of Highland Drive should be considered. With an average of 2-3 calls for emergency assistance per month to the Reserve, increasing fire danger associated with the current drought, and the need for to facilitate enhanced Ranger patrol, vehicle access improvementsfor official useare now warranted. This access shallbe minimally invasive, however,with limited impacts to natural resources, aestheticsand surrounding neighborhoods. Staff has identified a new trail sectionto facilitate such access, which is located just below the stock pond area of the Reserveabove Patricia Drive. It wouldbe approximately 580feet long and 8 feetwide, while decommissioning and restoring an approximately 620 foot section of adjacent trail switchbacks that are 4feetwide, and re-grading a 600 foot section of existing trail that has become eroded over the years. The project will require a pre-project botanical survey and will avoid sensitive botanical plant species, or re-locate individual plants if necessary to the adjacent trail switchback restoration area. Project design will ensure proper drainage and erosion control, and the emergency access trail will be re-vegetated on the margins with native grass seed. Grazing Mr. Webb Tartaglia has been the long-standing cattle operator at the Reserve in collaboration with the Ferrini family that enjoys a reserved grazing right. Mr. Tartaglia stocks fourteen mother and calf pairs each spring season. The current grazing regimehas been mostly successful, and two special status botanical species identified by Terra Verde Environmental (San Luis Obispo owl’s clover and Cambria morning glory) have been prolific in grazed areas. These species appear to prefer a disturbance regime created through grazing impact, as well a decrease in competition from annual grasses and other forb species, as well as thistles and other weedy species. The prior 2004 conservation plan called for a fencing project to protect and restore the riparian areain the lower pasture. This plan includes a more clearly defined project area and planting palette in order set the stage for project implementation. Lastly, the excavation of the accumulated silt in the stock pond would not only be beneficial from a natural resources management perspective, as above, it would provide more reliable stock water supply from season to season, as well as a potential water supply source for active firefighting when aerial water drop tactics are employed. 4.0 PLANNING COMMISSIONREVIEW While the Planning Commission may opine on any component of the Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan 2015 Update, staff would like to suggest that the Commission focus PC-2 - 8 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 9 especially on matters pertaining to passive recreational use and amenities, General Plan consistency and implementation, and review of the Initial Study. The Conservation Plan Update does not propose to change any existing passive recreational usesthat occur now, such as hiking and climbing, etc. although it does specify appropriate methods and areas for these uses. The Conservation Plan Updatealso contemplates a new emergency response and Ranger patrol access trail, trail restoration activities, updated signs, trailhead amenities, and expanded maintenance / fire protection. 5.0PUBLIC COMMENT The Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan 2015 Update seeks to accommodate community preferences while addressing the City’s goals in the Conservation and Open Space Element. Public meetings wereheld on May 7 and 14, 2015 in order to gather neighborhood and community input prior to staff’s preparation of the Conservation Plan Update. Approximately 50 neighbors of the Reserve attended the May 7 meeting, many of whom expressed significant concern for neighborhood compatibility and safety, as discussed above. Approximately 12 people attended the May 14 meetingthat included a much broader discussion of overall management concerns facing the Reserve. Both written comments and public testimony received throughout the publicreview process will be considered in the final draft. 6.0OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department staff, Public Works staff, Fire Department staff, and Police Department staff have been involved withoutreach efforts and components of the plan pertinent to their departments. The Conservation Plan Update willalsobe heard by the City’s Parks and RecreationCommission on June 3, 2015 andis presently scheduled to be considered for final adoptionby the City Council on July 7, 2015. 7.0 ALTERNATIVES The Commission may wish to recommend additions or edits to the Conservation Plan Update, or request that staff come back to the Commission for further review and deliberation at a later time. The Commission may also recommend denial of the Conservation Plan Update. This is not suggested as itappears to be consistent with the Conservation Guidelines adopted in 2002, and with the Conservation and Open Space Element update in 2006, and will provide direction as to proper habitat protection, compatible recreational use, and management activities for the Reserve into the future. 8.0ATTACHMENTS 1.Location Map 2.Draft Initial Study/ Negative Declaration 3.Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update,LegislativeReview Draft. Available on the City’s website:http://www.slocity.org/government/department- directory/city-administration/natural-resources/bishop-peak-natural-reserve PC-2 - 9 ER/GENP 1122-2015: Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update Page 10 ATTACHMENT 1: Location Map PC-2 - 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM Application # GENP 1122-2015 1.Project Title: Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update 2.Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Robert Hill, (805) 781 7211 Freddy Otte, (805) 781 7511 4.Project Location: Bishop PeakNatural Reserve (the “Reserve”), north of Foothill Blvd. and west of Hwy 1, in the City and County of San Luis Obispo (vicinity map attached). 