HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-27-2015 PC Item 1 - 250 Tank Farm (250 Tank Farm Road) PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of a tentative tract map to create 35 commercial lots within the Airport 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 a Mitigated 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 wastewater and storm water infrastructure. The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) was
adopted in 2005 to 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.
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project is a subdivision of a 20 acre vacant parcel into a 35-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 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.
EXHIBIT 1: Tract Map
PC-1- 2
SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road)
Page 3
2.1 SETTING
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).
3.0 POLICY 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.
3.1 GENERAL PLAN
Together, the City’s General Plan and the AASP provide 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.
3.2 AIRPORT 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 subdivision and 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.
3.3 SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
In addition to the Subdivision Regulations, the specific plan 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 60 feet 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.
3.4 INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS
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 wide interior 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 include widening 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 path is
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 Basin at Tank Farm Road
PC-1- 5
SPA/ER 92-08 (250 Tank Farm Road)
Page 6
Since the basin abuts 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 of way 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 as prime 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 AASP and in
agricultural use (farmland/grazing or open space), are already slated by the AASP for 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 a significant, irreversible, adverse impact that 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 Element and 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. 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 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.
5.0 SUBDIVISION FINDINGS
In order to approve the proposed tentative map, specific findings 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 for the project site in the attached resolution for the Planning Commission.
6.0 CONCLUSION
Although this property remains in active agriculture and 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 in evaluating 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.
7.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Natural Resources Manager and staff from the Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments
have reviewed the project, and the proposed environmental document.
8.0 ALTERNATIVES
1. Continue the project with direction to the applicant and staff on changes or additional
information in order to take an action at 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 project is a subdivision of a 20 acre vacant parcel into 35 lot 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 south and other local streets to 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 are proposed
along Tank Farm Road and on the interior of the site to 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 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 (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).
SITE
Site
Figure 1. Project site and vicinity
Tank Farm
lift station
Chevron Property
Farm
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
Aesthetics
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Population / Housing
X
Agriculture
X
Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
X
Air Quality
Hydrology / Water Quality
Recreation
Biological Resources
X
Land Use / Planning
Transportation / Traffic
X
Cultural Resources
Mineral Resources
Utilities / 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, 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)).
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 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 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 analysis in 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 the checklist.
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
Sources Potentially
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, 19 X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
3 X
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 with this project. Subsequent proposed development will be subject to architectural review and will be required to
comply with Community 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 corridor with 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 subdivision will be subject to architectural review and will be required to be consistent 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 preserve night 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, 14 X
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
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
Evaluation
a) b) c) The project site is classified as prime 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 AASP and in agricultural use
(farmland/grazing or open space), are already slated by the AASP for 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 a significant, irreversible, adverse impact that could not be mitigated and the necessary
Statement of Overriding Considerations was adopted by Resolution No. 9615 (2004 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Nonetheless,
policies of the Land Use Element and 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 impact with 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?
2 X
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
Sources Potentially
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 activities involving vehicle emissions from heavy duty equipment during 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 occur temporarily 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 Measures Section 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 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 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
Sources Potentially
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,
19
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 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 to the 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
Sources Potentially
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 subdivision as 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 in the vicinity of any areas designated as burial 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 indicates impacts to cultural and paleontological resources are
unlikely, there is the potential that grading operations or subsurface disturbance could result in impacts to previously
unknown or unrecorded cultural resources. The following measures are recommended to mitigate any potential
archaeological or cultural impacts to a level of insignificance.
Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures Section 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 and construction 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, as delineated 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
Sources Potentially
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 development and 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
Sources Potentially
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?
5
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?
19 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?
4
X
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss,
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 subject property near the Tank Farm Road corridor.
This project shall require an APCD permit and review by the Regional Water Quality Control Board to 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
Sources Potentially
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 park and
service commercial land 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 for uses 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 assure compliance 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 Measures Section 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
Sources Potentially
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 (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 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.
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
site 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. 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?
10 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?
21
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
21 X
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
Sources Potentially
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) The project 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 Report prepared 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 impacts related 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, 19
X
b) Physically divide an established community? X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation 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 EIR requires 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 of the 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 lands to the south and east by securing protected areas at least equal to the area of new development, where on site
protection is not available.
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
Sources Potentially
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 on the acreage of development, equivalent to the purchase of
an equivalent acreage of open space land or easements in the greenbelt south of the Airport Area.
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 vicinity above 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,
19
X
Evaluation
a) d) According to the Airport Land Use Plan noise contours, the site is located within an area susceptible to aircraft noise
that may reach 50 decibels (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
Sources Potentially
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 be adequate 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
Sources Potentially
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 add to 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) Conflict with 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?
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
Sources Potentially
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 on the 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 requires that 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 Airport Area 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 AASP has 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 AASP regarding 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
Sources Potentially
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, 19 X
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 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
related to solid waste?
X
Evaluation
a) b) c) d) e) The MASP/AASP EIR determined that implementation and build-out of the AASP will 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 AASP were less than significant and no
mitigation was deemed necessary. 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
AASP facility plans and 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 with off-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
Sources Potentially
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 measures impacts would be
reduced to 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
substantial adverse 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 project lies within the
boundaries of the 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 & AASP and 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
Sources Potentially
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 referred to
as “tiering”.
The environmental analyses above for this project take 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 EIR is available
for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, City Hall, 919 Palm 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 Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/
15. City of San Luis Obispo, Historic Site Map and 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
Sources Potentially
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 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 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 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.
• 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.
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
Sources Potentially
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.
• 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, 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.
• 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
Sources Potentially
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.
• 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 the APCD.
• 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.
• 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 COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE
A TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 3009 CREATING 35 LOTS
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 250 TANK FARM ROAD
(TR/ER 65-14; TRACT #3009 COKER-ELLSWORTH)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a
public hearing in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo,
California, on May 27, 2015, for the purpose of considering TR/ER 65-14, a tentative tract map
subdividing an approximately 20-acre site into 35 lots; and
WHEREAS, the May 27, 2015 public 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 Commission reviewed and considered the initial study of
environmental impact as prepared by staff; and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has duly considered all evidence, including the
testimony of the applicant, interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations by staff,
presented at said hearing.
BE IT RESOLVED, by the Planning Commission of 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 Airport Area 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 study has been prepared for TM #3009 addressing potential
environmental impacts which were not identified or detailed in the FEIR for the Airport Area
Specific Plan for 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 in the referenced FEIR and IS-
MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into the project, and
the mitigation monitoring program being followed as 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 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 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.
PC-1- 40
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 3
Coker Ellsworth
Page 3 TR/ER #65-14
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 the APCD.
PC-1- 42
Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 3
Coker Ellsworth
Page 5 TR/ER #65-14
• 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.
• 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 35 commercial lots, 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 area standards,
and will be consistent with the lot 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 tentative tract map 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 required architectural review process, 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 utilities or 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 includes LED 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 & Tank Farm is planned as a collector intersection with
access to Buckley towards the North and access to the Prado towards the North.
Adequate space shall to be 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 Tank Farm 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 designed to comply with City design standards relating to curvature and
tangent sections.
Utilities
33. Blowoff assemblies 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 Airport Area 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 HOA and 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 subdivider shall 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 of construction 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 extent possible.
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