Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-07-2015 PH2 Coker Ellsworth Tract Map - 250 Tank Farm RoadCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner 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). RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution (Attachment 6) approving the tract map subject to findings and conditions including the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. DISCUSSION Background The City has processed an application for a tentative tract map (TTM) application to subdivide the subject 20-acre parcel into 35 commercial lots (Attachment 1, Tentative Map). 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 in addition to fulfilling other map conditions. 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). Planning Commission Review The Planning Commission reviewed the Tract Map on May 27, 2015, and voted 3-2 to find the project consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan and recommending the Council approve the tract map subject to conditions. The dissenting Commissioners did not necessarily oppose the subdivision of the property; however they felt that the loss of agricultural land was not satisfactorily mitigated (Attachment 2, PC meeting minutes). A complete discussion of the environmental impacts, including the loss of agricultural land is discussed in this report. 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, PH2 - 1 Coker Ellsworth Tentative Tract Map Page 2 drainage, and public utilities. Detention basins are proposed along Tank Farm Road and on the interior of the site to accommodate project site runoff. 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. Policy Analysis 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 guides project review as it is the bridge between the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. Additionally, environmental analysis helps guide development in the City and this project was evaluated from an environmental perspective which is outlined below. 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, and later amended in 2014, the AASP assumed subdivision and development of the subject site as a commercial property. Prior to adoption, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) found the specific plan to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). The proposed project is consistent with the AASP and hence the ALUP. The specific plan zoning designation is C-S on this property. In accordance with the Specific Plan, “Areas designated Service Commercial are generally for storage, transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services that may be less appropriate in other commercial designations.” The proposed subdivision is intended to allow for future development of land uses that are consistent with the AASP. The AASP and its amendments in 2014 were found to be consistent with the County Airport Land Use Plan. The AASP provides schematic plans for major infrastructure such as roads and utilities. For the subject property, a local road is planned to connect from Tank Farm Road 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. 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 PH2 - 2 Coker Ellsworth Tentative Tract Map Page 3 zone is 9,000 square feet with a minimum width of 60 feet and a minimum depth of 100 feet. New structures are allowed to cover up to 75% of each lot area. All of the lots within the proposed subdivision 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. The Planning Commission recommended these substandard lots be restricted from development and be reserved for detention, landscaping, or integrated into the future Chevron site development. A condition of approval has been added to address this item. 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 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. A Mitigation Measure is proposed 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 five feet between the fence and public sidewalks. Prime AG Land The project site is classified as prime farmland pursuant 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. 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 PH2 - 3 Coker Ellsworth Tentative Tract Map Page 4 Series) pursuant to CEQA. Since adoption of the EIR, the property was rezoned to Service- Commercial and other adjacent properties have developed consistent with the commercial zoning. 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, AASP 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. The Planning Commission discussed the options of implementing mitigation that would adequately replace the loss of agricultural land. Their discussion resulted in a split motion (Planning Commission Meeting Minutes (Attachment 2), with some Commissioner’s believing that the proposed conditions did not adequately mitigate the loss of agricultural land. Their discussion questioned whether in-lieu fees are adequate for the City to be able to purchase agricultural or open space land elsewhere in the City. Currently, open space in-lieu fees for the airport area are adopted by Resolution No. 9728 (2005 Series, Attachment 5). The fee is set at $574 per 1,000 square feet of new floor area. Fees are collected at time of building permit for new development and not at the time of subdivision. In 2005, this amount was determined to be adequate to allow the City to acquire open space easements elsewhere in the planning area. However, at the Planning Commission hearing, Commissioners believed that this amount may be insufficient. The City’s Natural Resources Manager has carefully evaluated this amount and determined that it