5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo, City Administration Department, Natural Resources Program, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6.General Plan Land Use Designation: Open Space 7.Zoning: C/OS-40 8.Description of the Project: The Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan 2015 Update (the “2015Plan”) will continue to guide the management and stewardship of Bishop Peak Natural Reserveover the next ten years. It is an update of the prior Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan (the “2004Plan”); as such, this Initial Study considers new projects that were not previously evaluated with the 2004 Plan.The 2015Plan requiresthat the property is managed in accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the City’s General Plan. The 2015 Update proposes a variety of project opportunities to protect, restore, and enhance the property. In addition to normal management, maintenance, and monitoring of the property, particular emphasis is placed on the following management considerations: Natural Resources Protection; Scenic Resources; Erosion and Drainage; Fire Protection; and, Trails and Passive Recreation Uses. ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 11 A new project that was not previously evaluatedin the 2004 Plan is the completion of the previously identified “continuous loop” for emergency access and Ranger patrol purposes. The new section, located just below the stock pond area of the Reserve,will be approximately 580’ long and 8’ wide, while decommissioning and restoring an approximately 620’ section of adjacent trailswitchbacks that are 4’ wide, and re-grading a 600’ section of existing trail that has become eroded over the years.The project requires a pre-project botanical survey and will avoid sensitive botanical plant species, or re-locate individual plants if necessary to the adjacent trail switchback restoration area. Project design will ensure proper drainage and erosion control, and will be re-vegetated on the margins with native grass seed. A map exhibit that depicts this project is attached. 9. Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Privately owned agricultural land and adjacent urban development. 10.Project Entitlements Requested: City Council approval 11.Other public agencies whose approval is required: None INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 2 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 12 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous Materials Public Services Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance FISH AND GAME FEES The Department of Fish and Wildlifehas reviewed the CEQAdocument and written no effect determination request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see attached determination). -X- The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and WildlifeCode. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Wildlifefor review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE -X- This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 3 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 13 DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency): On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been made, by or agreed to by the project proponent.A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. Signature Date Printed Name Community Development Director INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 4 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 14 EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis). 2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. 3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4.“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of mitigationmeasures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced). 5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project. 6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 8. The explanation of each issue should identify: a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 5 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 15 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 1. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 XX b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? 1 X c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? 1, 9X d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? 1X Evaluation a) The 2015 Plandoes not anticipate any new structures that would impede views or have an effect on a scenic vista; however, it does propose a new emergency accesstrail above Patricia Drive in-lieu of an existing set off trail switchbacks. The project description entails the decommissioning and restoration of the switchbacks so that only one trail alignment will exist when complete. b), c)The project site is not within a local a state scenic highway area, and does not anticipate any improvements that would damage scenic resources or historic buildings. d) Bishop Peakcloses at dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by the 2015 Plan. The City has a night-sky ordinance that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed on the site. Conclusion Although the 2015 Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements that could change the visual character of a portion of the site, these actions are considered less than significant because they will be vegetatedand an adjacent section of trail switchbacks will be decommissioned and restored. 2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? 2X b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract? 1X c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use? 1X Evaluation a), b) and c) The project site does not include any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance. There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the site that could result in conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use. Conclusion The project site is public land that is part of an existing open space systemand no changes in use are proposed. 3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations.Would the project: a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? 3X b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? 3X INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 6 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 16 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? 3X d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? 3X e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? 3X Evaluation a), b), c), d)ande).The 2015 Plan does not include any actions that would create new air quality impacts or violate any air quality standards or existing plans. Conclusion The project site is City open spacebordered by open landandresidential development. No changes in land use or the operations of the facility are proposed that would impact air quality in any way. 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1, 4, 9 X b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? 1,4, 7, 8, 9X c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption,or other means? 1, 4, 7, 8, 9 X d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nurserysites? 1, 4, 7, 8, 9X e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 1, 6X f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? 1, 6X Evaluation a) New emergency access trail work/constructioncould have an adverse effect on sensitive species. A Plant Inventory and Wildlife Surveyprepared by Terra Verde Environmentalfound there is the possibility that sensitive plant speciesaccording to the California Native Plant Society (CNPS)may existalong or near the proposed alignment of the trail. In particular, the species Cambria morning glory (Calystegia subacaulis subsp. Episcopalis) was identified in the project site area in the Terra Verde Environmental survey, which is ranked rare 4.2 by CNPS. The2015 Plan calls for ongoing site surveys tooccur in INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 7 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 17 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact orderto ensure that impacts from the proposed alignment are avoided to the greatest extent possible. If necessary, the project description calls for any sensitive plant species that cannot be avoided to be re-located to the adjacent trail switchback restoration area. b)The project site containslimitedriparian areasbut will not be impacted by the 2015 Plan. c) The project site does not contain any federal wetlands. d), e), f) The 2015 Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with migratory animals. The 2015 Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources in the area, and there are no other conservation plans that apply to the project site. Conclusion The project will have less than significant impacts to biological resources because the2015 Plan requires all anticipated projects to be designed in a manner that minimizes these effects. The 2015 Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances and policies established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Conservation Guidelinesand the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. 5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource as defined in §15064.5. 1X b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5) 1X c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? 1X d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? 1X Evaluation a) The project site is notconsidered a historic resource. b), c) The 2015 Plandoes not anticipate any action that would have an adverse change on archaeological or paleontological resources. d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply if any human remains are discovered; however, the 2015 Plandoes anticipate limited excavation activitiesand only very limited ground disturbanceand no impact to human burials is likely. Conclusion The project site has been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed activities under the 2015 Planare unlikely to disturb any significant cultural, archeological or paleontological resources. The 2015 Plancalls for an educational kiosk to help the public understand and interpret thehistoryof the site and the surrounding area. 6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including therisk of loss, injury or death involving: 5X I.Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 5X INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 8 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 18 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact II.Strong seismic ground shaking?5 X III.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?5 X IV.Landslides?5 X b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?10 X c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? 10X d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to life or property? 10X e)Have soils incapable of adequatelysupporting the use of septic tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of waste water? 10X Evaluation a) The 2015 Plandoes not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects. There is a fault zone mapped outside but proximate to the project site. b) Maintenance activities have the potential to cause erosion. Any project located in or near a drainagewill have sediment and erosion controlmeasures in place. The 2015 Planincludes policies that direct projects to be designed in a manner that minimizes the potential for soil erosion to the greatest extent possible, and someof the projects anticipated by the 2015 Plan are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation. The new emergency access trail will consider proper drainage in its design and configuration, while installing erosion and sedimentation measures during the course of construction and until the site becomes revegetated. c), d), e) The 2015 Plandoes not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The project site does include expansive soils, but paths and other flatwork will be designed in a manner that takes the soil type into consideration and in no case would involve substantial risks to life or property. The site is served by the City of San Luis Obispo sanitary sewer system, but no sanitation facilities are proposed includingseptic tanks or alternative systems. Conclusion The 2015 Plancalls for drainage and erosion control strategies whenever there is any possibility of erosion, although such maintenance activities are consistent with existing activities and are less than significant.Although the location is an active seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist-Priola fault, the 2015 Plandoes not introduce people or structures to an area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists. 7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project: a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? 