accomplishes the goal of assisting the City with acquiring agricultural conservation easements. Based on the size of the project area (20 acres), the assumed amount of development would be approximately 175,000 square feet of new commercial floor area. This assumption is based on nearby development with similar zoning adjacent to Tank Farm Road. This would result in in-lieu fees that would be approximately $100,000. The City currently acquires open space and agricultural conservation easements through implementation of the Open Space Conservation Guidelines. The primary goal is to maintain and expand the City’s greenbelt. Although implementation of this project will encourage the alteration of the current agricultural property, the impact fees will greatly aid the City in acquiring conservation easements consistent with City policy and the Open Space Conservation Guidelines. Staff is recommending the following mitigation measure that still allows flexibility in implementing the in-lieu fee should the fee increase in the future: PH2 - 4 Coker Ellsworth Tentative Tract Map Page 5 Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant shall implement policy 3.2.18 and/or Program 3.3.14 1 of the Airport Area Specific Plan by dedicating conservation easements for open space or agriculture on land within the Airport Area Specific Plan or within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt 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 sufficient to allow the City to acquire conservation easements consistent with the intent of Resolution 9728(2005) and consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. With implementation of the mitigation measure suggested above, the project’s impacts to agricultural resources will be reduced to a less than significant level. Airport Safety The project site is located within the Airport Land Use Plan safety area S-1A, with portions of the property in 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 businesses such as day care are restricted in safety area S-1A. The Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics provided comments to the proposed Initial Study of environmental review (Attachment 4). In consideration of the comment letter, staff modified the initial study to accurately reflect information about aspects of the ALUP. Project conditions to ensure airport land use compatibility for future land uses have already been included in the resolution. 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 or 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 1 AASP Program 3.3.14: Greenbelt In-Lieu Fee. Where dedication is not feasible, an in-lieu fee will be assessed on the acreage of development, equivalent to the purchase of an equivalent acreage of open space land or easements in the greenbelt south of the Airport Area. PH2 - 5 Coker Ellsworth Tentative Tract Map Page 6 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. CONCURRENCES The Public Works and Utilities Departments have reviewed the project and proposed public improvements and concur with the subdivision and public improvements plans. Conditions of approval and pertinent code requirements have been crafted for the project to guide the public improvements plans. FISCAL IMPACT Commercial development of this site is anticipated by the General Plan and Specific Plan for the subject property. The applicant is responsible for the direct financing of on-site improvements and some off-site improvements that implement necessary components of the Airport Area Specific Plan. The availability of new commercial lots at this site will further economic development goals of the City by providing expansion opportunities for existing and new business. Future commercial development of the site will result in a positive fiscal benefit. ALTERNATIVES 1. Deny the proposed Tentative Tract Map. This is not recommended because the proposed tract map is consistent with the AASP and Subdivision Regulations. 2. Continue the item. An action to continue the item should include a detailed list of additional information or analysis required. ATTACHMENTS 1. Reduced scale tract map 2. PC meeting minutes 3. Initial Study of Environmental Review 4. Cal Trans Division of Aeronautics letter 5. Open Space Fee Resolution 6. Draft Council resolution approving tract map AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE Full size tract map Airport Area Specific Plan T:\Council Agenda Reports\2015\Coker Ellsworth Tract Map PH2 - 6 Attachment 1Attachment 1 PH2 - 7 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH2 - 8 DRAFT SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES May 27, 2015 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Ronald Malak, William Riggs (arrived 6:09 p.m.), Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and Chairperson John Larson Absent: Commissioners Michael Draze and John Fowler Staff: Deputy Community Development Director Doug Davidson, Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore, Supervising Civil Engineer Hal Hannula, Transportation Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Assistant City Attorney Jon Ansolabehere, and Recording Secretary Erica Inderlied ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented. MINUTES: Minutes of May 13, 2015, were approved as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: There were no comments from the public. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 250 Tank Farm Road. TR 62-14: Review of a tract map to create 35 commercial lots, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; CS-SP zone; Coker Ellsworth Development, LLC, applicant. Phil Dunsmore, Senior Planner, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission adopt a resolution recommending that 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, which he outlined. Commr. Riggs arrived at 6:09 p.m. Transportation Programs Manager Hudson and Natural Resources Manager Hill responded to Commission inquiry regarding transit stops and open space conservation, respectively. Coker Ellsworth, owner, summarized the history of the project. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, noted concerns about the project relating to construction, particularly on agricultural land, during the drought, and about Caltrans and the Airport Attachment 2 PH2 - 9 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 2 Land Use Commission’s known issues with the City’s Land Use and Circulation Element. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Dandekar noted concerns relating to construction upon agricultural land and the apparent inability of the City to achieve 1:1 offset of compromised open space or agricultural lands under current policy structures; requested the addition of a condition requiring the developers to preserve farm land of equal size and quality in a permanent conservation easement, or pay in-lieu fees. Vice-Chair Multari commented that the amount of any such fees would be subject to evaluation by the Natural Resources Manager. Commr. Malak noted concern about the percentage of lot coverage by hardscape; spoke in support of increased open space in landscaping within the project. There were no further comments from the Commission. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Dandekar, to adopt a resolution recommending that 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, with the following revisions: A. Findings Section 1., Item 3., shall be amended to read: 1. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan since any new land uses will require subsequent analysis and the proposed subdivision and public improvements are compatible with Airport Land Use policies. 2. All potentially-significant environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant with proposed mitigation with the exception of Agricultural Resources. Potential impacts to Agricultural Resources were determined to be a significant and unavoidable environmental impact in the 2003 Airport Area Specific Plan EIR and an overriding consideration was adopted, assuming this impact. Development of this site implements appropriate mitigation to help offset environmental impacts by acquiring permanent agricultural land preservation easements. B. Planning Condition 9. shall be added, to read ”All new land uses shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook” C. Planning Condition 10. shall be added, to read “ Applicant shall develop a plan consistent with program 3.3.14 of the Airport Area Specific Plan to provide agricultural land of equal size or quality or pay impact fees that are Attachment 2 PH2 - 10 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 3 reasonably sufficient to meet the objective of program the AASP to the satisfaction of the Natural Resources Manager.” AYES: Commrs. Multari, Dandekar, and Larson NOES: Commrs. Malak and Riggs RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler The motion passed on a 3:2 vote. On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Chair Larson, to eliminate Planning Condition 10. AYES: Commrs. Malak and Larson NOES: Commrs. Dandekar, Riggs, and Multari RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler The motion failed on a 2:3 vote. The Commission recessed at 7:50 p.m. and reconvened at 8:06 p.m. with all Commissioners present. 2. 3 Highland Drive. GENP-1122-2015: Review the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan update, including a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; C/OS-40-PD zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, and Freddy Otte, City Biologist, presented the staff report, recommending that the Commission recommend to the City Council that the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and an Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted, based on findings which he outlined. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Carolyn Huddleston, ECOSLO Board Member, Templeton, summarized activities of the Natural San Luis and SLO Stewards program; commented that overuse, and lack of enforcement and education, have key negative impacts upon the open space. David Blakely, neighboring property owner, SLO, noted concern about the planned location of emergency access routes and the lack of available ranger staff. Joanne Ruggles, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on her experience constructing a home in the vicinity of Bishop Peak; spoke in opposition to the location of the proposed emergency access road. Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on the need for effective signage and emergency procedure education; spoke in opposition to the proposed emergency access road. Attachment 2 PH2 - 11 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 4 Barry Epperson, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on the importance of emergency access for the Peak, particularly on the Foothill Boulevard side; spoke in opposition to the proposed location of the emergency access road. Carol Hall, neighboring property owner, SLO, commented on negative impacts experienced in the neighborhood from disrespectful trail patrons. There were no further comments from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Riggs spoke in support of adding parking/traffic controls to the "good neighbor" section of the Plan, attempting demand reduction, and incentivization of public transit; requested clarification of language relating to discouragement of tourism, removing the reference to “publications”; suggested that night hiking be allowed in other areas of the City to satisfy demand. Transportation Operations Manager Hudson responded to Commission inquiry regarding traffic calming measures. Commr. Dandekar spoke in support of staff exploring all options for emergency access in the Plan. Vice-Chair Multari spoke in opposition to the proposed road location; spoke in support of additional ranger staff, clarification of language relating to discouragement of tourism, and encouragement in general terms of transportation mode shift over time. Commr. Malak concurred; noted support for parking controls, additional ranger staffing, and allowing night hikes in certain areas. Natural Resources Manager Hill clarified that allowing night hikes under a City pilot program would require a municipal code amendment. There were no further comments from the Commission. On motion by Vice-Chair Multari, seconded by Commr. Riggs, to recommend to the City Council that the Bishop Peak Natural Reserve Conservation Plan 2015 Update and an Environmental Determination/Negative Declaration be adopted, with the following revisions: A. Address emergency access alternatives in the Plan, analyzing the pros, cons, costs and constraints of each in a matrix; B. Do not consider a Patricia Drive-side access; C. Emphasize the City’s intent to encourage transportation mode shift, in general terms, consistent with the LUCE; Attachment 2 PH2 - 12 Draft Planning Commission Minutes May 27, 2015 Page 5 D. City staff shall work with neighbors on parking control solutions; E. Clarify the intent to reduce the site’s use as a tourist destination; F. Prior to adoption of the next budget, advise the City Council that the Planning Commission considers additional ranger staffing to be a priority. AYES: Commrs. Multari, Riggs, Dandekar, Malak, and Larson NOES: None RECUSED: None ABSENT: Commrs. Draze and Fowler The motion passed on a 5:0 vote. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 3. Staff a. Deputy Community Development Director Davidson gave a forecast of upcoming agenda items, noting that the June 10, 2015, meeting will be cancelled. 4. Commission Chair Larson noted, for the record, the importance of addressing the Commission’s role in water conservation planning and policy in the near future. ADJOURMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 10:08 p.m. Respectfully submitted by, Erica Inderlied Recording Secretary Attachment 2 PH2 - 13 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH2 - 14 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 3 PH2 - 15 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 3 PH2 - 16 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 3 PH2 - 17 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 3 PH2 - 18 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 3 PH2 - 19 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 3 PH2 - 20 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 3 PH2 - 21 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 commer cial 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 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 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 3 PH2 - 37 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 3 PH2 - 38 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 3 PH2 - 39 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 3 PH2 - 40 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 3 PH2 - 41 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 3 PH2 - 42 PH2 - 43 PH2 - 44 RESOLUTION NO . 9728 (2005 Series ) A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO ALLOWING FOR THE PAYMENT OF A FEE IN-LIEU O F DEDICATING OPEN SPACEAS REQUIRED BYTHE AIRPORT ARE A SPECIFIC PLA N WHEREAS,the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2 .3 and LU 2 .3 .1 ) requires thepreparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and furthe r development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan ; an d WHEREAS,the City GeneralPlan includes policies for greenbelt protection includin g Land Use Element Policy 7 .4, which says that an Airport Area annexation shall not take effect unless the annexed area helps protect an appropriate part of thegreenbelt near the Airport Are a either by dedicating open space or by paying an in-lieu fee, which shall be used to secur e greenbelt open space ; an d WHEREAS,the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area an d MargaritaSpecific Plans and Facilities Master Plans identifies conversion of primeagricultura l land as a significant and unavoidable impact of the project (Impact LU-5), and requires mitigation for thisimpact in the form of dedications of open space land at a ratio of 1 :1, or the payment of an in-lieu fee (Mitigation Measure LU-5 .1); an d WHEREAS,based on recent negotiations for suchopen space acquisitions in the are a south of the Airport staff has determined that the in-lieu fee should be set at $2,500 per acre , which is an amount sufficientto allow the City to acquire greenbelt open space at a ratio of a t least 1 :1 ; an d WHEREAS,staff has determined that the most effective and efficient manner fo r collecting an in-lieu fee is through the construction permit process, which provides appropriat e accounting and tracking measures to ensure full payment of the required fees ; and WHEREAS,on June 14, July 26, and August 23, 2005, the Council held public hearing s to considerthe recommendations staff, and to considerthe Specific Plan text which incorporate s the open space dedication requirements ; an d WHEREAS,the Council has duly considered all evidence, including the testimonyo f interested parties, and the evaluation and recommendations of the PlanningCommission an d staff, presented at saidhearings . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Lui s Obispo as follows : Section 1 .The open space in-lieu fee for Airport Area development shall be as follows : A . New floor area shall mean the gross floor area, measured in square feet, of a development project, minus any existing floor area that is eliminated by th e proposed project . R9728 Attachment 5 PH2 - 45 Resolution No . 9728 (2005 Series ) Page 2 B . Development in the Airport Area that has not met its open space dedicatio n requirement throughprovisions of a pre-annexation agreement established prior t o this resolution, or through the dedication of open space land, or conservatio n easements, in a mannerconsistent with Land Use Element Policy 7 .4, shall pay an in-lieu fee as calculated below per 1,000 square feet of new floor area : 1,000 Square FeetOpenSpaceIn-Lieu Fee Per KSF) Fe e Per KS F Business Park Service Commercia l Maunfacturing 39 0 57 4 522 C.Developmentprojects that dedicate land to satisfy a portion of their open spac e dedication requirement shall pay a pro-rated share of the in-lieu fee . D.Fees shall be assessed based onthe application date of the building permi t application and collected with building permit issuance . On motion of Council Member Settle, seconded by Vice Mayor Ewan, and on th e following roll call vote : AYES :Council Members Brown and Settle, Vice Mayor Ewan and Mayo r Romero NOES :Council Member Mulhollan d ABSENT :Non e The foregoing resolution was passed andadopted this 23 `1 day of August 2005 . MayorDavid F . Romero ATTEST : Attachment 5 PH2 - 46 Resolution No . 9728 (2005 Series ) Page 3 APPROVED AS TOFORM : Jona n Lowel l City Attorney Attachment 5 PH2 - 47 THIS PAGE IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK PH2 - 48 Attachment 6 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO APPROVING 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 formulating and forwarding recommendations to the City Council regarding TR/ER 65-14, a tentative tract map subdividing an approximately 20- acre site into 35 lots; and WHEREAS, at the May 27, 2015 public hearing, the Planning Commission recommended the City Council approve the project; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 July 7, 2015, for the purpose of considering the Planning Commission recommendation regarding TR/ER 65-14; and WHEREAS, notices of said public hearing were made at the time and in the manner required by law; and WHEREAS, the City Council reviewed and considered the initial study of environmental impact as prepared by staff and as reviewed by the Planning Commission; and WHEREAS, the City Council 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 City Council 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. PH2 - 49 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 2 TR/ER #65-14 3. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan since any new land uses will require subsequent analysis and the proposed subdivision and public improvements are compatible with Airport Land Use policies. 4. All potentially significant environmental impacts are reduced to less than significant with proposed mitigation. Potential impacts to Agricultural Resources were determined to be a significant and unavoidable environmental impact in the 2003 Airport Area Specific Plan EIR and an overriding consideration was adopted, assuming this impact. However, development of this site implements appropriate mitigation to help offset environmental impacts by acquiring permanent agricultural land preservation easements, thereby reducing potential environmental impacts to less than significant. 5. 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 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. PH2 - 50 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 3 TR/ER #65-14 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 shall 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. 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 PH2 - 51 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 4 TR/ER #65-14 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. 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. PH2 - 52 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 5 TR/ER #65-14 • 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. Prior to issuance of a construction permit, the applicant shall 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 Airport Area Specific Plan or within the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt 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 sufficient to allow the City to acquire conservation easements consistent with the intent of Resolution 9728(2005) and consistent with AASP program 3.3.14. • Monitoring Program: A conservation easement shall be recorded or in-lieu fees shall be paid prior to issuance of construction permits for new development. 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 PH2 - 53 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 6 TR/ER #65-14 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. Conditions: Engineering 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. PH2 - 54 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 7 TR/ER #65-14 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. 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 PH2 - 55 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 8 TR/ER #65-14 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. 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 PH2 - 56 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 9 TR/ER #65-14 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 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 PH2 - 57 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 10 TR/ER #65-14 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 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 prior to recordation of the final map, a covenant, easement or other mechanism in a form subject to the approval of the City Attorney 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 PH2 - 58 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 11 TR/ER #65-14 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 new land uses shall be reviewed for compliance with the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook. 6. 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 entering any contractual obligation to purchase, lease, rent, or otherwise occupy any property or properties within the airport area. 7. 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. 8. 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. PH2 - 59 Resolution No. _____ (2015 Series) Attachment 6 Coker Ellsworth Page 12 TR/ER #65-14 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. 9. 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 or annul, the approval by the City of this subdivision, and all actions relating thereto, including but not limited to environmental review. Upon motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: REFRAIN: ABSENT: The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2015. Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney PH2 - 60 4 ti Z:. ro Z is L u,, r) rr m CD > -a r) 0 m rD v Ln "f X, W -n 0 C- F-1 m Lr Ix F— V;, W m 1 0 < V) C:7 m ti Ln css NAP M tsry co U) LA -Ja ITI Z > n Z CZ ozo 0 -0 sfr -rl r- VI V, j > 0 ---� III 7,- Z g�z Z' IN. Nl Nj NO LD kv % !D -j W > Ln m V j < Gn ryl LA -3 L") 0 :3 Ln X F4 < ci C �u im Lu r--- fa I! to EM n L� F H Uri I Z A C) FT] c- ]I LA rj P,J M iiii ell T, CL L1 in F-J r: 9tI my •:3 W, t-.j a) co ET 0 u,, r) rr m CD > -a r) 0 m rD v Ln "f X, W -n 0 C- F-1 m Lr Ix F— V;, W m 1 0 < V) C:7 m ti Ln css NAP M tsry co U) LA -Ja ITI Z > n Z CZ ozo 0 -0 sfr -rl r- VI V, j > 0 ---� III 7,- Z g�z Z' IN. Nl Nj NO LD kv L-1 w n e-) W > Ln m V j Gn ryl LA -3 L") 0 :3 Ln X F4 C �u im Lu r--- fa EM n L� F H Uri I Z FT] c- ]I LA w P,J ILA ell F-J r: 9tI my W, a) co July 7, 2015 Applicant: Coker Ellsworth 250 Tank Farm Road A Commercial Subdivision proposing 35 lots 1 Planning Commission Action Adopt a resolution approving the tract map based on findings and subject to conditions including the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. 2 Mattress Store 3 City Limit AASP Boundary Project Site 4 5 Airport Area Specific Plan Service-Commercial Zoning was implemented in 2007 “Areas designated Service Commercial are generally for storage, transportation, and wholesaling type uses, as well as certain retail sales and business services that may be less appropriate in other commercial designations.” The proposed subdivision is intended to allow for future development of land uses that are consistent with the AASP. 6 Environmental Review 1.Aesthetics: Detention Basin 2.Air Quality: General Construction, dust etc. 3.Land Use: Airport Safety Zones, Ag/Open Space 4.Cultural Resources: Standard Mitigation 5.Hazards: Former Unocal Contamination 7 Public Improvements Tank Farm Road 8 AASP Open Space/ Mitigation •Resolution No. 9728 •Implements AASP policies •Requires land dedication at a ratio of 1:1 or payment of in-lieu fee based on new development •Fee to be collected at building permit issuance •Mitigation reduces impact to Ag land to less than significant 9 Airport Safety Zones 10 Bike and Ped Connections 12 Bike and Ped Connections 13 Examples of buffered bike lanes Recommendation As recommended by the Planning Commission, adopt a resolution approving the tract map based on findings and subject to conditions including the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Review. 15 CEQA: Public Resources Code 21083.3 (b) 16 "If a development project is consistent with the general plan of a local agency and an environmental impact report was certified with respect to that general plan, the application of this division to the approval of that development project shall be limited to effects on the environment which are peculiar to the parcel or to the project and which were not addressed as significant effects in the prior environmental impact report, or which substantial new information shows will be more significant than described in the prior environmental impact report” 17 18 Findings for Subdivision Exceptions 1.That the property to be divided is of such size or shape, or is affected by such topographic conditions (public improvements), that it is impossible, impractical or undesirable, in the particular case, to conform to the strict application of the regulations codified in this title; and 2.That the cost to the subdivider of strict or literal compliance with the regulations is not the sole reason for granting the modification; and 3.That the modification will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, or be injurious to other properties in the vicinity; and 4.That granting the modification is in accord with the intent and purposes of these regulations, and is consistent with the General Plan and with all applicable specific plans or other plans of the City. 19