1, 11 X b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? 1, 11 X Evaluation a), b) The City of San Luis Obispo has a Climate Action Plan that requires the City to evaluate actions that would lead to increased greenhouse gas emissions. The project is a plan to conserve an open spaceareamostlywithin the City limits and day to day operations of the open spacewill not generate, directly or indirectly,newincreased greenhouse gas emissions. The 2015 Plancalls for removal of dead trees and shrubs (which emit carbon) and replacing them with native materials (which sequester carbon). INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 9 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 19 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact Conclusion On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the project site are expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment during maintenance activities. 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? X b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? X c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? X d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result,would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? X e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? X g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 9X h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlandsare adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 9 X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f), g)The 2015 Planand ongoing preservation of the open spacearea will not expose people or structures to harm from hazardous materials because there are no hazardous materials on site, routinely transported through or adjacent to the site, and no handling of hazardous materials is proposed. The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area, and there is no private landing strips in the vicinity. The 2015 Planwould not impair or interfere with the City’s emergency response plans. h) Theproject site area containsannual grassland, chaparral, and oak woodland, as well as non-native nuisance vegetation species. A component of the City’s overall conservation planning includes the development ofaWildfire Preparedness Plan chapter. This chapteridentifies the areas needing management. The impacts areconsidered less than significant and are also pre-existing and not effected by the 2015 Plan. Conclusion The project site is a City open space. It is adjacent toresidential neighborhoods. There are no uses, past or present, that involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire impacts associated with maintaining on-site vegetation are minimal, and potential impacts are addressed through the 2015 Plan’s Wildfire Preparedness Plan. INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 10 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 20 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? X b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? X c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on or off site? X d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site? 9X e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 9X f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?X g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or FloodInsurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? X h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which would impede or redirect flood flows? X i)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X Evaluation a), b), c)The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, or use groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The 2015 Planenvisions activities to restore and improve natural systems. d), e)and f), Maintenance activities mayhave the potential to cause erosion. The 2015 Planrequires that any project located in or near a drainage system will address sediment and erosion control, and such activities are less than significant. g), h), i), j)There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100-year flood plain, or impede or redirect stormwater flows. Conclusion The project would have a less than significant effect on water quality, with only minor maintenance activities anticipated. 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a)Physically divide an established community?1 X b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of 1, 6X INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 11 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 21 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? 1, 6X Evaluation a), b), c)The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and Conservation Guidelines and would not physically divide an established community. No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the site. Conclusion There are no impacts to land use and planning associated with the project to create a natural reserve conservation plan. 11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? 1X b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific planor other land use plan? 1X Evaluation a), b) The project does not involve any physical changes to the site that would impact the availability of mineral resources. Conclusion No impact to mineral resources is anticipated or likely because the project is an open space conservation plan involving minimal physical changes to the project site. 12. NOISE. Would the project result in: a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? 9X b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? 9X c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 9X d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 9X e)For a project located withinan airport land use plan, or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 9X f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 9X Evaluation a) The 2015 Plandoes anticipate a potential new useof anUtility Terrain Vehicle (UTV) for emergency access and Ranger Patrol purposes; however, this piece of equipment would be muffled and only used at low speeds so that its use would not exceed applicable noise standards. INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 12 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 22 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b), c) and d) The 2015 Plan does notanticipate and other new uses or facilities that would generate noise, or expose people to unsafe noise or ground vibration levels. e), f) The project site experiences frequent overflight, but is outside of the airport land use plan area, and farther than two miles from of a public airport. Conclusion The 2015 Planwould involve no new day to day increases in noise that would expose people to unacceptable noise levels. The City’s Noise Ordinance applies to all activities, and ensures that temporary noiseimpacts are less than significant. 13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? X b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? X Evaluation a), b), c) The project site is an open space area and there will be no population growth or displacement associated with adoption of the 2015 Plan. Conclusion No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the 2015 Planbecause no housing will be constructed or displaced as part of the project. 14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a)Fire protection?9 X b)Police protection?X c)Schools?X d)Parks?X e)Other public facilities?X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e) The 2015 Planwill not result in any increase in new demand for public services because it is an open space conservation plan. Conclusion The implementation of the 2015 Planwill not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable service ratios, response times, school enrollment, or park use. 15. RECREATION. a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? 9X INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 13 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 23 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact b)Does the projectinclude recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? X Evaluation a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project site as a municipal open space property, while providing for passive recreational use. While the level of use of the project site appears to have increased since the 2004 Plan,there is nothing in the 2015 Plan that is intended to increase new use of the project site. Conclusion The 2015 Planis anticipated to continue supportingpassive recreational uses such ashikingand scenic enjoyment.However, the project will not increase newuse of the facilityin a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no impacts are anticipated from the construction of minor new facilities, such as pathways. 16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project: a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways, pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? X b)Conflictwith an applicable congestion management program, including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? X c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? X d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? X e)Result in inadequate emergency access?X f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? X Evaluation a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption and implementation of a conservation plan to enhance the natural environment of the project site. Although existing traffic and parking concerns have been brought forward during the review process for the 2015Plan, there are no new uses proposed that would conflict with traffic management plans, change air traffic patterns, create hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access or conflict with an adopted transportation plan. Conclusion The 2015 Plandoesnotpropose new uses that will further contribute to adverse effectson traffic or transportation. 17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? X b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 14 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 24 Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources ER # GENP-1122-2015 Sources Potentially Significant Issues Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated Less Than Significant Impact No Impact or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? X d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and expanded entitlements needed? X e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? X f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? X g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations relatedto solid waste? X a), b), c), d), e), f), g)The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with existing supplies. Conclusion The proposed2015Plan and its implementationwill have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems. 18. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? X The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on the quality of the environment. b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)? X There are no cumulative impacts identified or associated with the project. All of the impacts identified are less than significant and temporary in nature. c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? X The project will not have adverse effectson human being because it is an open space conservation plan for a site that is currently used foropen space conservation and passive recreational purposes. INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 15 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 25 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle 19. EARLIER ANALYSES. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. The Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan (2004) is available on the City’s website: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/city-administration/natural-resources/bishop-peak-natural-reserve b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis. c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions of the project. 20. SOURCE REFERENCES. 1.Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006) 2.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html 3.SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm 4.Summary and Results of a Plant Inventory and Wildlife Survey at Bishop Peak Natural Reserve, City of San Luis Obispo, California (Terra Verde Environmental, May 13,2015) 5.Alquist-Priola Special Studies Zones Map: http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/SAN_LUIS_OBISPO/maps/SLOBISPO.PDF 6.Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Landsof the City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo (2002) 7.Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, USFWS (2002) 8.South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013) 9.LegislativeReview Draft,Bishop Peak Natural ReserveConservation Plan2015 Update. City of San Luis Obispo (2015) 10.Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service (1984) 11.City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (2012) Attachments: 1.Site vicinity map with aerial photograph 2.New Emergency Response and Ranger Patrol Access INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 16 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 26 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle ATTACHMENT 1: Site vicinity map with aerial photograph INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 17 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 27 City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle ATTACHMENT 2: New Emergency Response and Ranger Patrol Access INITIAL STUDY BPNRCONSERVATION PLAN 2015UPDATE 18 ATTACHMENT 2 PC-2 - 28 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 13, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL:Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler, Ronald Malak,William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson JohnLarson Absent:None Staff:Deputy Community Development DirectorsDoug Davidsonand Kim Murry, Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore,Deputy Director of Transportation Tim Bochum,Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES:Minutes of April 8, 2015,were approved as presented. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1.598 Princeton Place.APPL-0978-2015: An appeal of a Code violation of MC 17.17.055 Front Yard Parking; R-1 zone; Aaron,Katherine/Gambucci,Joseph et ux., appellants. Kyle Bell, Assistant Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Commission adopt a resolutiondenying the appeal and supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the citation,based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Joseph Gambucci, property ownerand appellant,noted desire to preserve the residential character of the neighborhood; commented on negative impacts resulting from student-occupied rentals in the neighborhood; stated that the parking upon his property can be interpreted to be legal non-conforming, and that adequate maneuverability exists with the site’s current configuration. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Amelia Gambucci, SLO, inquired as tothe seemingly inconsistent enforcement actions againstother similar parking situations throughout the City. There were no further commentsfrom the public. Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2015 Page 2 COMMISSION COMMENTS: Assistant City Attorney Ansolabeheremade referenceto the case of James Disney v. the City of Concord, in which the Court upheld the City’s ability to regulate vehicle parking in front yards. Commr. Malak spoke in opposition to staff’s request; noted the apparently moot nature of the issue of the legality of the parking space. Commr. Fowler spoke in support of staff’s recommendation; notedthe apparent legal basis for denying the appeal. Chair Larson spoke in opposition to staff’s recommendation; noted emphasis on the issue of the legality of vehicle parking, rather than the legality of the driveway itself. Commr. Draze spoke insupport ofstaff’s recommendation; noted apparent ready availability of legal solutions to the problem. Vice-Chair Multari spoke inopposition to staff’s recommendation; notedthe apparently moot issue of thelegality of the parking space, and the unreasonable burden of compliance upon the property owner. Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of staff’s recommendation; noted sympathy for the property owner’s situation; noted concern about the potential for setting precedent by failing to enforce code. There were no further commentsfrom the Commission. On motion by Commr.Riggs, seconded by Chair Larson,to adopt a resolutiondenying the appeal and supporting the Director’s decision to uphold the citation, based on findings and subject to conditions contained in the staff report AYES:Commrs. Riggs, Dandekar, Draze, Fowler NOES:Commrs. Larson, Malak, Multari RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 4:3vote. Chair Larson stated that the Planning Commission’s decision is appealable to the City Council. 2.2120 Santa Barbara Avenue.USE-0916-2015: Review of a mixed-use project with 69 multi-family units and 3,000 square feet of retail space, and a mixed-use parking reduction, with a categorical exemption from CEQA; Covelop Management, Inc., applicant. Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2015 Page 3 Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommendingthat the Commission adopt aresolution allowing approval of the mixed-use project and a 15% parking reduction,based on findings and subject to conditions which he outlined. Commr. Draze noted that, while he did not attend the March 11, 2015,meeting where this item was previously heard, he had thoroughly reviewed the minutes and was comfortable taking action. Supervising Civil Engineer Hannulaclarified that designs for pedestrian improvements such as bulb-outs will depend on final engineering details. Steve Rigor, project architect, made a presentation; summarized changes made to the project proposal since its previous hearing. PUBLIC COMMENTS: GlenMatteson, SanLuis ObispoRailroad Museum,stated thathaving the property developed may deter illicit activity; noted preference for Emily Street improvements as shown in staff’s “Option A” diagram, which will interfere least with the Museum’s neighboring property. Brad Larose, San Luis Obispo Railroad Museum, noted preference for the EmilyStreet improvementconfiguration as shown in “Option A,”noted an existing access gate that would be impeded by an eight-foot sidewalk, if constructed. Myron Amerine, SLO, noted concern that the proposed configuration of Emily Street improvements will prevent its future pedestrian and bicycle connectivity to Broad Street; noted preference for Emily Street improvementsas shown in “Option B.” Lea Brooks, nearby property owner, spoke regarding connectivity concerns; noted support for reroutingpedestrian activity away fromSanta Barbara Avenue. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: In response to inquiry from Vice-ChairMultari, Deputy Director of Transportation Bochumclarified thatEmily Street is intended toeventually beconnected to High Street; commented on the flexibility of various circulation configurations; noted desire to minimizenegativeimpacts uponthe Railroad Museum property. Commr. Drazespoke in support of the project and utilizing Emily Street configuration “Option A,” with modifications to accommodate the Railroad Museum property; spoke in support of additional bicycle parking; spoke in opposition to further parking reduction. Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of the project and utilizing Emily Street configuration “Option A,” with modifications to accommodate the Railroad Museum Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2015 Page 4 property, spoke in support of additional bicycle parking and the addition of a car share space; spoke in opposition to further parking reduction. Commr. Fowler spoke in support of the project and utilizing Emily Street configuration “Option A,” with modifications to accommodate the Railroad Museum property; spoke in support of additional bicycle parking,the addition of a car sharespace, and an increasedparkingreduction. Chair Larson noted public comment received from local businesses and prospective tenantsin support of the project, and received from members of the public in opposition to the project.Larson spoke in support of the project and utilizing Emily Street configuration “Option A”; noted neither support for nor opposition to further parking reduction. Commr. Riggs spoke in support of additional bicycle parking, the addition of a car share space, and requiring a full 20% parking reduction. Vice-Chair Multarispoke in support of the projectand utilizing Emily Street configuration “Option A,” with modifications to accommodate the Railroad Museum property; spoke in support of additional bicycle parking. There were no further comments from the Commission. On motion by Commr.Draze, seconded by Commr.Malak,to adopt a resolution allowing approval of the mixed-use project and a 15% parking reduction,subject to findings and conditions contained in the staff report, with the following additional revisions: a.Amend Condition 7 to memorialize that staff will refine the details of Emily Street improvements in accordance with “Option A” as depicted in the staff report. b.Add Condition 11to read as follows: “43long-termbicycle parking spaces, or no fewer thanone bicycle parking space per studio apartment unit, shall be provided.” c.Add Condition 12 to read as follows: “An electric vehicle charging station shall be added to the commercial portionof the project, in a manner acceptable to staff and in accordance with current standards.” AYES:Commrs. Draze, Malak, Dandekar, Fowler, Multari, Larson NOES:Commr. Riggs RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion passed on a 6:1vote. Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2015 Page 5 On motion by Commr. Riggs, seconded by Chair Larson,to require a 20%parking reduction, and encourage applicants to consider the establishment of at least one car share space. AYES:Commrs. Riggs, Larson, Fowler NOES:Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Malak, Multari RECUSED:None ABSENT:None The motion failed on a 3:4vote. The Commission recessed at8:44 p.m., and reconvened at 8:53 p.m., with all members present except Commr. Riggs. 3. City-wide.GENP-1267-2015; Review of General Plan Conformity Report, Capital Improvement Program proposed as part of 2015-2017 Financial Plan; City of San Luis Obispo—Community Development Department, applicant. Deputy Community Development DirectorMurrypresented the staff report, recommendingthat the Commission report to the City Council that all projects/purchases in the CapitalImprovement Plan proposed as part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plancomply with the City’s GeneralPlan. Deputy Director of Transportation Bochum responded to Commission inquiries. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no commentsfrom the public. COMMISSIONCOMMENTS: Vice-Chair Multari requested clarification from staff regarding the ways in which planned transportation-relatedCapital Improvement Projects fit into the modal priorities adopted as part of the Circulation Element update. Chair Larsonrequested that staff make location ofthe Capital Improvement Program documents easier to find for the public on the City’s website. There were no further comments from the Commission. On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Vice-Chair Multari,to report to the City Council that all projects/purchases in the Capital Improvement Plan proposed as part of the 2015-2017 Financial Plan comply with the City’s General Plan. AYES:Commrs. Draze, Multari, Dandekar, Fowler, Malak, Larson NOES:None RECUSED:None ABSENT:Commr. Riggs Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 13, 2015 Page 6 The motion passed on a 6:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3.Staff a.Agenda Forecast Deputy Community Development Director Murry gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items; noted the release of the City’s final updated General Plan. 4.Commission Commr. Malak requested that staff return within 30 days with a proposed date for the Planning Commission to receive a presentation about best practices for water and energy conservation for new and alteredresidential and commercial uses, in order to receive public input and potentially request development of standard conditions for development projects to incorporatehigher energy and water efficiencyfeatures.Commr. Multari requested that the presentation include a summary of current requirements, policies,and practices. Chair Larson requested that the reportfocusingon water be made the priority. Commr. Drazerequested that staff keep the Commission informed of key items, such as the City’s response to the Governor’s action on drought being considered by the City Council on June 2nd. ADJOURNMENT:The meeting was adjourned at 9:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary