HomeMy WebLinkAboutFinal 650 Tank Farm Initial Study - Mitigated Neg Dec
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Contact: Rachel Cohen, City Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 2019
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration
prepared by
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Contact: Rachel Cohen, City Planner
prepared with the assistance of
Rincon Consultants, Inc.
1530 Monterey Street, Suite D
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
January 2019
This report prepared on 50% recycled paper with 50% post-consumer content.
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration i
Table of Contents
Initial Study ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1. Project Title ......................................................................................................................... 1
2. Lead Agency Name and Address ......................................................................................... 1
3. Contact Person and Phone Number ................................................................................... 1
4. Project Site Location ........................................................................................................... 1
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address ................................................................................. 1
6. General Plan Designation/Zoning ....................................................................................... 4
7. Description of Project ......................................................................................................... 4
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting .................................................................................... 8
9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required .......................................................... 8
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected .........................................................................................13
Determination ......................................................................................................................................13
Environmental Checklist .......................................................................................................................15
1 Aesthetics ..........................................................................................................................15
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources ..................................................................................19
3 Air Quality .........................................................................................................................21
4 Biological Resources ..........................................................................................................31
5 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................................47
6 Geology and Soils ..............................................................................................................53
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions ...............................................................................................59
8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials ....................................................................................65
9 Hydrology and Water Quality ...........................................................................................73
10 Land Use and Planning ......................................................................................................81
11 Mineral Resources ............................................................................................................83
12 Noise .................................................................................................................................85
13 Population and Housing ....................................................................................................97
14 Public Services ...................................................................................................................99
15 Recreation .......................................................................................................................103
16 Transportation/Traffic ....................................................................................................105
17 Tribal Cultural Resources ................................................................................................123
18 Utilities and Service Systems ..........................................................................................125
19 Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................133
Mitigation Summary ...........................................................................................................................137
References ..........................................................................................................................................154
Bibliography ................................................................................................................................154
List of Preparers ..........................................................................................................................157
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
ii
Tables
Table 1 Summary of Conceptual Project ......................................................................................... 6
Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds ................................................23
Table 3 Maximum Quarterly Construction Emissions ...................................................................25
Table 4 Operational Emissions Comparison ..................................................................................26
Table 5 Mitigated Operational Emissions Comparison .................................................................26
Table 6 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions .........................................................................62
Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases .........................................................63
Table 8 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation (Less
than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment ...........................................................................................87
Table 9 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term Operation
(Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment .............................................................87
Table 10 California Department of Transportation Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria ..........88
Table 11 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment ...........................................91
Table 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment .......................................................93
Table 13 Average Daily Trips on Study Area Roadways – Existing and Existing Plus Project ..........94
Table 14 Average Daily Trips on Study Area Roadways – Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project95
Table 15 Estimated Project Traffic Trip Generation ......................................................................109
Table 16 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Existing and Existing Plus Project ...............110
Table 17 Peak Hour Intersection Queues – Existing and Existing Plus Project ..............................112
Table 18 Roadway Segments AM Peak Hour MMLOS – Existing Plus Project ...............................113
Table 19 Roadway Segments PM Peak Hour MMLOS – Existing Plus Project ...............................113
Table 20 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project ....115
Table 21 Peak Hour Intersection Queues - Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project...................116
Table 22 Roadway Segments AM Peak Hour MMLOS1 – Cumulative Plus Project .......................118
Table 23 Roadway Segments PM Peak Hour MMLOS1 – Cumulative Plus Project ........................119
Table 24 Estimated Wastewater Generation ................................................................................128
Table 25 Comparison of City Water Supply to Project Use ...........................................................129
Table 26 Estimated Solid Waste Generation .................................................................................131
Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location ................................................................................................................ 2
Figure 2 Project Location .................................................................................................................. 3
Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan ........................................................................................................... 5
Table of Contents
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration iii
Figure 4 Off-Site Access Improvement Locations ............................................................................. 7
Figure 5 Site Photo Key ..................................................................................................................... 8
Figure 6 Site Photos ........................................................................................................................10
Figure 7 Site Photos ........................................................................................................................11
Figure 8 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types ....................................................................33
Figure 9 Top of Bank/Edge of Riparian Dripline and Setbacks........................................................35
Figure 10 San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Safety Zones and Runways ..........................................68
Figure 11 FEMA Flood Hazard Area ..................................................................................................77
Appendices
Appendix A Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Calculations
Appendix B Biological Resource Assessment (BRA) & Jurisdictional Delineation
Appendix C Cultural Resources Technical Report and Paleontological Resources Survey (JD)
Appendix D Sound Level Assessment and Construction Noise Estimates
Appendix E Multimodal Draft Transportation Impact Study (TIS)
Appendix F Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
iv
This page intentionally left blank.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 1
Initial Study
1. Project Title
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
2. Lead Agency Name and Address
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
3. Contact Person and Phone Number
Rachel Cohen, Associate Planner
(805) 781-7574
4. Project Site Location
The project site is a 12.75-acre property, located in the southern portion of the City of San Luis
Obispo. The property is located at 650 Tank Farm Road, north of the intersection of Tank Farm Road
and Santa Fe Road. The property is comprised of Assessor Parcel Number (APN): 053-421-005.
Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site, and Figure 2 shows the project site within
the local context.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address
Project Sponsor
Agera Grove Investments, LLC
4927 Calloway Drive
Bakersfield, California 93312
Project Sponsor’s Representative
RRM Design Group
Pam Ricci
3765 South Higuera Street, Suite 102
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
2
Figure 1 Regional Location
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 3
Figure 2 Project Location
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
4
6. General Plan Designation/Zoning
The project site is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and currently includes three
separate land use/zoning designations with a Specific Plan overlay. The site includes 3.25 acres of
Business Park (BP), 6.85 acres of Medium Density Residential (R-2), and 2.65 acres of Open Space
(OS). As identified in the AASP Land Use Program and Development Capacities Table 4-1, the R-2
designation supports a capacity of 10.9 units per acre, and the BP designation supports a capacity of
0.20 floor area ratio (FAR). Therefore, the existing development potential of the site is
approximately 75 units and 28,300 square feet of non-residential development.
7. Description of Project
The project includes a General Plan Amendment, a rezone of the property and a Specific Plan
Amendment to the AASP, a Conditional Use Permit for a mixed-use project within the C-S-SP zone,
approval of a parking reduction request, and approval of a mobile home park conversation
conversion impact report. The General Plan Amendment is requested to make changes to the
project site’s land use designation in the City’s Land Use Element. Associated text amendments to
the AASP would include the following:
1. Revise Figure 4-1 in the AASP to the land use designation map of the AASP to designate the
3.25-acre BP portion of the site and the 6.85-acre MDR to S-M; change the zoning of the
3.25-acre Business Park (BP-SP) portion of the site and the 6.85-acre Medium Density
Residential (R-2-SP) portion of the site to C-S-SP as depicted in Figure 2;
2. Update the AASP area build-out statistics in Table 4.1;
3. Add a note to Section 4.2.2 “Service Commercial” to stipulate that the development of this
specific site would be for a commercial and residential mixed-use project with a
predominant residential component; and
4. Strike the reference to the mobile home park development in the discussion of Section 4.2.6
“Medium Density Residential (R-2).”
The project would rezone the Business Park portion of the site (3.25 acres), and the Medium-
Density Residential portion of the site (6.85 acres). The rezoning would result in a net site area of
10.1 acres designated Service Commercial with the Specific Plan overlay (C-S-SP). The 2.65-acre
remainder of the 12.75-acre site would remain zoned as Conservation Open Space (C/OS-SP) and
includes the site’s two creek corridors.
The project proposes approximately 17,500 square feet of commercial space and 249 residential
units. Conceptual site plans for the project site, depicted in Figure 3, reflect the development of 15
three-story residential buildings comprised of studios, one and two bedrooms on the northern
portion of the project site, and four three-story mixed-use buildings containing 17,500 square feet
of commercial use, and 13,530 square feet of residential use on the southern portion of the project
site. Table 1 shows a breakdown and summary of the project buildings, parking spaces, and square
footages reflected in the conceptual site plan.
Initial Study
DRAFT │ Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 5
Figure 3 Conceptual Site Plan
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
6
Table 1 Summary of Conceptual Project
Buildings
Residential 15 buildings
Mixed-Use 4 buildings
Commercial 17,500 square feet
Residential 13,530 square feet
Unit Mix 249 total (including mixed use units)
Studios 55
One Bedroom 52
Two Bedroom 142
Parking
Required1 500 407 spaces
Provided 500 407 500 spaces (144 garage and 356 surface/guest)
1 Mixed-Use Parking Reduction (30% of standard commercial requirement) of 25 spaces is applied.
Other Project Components
The conceptual site plan for the project includes an indoor/outdoor clubhouse near the center of
the site, a pool and an outdoor recreational space adjacent to the clubhouse, and a landscape buffer
zone/water collection basin located between the four mixed-use buildings and the 15 residential
buildings. There is an existing water well on the project site, which may be used for future non-
potable water use, depending on City review of water quality testing data from the well. If not
utilized for non-potable water, the City would require that this well be destroyed (capped or
abandoned) consistent with all applicable State and local requirements or dedicated to the City for
water quality and groundwater monitoring.
Potential Off-Site Access Improvements
The conceptual site plan for the project includes potential access to the project site through the
Digital West property to the west and through the adjacent property to the east (APN 053-421-004).
Access to the project site through the Digital West property to the west may involve modifications,
including widening, to the existing crossing of Acacia Creek along the western portion of the project
site. Access to the project site through the property to the east would involve construction of a new
creek crossing over Orcutt Creek along the southeastern portion of the project site. The potential
Orcutt Creek crossing would provide a connection to the existing Tank Farm Road/MindBody
signalized intersection. In addition, development of the project site under the proposed project may
include a pedestrian/bicycle access path from the northern site boundary to the existing
pedestrian/bicycle paths at the Damon Garcia-Sports Fields. The locations of these proposed and
potential improvements are shown in Figure 4.
Construction/Demolition
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would include re-grading of the project site
to raise building ground elevations above the existing 100-year floodplain (as discussed in Section 9,
Hydrology and Water Quality). Re-grading the project site to accommodate future development is
anticipated to require approximately 25,000 cubic yards of fill material.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 7
Figure 4 Off-Site Access Improvement Locations
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
8
The existing vacant 35 coaches on the project site would be hauled off-site for removal; no on-site
demolition is proposed. 13 of the existing mobile units are occupied by rental tenants with limited
leases based on the commencement of the project. The project includes approval of a mobile home
park Conversion Impact Report (CIR), which documents replacement housing assistance activities,
pursuant to Section 5.45.030 of the Conversion Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 5.45.150 of the City
Municipal Code, current tenants would be given priority for renting units in the new development.
All of the existing mobile units would be vacated pursuant to the limited leases with the property
owner prior to development of the project site. The applicant intends to donate the existing on-site
coaches to the Cal Poly Agricultural Department or other local recipients.
8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting
The project site is located within the AASP, south of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP). The
surrounding land uses and adjacent properties are described below. Photos of the site and
surrounding areas are shown in Error! Not a valid bookmark self-reference., Figure 6, and Figure 7,
respectively.
North. The site is bounded to the north by Damon Garcia-Sports Fields, a recreational area with
open grass fields and trees.
East. The land immediately adjacent to the east is generally vacant and undeveloped, and
includes Orcutt Creek. East of Orcutt Creek is parking for the Damon Garcia-Sports Fields and
the SESLOC Federal Credit Union property. A single-family residence is located along Tank Farm
Road, southeast of the site.
South. The site is bounded by Tank Farm Road to the south. United Rentals, a
commercial/industrial site operating with equipment rentals, is located across the road.
West. To the immediate west of the site, the land is generally undeveloped around Acacia
Creek. West of Acacia Creek, the land is partially paved, and vacant. A few structures and
remnants of an industrial yard are located to the northwest, and a gravel parking area is located
to the southwest.
9. Other Public Agencies Whose Approval is Required
The City of San Luis Obispo is the lead agency for the project. Development of the project site under
the proposed project would be required to comply with the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) Post Construction Stormwater Requirements for redeveloped sites. In areas located in
identified Special Flood Hazard Areas, any fill to remove sections or elevate areas above the Base
Flood Elevation (BFE) would require a Letter of Map Change (LOMR-F) be submitted to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Future development of the project site, including
widening of Tank Farm Road along the project’s frontage and the potential off-site access
improvement areas identified in Figure 4 may require work within Acacia Creek and/or Orcutt Creek.
As such, future development under the proposed project may require permitting per Section
401/404 of the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the RWQCB.
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 9
Figure 5 Site Photo Key
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
10
Figure 6 Site Photos
Initial Study
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 11
Figure 7 Site Photos
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
12
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 13
Environmental Factors Potentially Affected
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving at least
one impact that is “Potentially Significant” or “Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation
Incorporated” as indicated by the checklist on the following pages.
□ Aesthetics □ Agriculture and
Forestry Resources
■ Air Quality
■ Biological Resources ■ Cultural Resources ■ Geology and Soils
□ Greenhouse Gas
Emissions
□ Hazards and
Hazardous Materials
■ Hydrology and Water
Quality
□ Land Use and Planning □ Mineral Resources ■ Noise
□ Population and Housing □ Public Services □ Recreation
■ Transportation/Traffic □ Tribal Cultural
Resources
■ Utilities and Service
Systems
■ Mandatory Findings
of Significance
Determination
Based on 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 to 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.
□ 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” or
“potentially significant unless mitigated” impact on the environment, but at least one
effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable
legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier
analysis as described on attached sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
□ I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the
environment, because all potential significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 15
Environmental Checklist
1 Aesthetics
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect on a
scenic vista? □ □ ■ □
b. Substantially damage scenic resources,
including but not limited to, trees, rock
outcroppings, and historic buildings
within a state scenic highway? □ □ □ ■
c. Substantially degrade the existing visual
character or quality of the site and its
surroundings? □ □ ■ □
d. Create a new source of substantial light or
glare that would adversely affect daytime
or nighttime views in the area? □ □ ■ □
Setting
The City’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element and Circulation Element assign scenic
value ratings of ‘moderate’ and ‘high’ to several roadways in the City, based on the availability of
views of scenic resources from these public viewpoints. According to the General Plan, the segment
of U.S. Highway 101 (U.S. 101) through the City of San Luis Obispo is identified as having moderate
and high scenic value (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a). The City’s General Plan Conservation and
Open Space Element identifies Tank Farm Road has having high scenic value west of the intersection
with Santa Fe Road, and moderate scenic value east of the intersection with Santa Fe Road. As
shown on Figure 11, Scenic Roadways and Vistas, in the City’s General Plan Conservation and Open
Space Element, Tank Farm Road west of Broad Street has a “high or moderate scenic value outside
city limit” (City of San Luis Obispo 2014a). The Conservation and Open Space Element does not
identify any “cones of view” or other important scenic vistas in the project site vicinity.
Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?
c. Would the project substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and
its surroundings?
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
16
The project site is located at the intersection of Tank Farm Road and Santa Fe Road on the north
side of Tank Farm Road, and the project’s proposed frontage would be along the moderate/high
scenic value portion of Tank Farm Road, east west of the intersection with Santa Fe Road Broad
Street. Although the project site is located along the moderate scenic value portion of Tank Farm
Road, the project site is visible from the high scenic value section of Tank Farm Road west of the
intersection with Santa Fe Road. Therefore, the analysis below discusses both the moderate and
high scenic value views from Tank Farm Road.
Existing public views of the project site from Tank Farm Road generally consist of vegetation within
the creek corridors in the foreground, hillsides to the north and east in the background, and urban
development to the east. Views of the project site from the moderate scenic value portion of Tank
Farm Road include on-site vegetation and existing mobile homes in the foreground, and hillsides in
the background. Views of the project site from the high scenic value portion of Tank Farm Road
include, open space and trees in the foreground, and existing developed land uses to the east of the
site, including commercial structures, in the background.
The project would modify the foreground and middle ground views from Tank Farm Road by
constructing new structures up to three stories in height, with frontage on Tank Farm Road. The
conceptual site plan (see Figure 3) depicts two mixed-use buildings with frontage on Tank Farm
Road, which would become the primary view of the project site from Tank Farm Road. The mixed-
use buildings in the foreground, as well as the residential buildings in the background, would block
views of the background hillsides from the moderate scenic value portion of Tank Farm Road
immediately south of the project site. When viewed from the high scenic value portions portion of
Tank Farm Road west of the project site, three-story buildings would block views of other structures
to the east, but would not block views of hillsides or other natural resources.
Although new structures would block views of hillsides from the moderate scenic value portion of
Tank Farm Road immediately south of the project site, these hillsides are not within designated
scenic vistas, and there are no identified scenic “cones of view” through the site. The visual
character of the site would be modified, as the existing mobile homes would be removed and
replaced with buildings up to three stories in height. The project may involve the removal of some
trees on the project site, but would not involve removal of trees in the riparian corridor of Acacia
Creek, which are the primarily visual component of views of the site from the south (refer to Figure
7; tree removal and associated impacts is discussed in detail in Section 5, Biological Resources).
However, this change would not degrade or block any designated high scenic views or otherwise
degrade the existing quality of the site or surroundings, and the project would incorporate on-site
landscaping and vegetation consistent with background views of open space land uses. The project
would be visually consistent with existing and planned development on the east north side of Tank
Farm Road and development along Broad Street to the east of the project site.
The project would be required to adhere to applicable policies and programs in the City’s General
Plan Conservation and Open Space and Circulation Elements, including Circulation Element Policy
Policies 9.1.5 and 9.2.1, which require environmental review to ensure that the City preserves and
improves view from public scenic places. Therefore, the project would not have a significant adverse
effect on a scenic vista, or substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site
and its surroundings.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Aesthetics
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 17
b. Would the project substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees,
rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway?
The project site is located along Tank Farm Road, approximately one and a half miles from U.S. 101,
which is the nearest state highway to the site. The section of U.S. 101 through the City of San Luis
Obispo is classified as an Eligible State Scenic Highway, but is not officially designated (Caltrans
2015). However, due to the distance between U.S. 101 and the project site, there are no available
views of the project site from U.S. 101.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely
affect day or nighttime views in the area?
Existing sources of nighttime lighting in the vicinity of the site include lighting at the existing mobile
home residential uses, streetlights along Tank Farm Road, spillover lighting from surrounding
development (primarily from the commercial properties to the south), light from the headlights of
vehicles traveling along Tank Farm Road, and from the single-family residence to the southeast.
Development of the project site would result in an increase in ambient nighttime lighting through
the addition of parking lot and security/safety lighting, and exterior fixtures associated with
residential and commercial structures. The site would also experience an increase of headlights and
vehicle glare from vehicles accessing the site. In addition, exterior building materials, windows, and
surface paving materials may cause glare that could affect the nearby residence to the southeast.
The project would be required to conform to the City’s Night Sky Preservation Ordinance (Zoning
Regulations Chapter 17.23), which sets operation standards and requirements for lighting
installations. These include limits on outdoor lighting that is misdirected, excess, or unnecessary,
and meeting the minimum requirements of the California Code of Regulations for Outdoor Lighting
and Signs (CCR Title 24, Chapter 6). The project would also be required to comply with City General
Plan policies pertaining to lighting and glare (Policy 9.2.3 Outdoor Lighting), as well as the City’s
Community Design Guidelines. Prior to development of the site under the proposed project, the
applicant would also be required to provide an overall lighting plan that demonstrates that the
project complies with the requirements of City Ordinance No. 17.18.030, which prohibits lighting or
illuminated devices that would create glare which results in a hazard or nuisance on other
properties. The lighting plan for any subsequent development under the project would be required
to be reviewed and approved by the Architectural Review Committee (ARC) prior to issuance of
building permits. Compliance with applicable City policies and regulations would ensure that
impacts associated with the creation of new sources of exterior lighting and glare would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
18
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 19
2 Agriculture and Forestry Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland,
Farmland of Statewide Importance
(Farmland), as shown on maps prepared
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and
Monitoring Program of the California
Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural
use or a Williamson Act contract? □ □ □ ■
c. Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause
rezoning of, forest land (as defined in
Public Resources Code Section 12220(g));
timberland (as defined by Public Resources
Code Section 4526); or timberland zoned
Timberland Production (as defined by
Government Code Section 51104(g))? □ □ □ ■
d. Result in the loss of forest land or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
e. Involve other changes in the existing
environment which, due to their location
or nature, could result in conversion of
Farmland to non-agricultural use or
conversion of forest land to non-forest
use? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The project site is developed with a mobile home park and vacant paved parking lot. The
Department of Conservation’s Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program classifies the project site
as Urban and Built Up Land (DOC 2016).
Discussion
a. Would the project convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, Farmland of Statewide
Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping
and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
20
b. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act
contract?
c. Would the project conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined
in Public Resources Code Section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code
Section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code
Section 51104(g))?
d. Would the project result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use?
e. Would the project involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their
location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland to non-agricultural use?
There is no agriculturally-zoned land, land enrolled in a Williamson Act Contract, or timber or forest
lands on the project site, and the site is not a part of any timber harvesting plans or zones (CALFire
2017). Therefore, the project would not convert agricultural land to non-agricultural use, conflict
with existing zoning for agricultural use, convert forest land to non-forest use, or conflict with
existing zoning for forest land.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 21
3 Air Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Conflict with or obstruct implementation
of the applicable air quality plan? □ □ ■ □
b. Violate any air quality standard or
contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation? □ ■ □ □
c. Result in a cumulatively considerable net
increase of any criteria pollutant for
which the project region is non-
attainment under an applicable federal or
state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which
exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)? □ ■ □ □
d. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial
pollutant concentrations? □ ■ □ □
e. Create objectionable odors affecting a
substantial number of people? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City of San Luis Obispo is in the South Central Coast Air Basin (SCCAB), which is under the
jurisdiction of the San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (SLOAPCD). SLOAPCD
monitors air pollutant levels to assure that air quality standards are met, and if they are not met,
develops strategies to meet the standards. Depending on whether the standards are met or
exceeded, the air basin is classified as being in “attainment” or as “non-attainment.” SLOAPCD is in
non-attainment for the 24-hour state standard for particulate matter (PM10) and the eight hour
state standard for ozone (O3) (SLOAPCD 2015).
The major sources of PM10 in the SCCAB are agricultural operations, vehicle dust, grading, and dust
produced by high winds. Additional sources of particulate pollution include diesel exhaust; mineral
extraction and production; combustion products from industry and motor vehicles; smoke from
open burning; paved and unpaved roads; condensation of gaseous pollutants into liquid or solid
particles; and wind-blown dust from soils disturbed by demolition and construction, agricultural
operations, off-road vehicle recreation, and other activities. Ozone is a secondary pollutant that is
formed by a reaction between nitrogen oxides (NOX) and reactive organic gases (ROGs) in the
presence of sunlight. Therefore, ozone levels are dependent on the amount of these precursors. In
the SCCAB, the major sources of ROGs are motor vehicles, organic solvents, petroleum production,
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
22
and pesticides. The major sources of NOX are motor vehicles, public utility power generation, and
fuel combustion by various industrial sources (SLOAPCD 2015).
Construction Emissions Thresholds
The SLOAPCD has developed specific daily and quarterly quantitative thresholds that apply to
projects within the SCCAB. Daily thresholds are for projects that would be completed in less than
one quarter (90 days). Quarterly thresholds are applicable to the project because construction
would last for more than one quarter. The applicable thresholds from SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook (2012) are described below.
ROG AND NOX EMISSIONS
Quarterly – Tier 1. For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures and Best Available
Control Technology (BACT) for construction equipment. If implementation of the Standard
Mitigation and BACT measures cannot bring the project below the threshold, off-site mitigation
may be necessary; and
Quarterly – Tier 2. For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
6.3 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation of
a Construction Activity Management Plan (CAMP), and off-site mitigation.
DIESEL PARTICULATE MATTER (DPM) EMISSIONS
Quarterly – Tier 1. For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
0.13 tons per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT for construction
equipment; and
Quarterly – Tier 2. For construction projects lasting more than one quarter, exceedance of the
0.32 ton per quarter threshold requires Standard Mitigation Measures, BACT, implementation
of a CAMP, and off-site mitigation.
FUGITIVE PARTICULATE MATTER (PM10), DUST EMISSIONS
Quarterly: Exceedance of the 2.5 tons per quarter threshold requires Fugitive PM10. Mitigation
Measures and may require the implementation of a CAMP.
Operational Emissions Thresholds
SLOAPCD‘s long-term operational emission thresholds are summarized in Table 2.
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 23
Table 2 SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Significance Thresholds
Pollutant
Daily Threshold
(lbs/day)
Annual Threshold
(tons/year)
ROG + NOX (combined)1 25 25
Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM)1 1.25 –
Fugitive Particulate Matter (PM10), Dust 25 25
CO 550 –
1 SLOAPCD specifies that CalEEMod winter emission outputs be compared to operational thresholds for these pollutants.
Source: SLOAPCD 2012
Methodology
SLOAPCD recommends the use of the most recent version of California Emissions Estimator Model
(CalEEMod) (version 2016.3.2) to estimate construction and operational emissions of a project. The
emissions model for the project was based on build out under the proposed project which would
allow up to 249 residential units and 17,500 square feet of commercial space. Because the project
site is currently developed with a mobile home park, existing operational emissions from this use
were estimated and subtracted from the anticipated emissions under the proposed project, to
establish the net increase in criteria pollutant emissions that would occur as a result of
redevelopment of the project site. Trip generation rates for the project were based on the Draft
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting
(Appendix E). The emissions model for the project assumes a maximum area of disturbance of 10.1
acres (12.75-acre project site, less 2.65 acres allocated to open space). In addition, the emissions
modeling assumes import of 25,000 cubic yards of soil to the site during the site preparation phase
of project construction. The CalEEMod results are included in in Appendix A.
The analysis used CalEEMod default values for residential and commercial projects in the SCCAB,
including the construction schedule and equipment. The default construction schedule was
modified for the architectural coating phase, which was extended to overlap with half of the default
building construction phase, because painting is generally completed as buildings within a phase are
completed, rather than subsequent to all building construction. Construction phasing assumptions
are detailed in the CalEEMod output files (refer to Appendix A).
Discussion
a. Would the project conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan?
SLOAPCD adopted the 2001 Clean Air Plan (CAP) in 2002. The 2001 CAP is a comprehensive planning
document which is intended to providence to the SLOAPCD and other local agencies, including the
City of San Luis Obispo, on how to attain and maintain the State standards for ozone and PM10. The
2001 CAP presents a detailed description of the sources and pollutants which impact the
jurisdiction, future air quality impacts to be expected under current growth trends, and an
appropriate control strategy for reducing ozone precursor emissions, thereby improving air quality.
SLOAPCD identifies significant impacts related to consistency with the 2001 CAP by determining
whether a project would exceed the population projections used in the CAP for the same area,
whether the vehicle trips and vehicle miles traveled generated by the project would exceed the rate
of population growth for the same area, and whether applicable land use management strategies
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
24
and transportation control measures from the CAP have been included in the project to the
maximum extent feasible. The consistency of the project with each of these criteria is discussed in
the following paragraphs.
Population Growth Consistency
As discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing, the project’s projected population growth is
within the forecasts in the City’s Housing Element of the General Plan. Development of the project
would add an estimated 498 536 new residents to the City. When added to the existing population
within the City of approximately 46,725 (California Department of Finance 2017), buildout of the
project site under the proposed General Plan Amendment and rezone would increase the City’s
total population to an estimated 47,223 47,261 residents. The 2001 CAP relies on SLOCOG
population data and projections, most recently updated in the 2050 Regional Growth Forecast. The
2050 Regional Growth Forecast population estimate for the City is 48,601 by 2025, the nearest year
after allowable development under the proposed project would be expected to be built, and 50,659
by 2035, the anticipated buildout year of the current General Plan Land Use Element. Because the
project would not cause the City’s population to exceed the population projections associated with
the 2001 CAP, the project would not result in an exceedance of the population projections
contained in the 2001 CAP.
Vehicle Trip Rate Increase and Miles Traveled
The Land Use and Circulation Update EIR (LUCE Update EIR) determined that buildout under the
updated General Plan would result in 1,356,310 daily Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) in 2035. Based
on the CalEEMod analysis (see Appendix A), development of the site under the proposed project
would result in an increase in annual VMT of 3,961,403 4,380,044, or a daily VMT of 10,853 12,000
(annual VMT divided by 365 days per year). Buildout of the project would increase the City’s daily
VMT to 1,367,163 1,356,310, an increase of approximately 0.8 0.9 percent as compared to buildout
under the General Plan as currently zoned. As described above, buildout of the project site under
the proposed project would increase the City’s total population to an estimated 47,223, which is an
estimated population increase of approximately 1.0 percent. Therefore, the potential increase in
total vehicle miles traveled would not exceed the anticipated increase in population, and the
proposed project would be consistent with the CAP assumptions for VMT.
Implementation of Land Use and Transportation Control Measures
Although the project would rezone the site, the site has an existing medium-density residential
zoning designation. Development under the proposed rezone would be consistent with the CAP’s
land use strategies, including locating residential development within an urban area proximate to an
existing roadway, and locating new development near transit services and commercial and retail
shopping areas. Similarly, development under the proposed project description would be consistent
with applicable Transportation Control Measures (TCMs), which encourage co-location of new
development and local transit connections, transit infrastructure and connectivity improvements,
bicycling and bikeway enhancements, and traffic flow improvements. Therefore, the proposed
project would be consistent with applicable land use strategies and TCMs. Overall, the project
would not conflict with the 2001 CAP, and this impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 25
b. Would the project violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or
projected air quality violation?
c. Would the project 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 that exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone
precursors)?
d. Would the project expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations?
Construction Impacts
Temporary construction activities associated with development under the proposed project would
generate fugitive dust, ozone precursor emissions, and diesel exhaust emissions, which would
contribute to the existing San Luis Obispo County nonattainment status for ozone and PM10. Table 3
summarizes the estimated short-term emissions from construction. Table 3 shows maximum
quarterly emissions during construction compared to the applicable SLOAPCD construction
emissions thresholds (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod results and assumptions).
Table 3 Maximum Quarterly Construction Emissions
ROG + NOX
(combined)1
Fugitive PM10
(dust) DPM2
Maximum Construction Emissions 2.3 1.65 tons/quarter 0.65 0.54 tons/quarter 0.11 0.05 tons/quarter
SLOAPCD Significance Threshold 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 2.5 tons/quarter (Tier 1) 0.13 tons/quarter (Tier 1)
Threshold Exceeded? No No No
1 The combined ROG and NOX emissions were derived from the rolling maximum quarterly emissions for “ROG + NOX” from CalEEMod.
2 The DPM estimations were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by
SLOAPCD. This estimation represents a worst case scenario because it includes other PM10 exhaust other than DPM. See Appendix A for
CalEEMod software program output.
Quarterly emissions for Fugitive PM10 and DPM were calculated by dividing maximum annual construction emissions from CalEEMod by
4, since construction activities would extend for a duration exceeding 90 days, as recommended by SLOAPCD.
As shown in Table 3, the maximum quarterly construction emissions would not exceed the
applicable SLOAPCD thresholds for ROG, NOX, PM10, PM2.5, or DPM. Therefore, temporary
construction impacts would be less than significant.
Operational Impacts
Development under the proposed project would result in an increase in vehicle trips that would
generate new criteria pollutant emissions in the region. In addition, operation of new land uses on
the project site would result in ongoing emissions associated with natural gas use and area sources,
such as landscaping, consumption of consumer products, and off gassing from architectural
coatings. Table 4 shows the daily and annual operational emissions associated with the
development under the proposed project compared to the applicable SLOAPCD operational
emissions thresholds (see Appendix A for complete CalEEMod results and assumptions). As
discussed in the Methodology subsection above, operational emissions from the existing uses at the
site were subtracted from the anticipated emissions from new development on the project site, to
determine the overall net operational emissions that would result from the proposed project.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
26
Table 4 Operational Emissions Comparison
ROG + NOX
(combined)
Fugitive PM10
(dust) DPM1 CO
Proposed Project Daily
Emissions 32 28.1 lbs/day 12 10.5 lbs/day 0.7 0.3 lbs/day 73 65 lbs/day
Existing Daily
Emissions 2 3.5 1.4 lbs/day 1 0.0 lbs/day <0.1 lbs/day 7 3.0 lbs/day
Net Daily Emissions 28.5 26.7 lbs/day 11 10.5 lbs/day 0.6 0.3 lbs/day 66 62.0 lbs/day
SLOAPCD Daily
Threshold 25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Threshold Exceeded? Yes No No No
Proposed Project
Annual Emissions 5 4.7 tons/year 2 1.6 tons/year 1 0.1 ton/year 10 10.4
tons/year
Existing Annual
Emissions 1 0.3 ton/year 0.2 <0.1 tons/year 0.0 tons/year 1 0.5 ton/year
Net Annual Emissions 4 4.4 tons/year 1.8 1.6 tons/year 1 <0.1 ton/year 9 9.9 tons/year
SLOAPCD Annual
Threshold 25 tons/year 25 tons/year n/a n/a
Threshold Exceeded? No No n/a n/a
1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD.
This estimate represents a worst case scenario because it includes all PM10 exhaust.
2 Existing emissions reflect area source emissions only, as the project’s net change in vehicle miles traveled are reflected in the
proposed project daily emissions, which are estimated using the net change in vehicle trip generation from the transportation report.
Note: All numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding
As shown in Table 4, daily operational emissions associated with development under the proposed
project would exceed the SLOAPCD 25 lbs/day threshold for ROG + NOX. As discussed in the
SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, projects with the potential to generate at least 25 but less
than 30 lbs/day of combined ROG + NOX should implement at least four mitigation measures from
the Handbook’s mitigation measure list (Table 3-5). Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) requires
implementation of on-site mitigation consistent with SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Table 5 shows the daily and annual operational emissions associated with the development under
the proposed project with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a).
Table 5 Mitigated Operational Emissions Comparison
ROG + NOX
(combined)
Fugitive PM10
(dust) DPM1 CO
Proposed Project Daily Emissions 26.1 lbs/day 9.3 lbs/day 0.3 lbs/day 56.8 lbs/day
Existing Daily Emissions 2 1.4 lbs/day 0.0 lbs/day <0.1 lbs/day 3.0 lbs/day
Net Daily Emissions 24.7 lbs/day 9.3 lbs/day 0.2 lbs/day 53.8 lbs/day
SLOAPCD Daily Threshold 25 lbs/day 25 lbs/day 1.25 lbs/day 550 lbs/day
Threshold Exceeded? No No No No
1 DPM estimates were derived from the “PM10 Exhaust” and “PM2.5 exhaust” output from CalEEMod as recommended by SLOAPCD.
This estimate represents a worst case scenario because it includes all PM10 exhaust.
2 Existing emissions reflect area source emissions only, as the project’s net change in vehicle miles traveled are reflected in the
proposed project daily emissions, which are estimated using the net change in vehicle trip generation from the transportation report.
Note: All numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 27
As shown in Table 5, daily operational emissions with implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-
1(a) would not exceed SLOAPCD thresholds. Therefore, long-term operational emissions would be
less than significant with Mitigation Measure AQ-1(a) incorporated.
Sensitive Receptors
In accordance with the SLOPACD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, standard mitigation measures for
localized construction impacts on nearby sensitive receptors are required because there are
sensitive receptors are located within 1,000 feet of the project site (the existing residence 100 feet
to the southeast), development of the project site would involve grading of more than 4.0 acres,
and because the South Central Coast Air Basin is in nonattainment for PM10. To address potential
construction impacts per the SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Mitigation Measures AQ-1(b)
and AQ-1(c) are required to reduce localized fugitive dust, ozone precursors, and diesel particulate
matter emissions from development under the proposed project. Therefore, impacts to sensitive
receptors in the project vicinity would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce operational emissions associated with
development under the proposed project, and would ensure that sensitive receptors in the project
vicinity would not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations during construction, which
would reduce potential air quality impacts to a less than significant level. The application of
standard dust control and construction equipment measures would also further reduce regional
construction phase emissions.
AQ-1(a) SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the applicant shall incorporate into the project design the following
emissions reduction measures to ensure daily ozone precursor emissions would not
exceed the SLOAPCD 25 lbs/day threshold:
Use low-VOC architectural coatings for both interior and exterior surfaces on all
buildings.
Use water-based or low-VOC cleaning products.
Provide and require the use of battery powered or electric landscape
maintenance equipment for new development.
In addition, to comply with SLOAPCD guidelines for operational emissions
mitigation, the applicant shall define and incorporate into project design at least
four of the following standard emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Table 3-5). Emission reduction measures shall include,
but would not be limited to:
Provide a pedestrian friendly and interconnected streetscape with good access
to/from the development for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to make
alternative transportation more convenient, comfortable, and safe.
Provide shade over 50% of parking spaces to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
Incorporate traffic calming modification into project roads to reduce vehicle
speeds and increase pedestrian and bicycle usage and safety.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
28
Work with SLOCOG to create, improve, or expand a nearby ‘Park and Ride’ lot
with car parking and bike lockers in proportion to the size of the project.
Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle
queuing and improve the pedestrian environment.
Provide employee lockers and showers to promote bicycle and pedestrian use.
One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees is recommended.
Exceed Cal Green standards by 25% for providing on-site bicycle parking: both
short term racks and long term lockers, or a locked room with standard racks
and access limited to bicyclists only.
Provide improved public transit amenities (covered transit turnouts, direct
pedestrian access, bicycle racks, covered bench, smart signage, route
information displays, lighting, etc.)
Provide bicycle-share program for development.
Provide neighborhood electric vehicles/car-share program for the development.
Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and/or high-efficiency
vehicles to meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2.
Provide vanpool, shuttle, mini bus service (alternative fueled preferred).
Provide child care facility on site.
Implement programs to reduce employee vehicle miles traveled (e.g. incentives,
SLO Regional Rideshare trip reduction program, vanpools, onsite employee
housing, alternative schedules (e.g. 9–80s, 4–10s, telecommuting, satellite work
sites etc.).
Provide a lunchtime shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and/or
coordinate regular food truck visits.
Provide free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family
projects.
Meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2 standards for providing EV charging
infrastructure.
Install 1 or more level 2 or better EV charging stations.
Meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2 standards for building energy efficiency.
Design roof trusses to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water
and photovoltaic panels.
AQ-1(b) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the
following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with
SLOAPCD requirements.
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible;
All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
Environmental Checklist
Air Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 29
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than
one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-
invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall 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;
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used
where feasible;
AQ-1(c) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air
quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at
the project site:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified
motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or
cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification
standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-
Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their
fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
30
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible; and
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate operational
emissions reduction measures into development plans and submit evidence to the
Community Development Department that these provisions would reduce long-
term operational emissions have been reduced to below daily threshold levels prior
to issuance of grading permits. Fugitive dust control measures and standard control
measures for construction equipment shall be shown on grading and construction
plans prior to issuance of permits.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to issuance of grading or construction permits. The contractor or builder shall
designate a person or persons to monitor fugitive dust emissions as necessary
during construction to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20
percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. The Community
Development Department shall site inspect to ensure construction activities are
completed in accordance with approved plans, and development is in accordance
with approved plans prior to occupancy clearance. Community Development staff
shall verify installation of operational emissions reduction measures in accordance
with approved building plans.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
e. Would the project create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people?
The SLOAPCD CEQA Air Quality Handbook (2012) identifies typical land uses that have the potential
to result in odorous emissions and provides recommendations for siting new sensitive land uses in
close proximity to these uses. The project would rezone the site for residential and commercial
uses, which are not identified by SLOAPCD as uses that typically create objectionable odors. In
addition, the project site is surrounded by service commercial/business park land uses, an existing
residence to the southeast, and open space and agricultural operations further to the southwest.
None of these land uses include operations listed in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook as potential
odor-contributing sources. Therefore, development under the proposed General Plan Amendment
and rezone would not result in objectionable odors that would affect a substantial number of
people.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 31
4 Biological Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Have a substantial adverse effect, either
directly or through habitat modifications,
on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local
or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or
by the California Department of Fish and
Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
b. Have a substantial adverse effect on any
riparian habitat or other sensitive natural
community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife
or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? □ ■ □ □
c. Have a substantial adverse effect on
federally protected wetlands as defined by
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal
pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal,
filling, hydrological interruption, or other
means? □ ■ □ □
d. Interfere substantially with the movement
of any native resident or migratory fish or
wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or
impede the use of native wildlife nursery
sites? □ □ ■ □
e. Conflict with any local policies or
ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ □ ■
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
32
This section is based on the information and findings included in the Biological Resources
Assessment (BRA), prepared by Rincon Consultants, Inc. (Rincon) for the project in January 2018,
and updated in August 2018 (Appendix B). The analysis of biological resources within the 12.75-acre
project site and in the potential off-site improvement areas (refer to Figure 4 in Section 2, Project
Description) is based on a search of available biological databases, review of aerial photographs and
topographic maps, and review of multiple literature resources. Reconnaissance-level biological
surveys of the project site were conducted by a Rincon biologist on October 24 and December 19,
2017, to confirm the accuracy of an applicant-provided study, and evaluate the site’s existing
conditions and potential to support special status species and vegetation communities. Additional
vegetation mapping was conducted on August 8, 2018, to include information about the potential
off-site improvement areas. The project site and the potential off-site improvement areas
collectively were evaluated as the study area for biological resources. The biological resources
evaluation also included a formal jurisdictional delineation of the study area conducted on August 8,
2018.
Seven terrestrial vegetation communities/land cover types were identified within the study area:
developed/landscaped/disturbed areas, eucalyptus grove, fennel patches, Bermuda grass lawn,
non-native annual grassland and riparian woodland. These are depicted on Figure 8. The project site
is disturbed and developed due to the existing mobile home park and recreation vehicle (RV)
parking lot and contains Cropley clay, 0-2 percent slopes.
Setting
The project site is generally flat with a gentle slope toward Tank Farm Road. Onsite elevations range
from approximately 147 to 176 feet above mean sea level. The project site is within the South Coast
Ranges (SCoR) geographic subregion of California. The SCoR subregion is a component of the larger
Central Western California geographic region, which occurs within the even larger California Floristic
Province (Baldwin et al., 2012). The project site is within the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed
(USGS, 2017). Acacia Creek runs along the western side of the site. Acacia Creek is an ephemeral
stream that flows in a southerly direction and serves as a tributary to the east fork of San Luis
Obispo Creek. The eastern side of the site is bordered by Orcutt Creek, which is an ephemeral creek
that flows in a southwesterly direction before its confluence with Acacia Creek, south of the project
site. Orcutt Creek crosses through the southeastern corner of the site before it enters a culvert and
flows beneath Tank Farm Road. Natural vegetation within the biological study area is primarily
associated with the drainages and riparian areas along Orcutt and Acacia Creeks. These creeks are
visible on aerial photography and the centerline, tops of bank, and associated riparian vegetation
are depicted in Figure 9.
Discussion
a. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat
modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status in local or
regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Rincon conducted a review of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) occurrences of
special status plants, wildlife, sensitive natural communities (California Department of Fish and
Wildlife [CDFW], 2017), and designated critical habitats from the United States Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) Critical Habitat Portal (2017) from within five miles of the project site. The majority
of the suitable habitat is within the riparian areas, eucalyptus groves, wetland and annual grassland
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 33
Figure 8 Vegetation Communities/Land Cover Types
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
34
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 35
Figure 9 Top of Bank/Edge of Riparian Dripline and Setbacks
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
36
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 37
areas outside the project site, but associated with the potential off-site improvement areas. Special
status plant and animal species with the potential to occur in the study area are discussed in the
subsequent paragraphs.
Special Status Plant Species
Six special status plant species were determined to have potential to occur within the study area
considering the presence of suitable habitat: San Luis Obispo sedge (Carex obispoensis), Hoover’s
button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. hooveri), black-flowered figwort (Scrophularia atrata),
Cambria morning-glory (Calystegia subacaulis ssp. episcopalis), San Luis Obispo owl’s-clover
(Castilleja densiflora ssp. obispoensis), and Adobe sanicle (Sanicula maritima). Suitable habitat
occurs within the creek margins and setbacks around Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek, and the
wetland and grassland on the northern portion of the study area. Ground disturbance in these
margins and/or setbacks, such as with vegetation management activities within the riparian corridor
and stream setbacks, or development within the potential off-site improvement areas, may result in
direct impacts to special status plant species.
Indirect impacts could occur due to the spread of invasive, non-native species from construction
equipment or imported fill materials. Invasive, non-native plant species can out-compete native
species and/or alter habitat towards a state that is unsuitable for special status species. For
example, the spread of non-native weed species can reduce the biodiversity of native habitats
through displacement of vital pollinators, potentially eliminating special status plant species, or
through competition with native plants for water and light. If ground disturbance is anticipated in
the margins or setbacks of Orcutt Creek and/or Acacia Creek, or within the potential off-site
improvement areas, Mitigation Measures BIO-1(a) through BIO-1(c) would be required to reduce
impacts to special status plant species to a less than significant level.
Special Status Animal Species
California Red-Legged Frog. The study area was assessed for the potential to support the California
red-legged frog (CRLF; Rana draytonii), a federally threatened species and California Species of
Special Concern. Development of potential off-site improvements facilitated by the proposed
project would occur in suitable foraging and dispersal habitat for this species. The majority of the
upland habitat within the project site is not suitable for CRLF, and this species would only be
expected to occur in disturbance areas incidentally during periods of overland movement occurring
during or immediately after rainstorms, due to the disturbed nature and limited vegetative cover in
the project footprint. However, due to the proximity of suitable habitat, this species has potential to
disperse into the work area. As a result, there would be potential direct impacts to CRLF individuals
during on-site construction or vegetation management activities. In addition, indirect impacts to
CRLF may occur from general project-related disturbance and noise, as well as from future increased
human occupancy, if individuals are dispersing within the project site. Indirect impacts to water and
habitat quality could occur during construction associated with modifications to the existing
crossing over Acacia Creek or the development of a new crossing over Orcutt Creek. Mitigation
Measures BIO-2(a) through BIO-2(c) would be required to reduce potential impacts to special status
animal species in the work area to a less than significant level.
Western Pond Turtle, Coast Range Newt, and Two-Striped Garter Snake. Orcutt Creek, Acacia Creek,
and the willow riparian habitat in the northwest corner of the site provide potentially suitable
habitat for Western pond turtle (Actinemys [=Emys] marmorata), Coast Range newt (Taricha torosa
torosa), and two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii); all designated as California Species
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
38
of Special Concern. Both creeks and willow riparian habitat occur outside the project’s disturbance
footprint, but within the potential off-site improvement areas. Therefore, habitat for these species
may be directly affected by future development facilitated by the proposed project, including
modifications to the existing crossing over Acacia Creek or the development of a new crossing over
Orcutt Creek. Due to the high degree of disturbance associated with the remainder of the site, these
species are not expected to occur within the disturbance footprint on the project site. Mitigation
Measure BIO-2(d) is required to reduce potential impacts to these species to a less than significant
level.
Steelhead. No water was documented within Acacia Creek during the field surveys where future
development facilitated by the proposed project may occur, and no steelhead individuals were
observed during the field surveys. Potential direct impacts to steelhead in Acacia Creek include
harassment or injury during modifications to the existing crossing if individuals are present within
the work area. Modifications to the existing crossing of Acacia Creek also have the potential to
result in indirect impacts to steelhead habitat quality. However, depending on final design of a
modified crossing over Acacia Creek, the project could result in long-term net improvements to flow
and passage potential at this location by alleviating the choke point currently caused by the existing
undersized structure. Temporary construction activity could result in impacts to habitat and
individuals. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(e) would reduce this potential impact to a less than
significant level.
Nesting Birds. Suitable nesting habitat for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act
(MBTA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) occurs in vegetation on site as well as on
structures within and adjacent to the project site. Future development facilitated by the proposed
project would have the potential to result in direct impacts to nesting birds, including special status
birds, if they are nesting within the project site, potential off-site improvement areas, and/or
immediate vicinity during construction activities. Two State Fully Protected bird species (golden
eagle [Aquila chrysaetos]) and white-tailed kite [Elanus leucurus]), two State Species of Special
Concern bird species (loggerhead shrike [Lanius ludovicianus] and purple martin [Progne subis]), and
one State Endangered and Fully Protected species (American bald eagle [Haliaeetus leucocephalus])
have potential to occur or are known to occur in the vicinity of the project site. The project is not
anticipated to result in removal of substantial foraging habitat for raptors due to the existing
development and disturbed condition of the project site. Mitigation Measure BIO-2(f) would be
required to reduce potential impacts to nesting, migratory, and protected birds to a less than
significant level.
Pallid Bat. The study area contains suitable foraging habitat for pallid bat (Antrozous pallidus), a
California Species of Special Concern. This species could roost in trees and/or crevices within the
site. Potential direct impacts to pallid bats within the project site include removal of roosting habitat
and harassment or injury if they are foraging within the project area during project implementation.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2(g) would be required to reduce potential impacts to roosting bats to a
less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures would reduce impacts to special status plant and animal species to a less
than significant level.
BIO-1(a) Special Status Plant Species Surveys. Prior to the start of vegetation management
activities on the project site, or prior to the start of any construction activity within
potential off-site improvement areas, the developer shall ensure an approved
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 39
biologist conducts surveys for special status plant species throughout suitable
habitat. Surveys shall be conducted when plants with potential to occur are in a
phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the
blooming period for the species), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for
special status plant species throughout suitable habitat within all potential
vegetation management areas. Reference sites must be visited prior to botanical
surveys to confirm target species are detectable. Valid botanical surveys will be
considered current for up to five years; if construction has not commenced within
five years of the most recent survey, botanical surveys must be repeated.
BIO-1(b) Special Status Plant Species Avoidance. If special status plant species are
discovered within the project site or potential off-site improvement areas, an
approved biologist shall flag and fence these locations before construction activities
start to avoid impacts. During vegetation management activities, any special status
plants identified during the survey must be flagged for avoidance.
BIO-1(c) Restoration Plan. If avoidance is not feasible; all impacts shall be mitigated at a
minimum ratio of 2:1 (number of acres or individuals restored to number of acres or
individuals impacted) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A
qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a restoration plan to the City for
approval. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant with the City
verifying that the success criteria have been met. The restoration plan shall include,
at a minimum, the following components:
Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas
to be impacted by habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved];
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values);
Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan [including species to be used, container sizes, seeding
rates, etc.]);
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal
and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year, along with performance standards,
target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored,
enhanced, and/or preserved, and annual monitoring reports to be submitted to
the City for a minimum of five years at which time the applicant shall
demonstrate that performance standards/success criteria have been met;
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to
be, at a minimum, at least 80% survival of container plants and 30% relative
cover by vegetation type;
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
40
An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any
shortcomings in meeting success criteria;
Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency
confirmation; and
Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-2(a) Best Management Practices. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be implemented for project construction activities within the work area.
No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction
activities.
All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed
from the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and
properly disposed of at an appropriate site.
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at
least 50 feet from defined edges of riparian and wetland vegetation, and Acacia
Creek and Orcutt Creek and in a location where a spill would not drain toward
aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to
any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All workers shall be
informed of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged
materials shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or
contaminants shall be cleaned from the project site and recycled or disposed of
to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Prior to construction activities within 30 feet of potentially jurisdictional
features, including Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek, the drainage features shall be
fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry of
construction equipment and personnel unless authorized by the City. Fencing
should be located a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or
top of bank and shall be maintained throughout the construction period for
each phase of development. Once all phases of construction in this area are
complete, the fencing may be removed.
Erosion control and landscaping specifications allow only natural-fiber,
biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the environment
and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to
avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species.
Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a
qualified biologist or a Qualified Storm-water Practitioner such that no runoff
will reach Acacia Creek or Orcutt Creek.
All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow
species that accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open
for the shortest period necessary to complete required work.
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 41
No water will be impounded in a manner to attract sensitive species.
BIO-2(b) Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the initiation of construction
activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project
construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training.
The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing
special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this
program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a
description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of
sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance
measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A
fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all
contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the
project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer documenting they
have attended the training.
BIO-2(c) California Red-legged Frog Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following shall
be implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to CRLF.
A pre-construction survey of the proposed disturbance footprint (within the
project site or potential off-site improvement areas) for California red-legged
frog shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start
of project construction to confirm this species is not present in the work area.
In the event the pre-construction survey identifies the presence of individuals of
CRLF, or if individuals of these species are encountered during construction,
then the applicant shall stop work and comply with all relevant requirements of
the Federal Endangered Species Act prior to resuming project activities.
Only City- and USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities
associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
If activities occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-activity clearance sweep prior to start of project activities on the
morning following any rain events of 0.1 inch or greater.
BIO-2(d) Coast Range Newt, Two-striped Garter Snake, and Western Pond Turtle Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities associated with any off-
site improvements, including modifications to the existing crossing over Acacia
Creek or the development of a new crossing over Orcutt Creek. The survey area
shall include any proposed disturbance area(s) and all proposed ingress/egress
routes. If any of these species are found and individuals may be injured or killed by
work activities, the biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the
project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any coast
range newts, two-striped garter snakes, and/or western pond turtles the shortest
distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be
affected by activities associated with the project.
BIO-2(e) Steelhead – South-central California Coast DPS Impact Avoidance and
Minimization. The applicant shall implement the following to avoid and minimize
potential impacts to steelhead.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
42
Construction associated with the widening of the existing crossing over Acacia
Creek shall be restricted to periods of dry weather from April 16 through
October 31, and shall not be conducted within 48 hours after a rain event of
0.25 inch or greater, or until an approved biologist confirms there is no longer a
chance for flowing water to enter the work area.
Widening of the existing crossing shall follow the design standards developed by
the City of San Luis Obispo and shall be developed in a manner that does not
impede wildlife movement.
BIO-2(f) Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following actions shall be
undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for
nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days
prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus
a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located during the pre-
construction survey or during construction, all construction work shall be
conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the
qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the nest tree
for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet from the nest tree for raptor
species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest
and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the
adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall
confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest
prior to removal of the buffer.
If feasible To account for most nesting birds, removal of vegetation within
suitable nesting bird habitats will should be scheduled to occur in the fall and
winter (between September 16 and February 14 January 31), and after the
young have fledgeding and before the initiation of the nesting season.
If a suspected American bald eagle nest is discovered during the pre-
construction survey, then the applicant shall consult with the City, USFWS, and
CDFW regarding appropriate nest buffers and nest monitoring. If a nest is
discovered with construction underway, a no-activity buffer a minimum of 660
feet from the nest must be implemented, or as otherwise directed by CDFW and
USFWS, until appropriate authorizations are obtained. Any subsequent buffer
adjustments shall be made in consultation with the City, CDFW and USFWS and
shall rely on monitoring observations and activity at the site. Additional
avoidance measures for special status bird nests such as American bald eagle
nests are often required, and would be developed in consultation with the City,
CDFW and USFWS.
The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (Mitigation Measure BIO-2[b])
shall provide good housekeeping practices of equipment and materials that
discourage nests being established within the construction area.
BIO-2(g) Roosting Bat Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following actions shall be
undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to roosting bats:
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 43
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season
(November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics,
as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys
shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of
roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity
colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented, in close coordination
with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow
bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the
structure.
If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat
habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project
site or at an approved location offsite.
Prior to removal of any trees, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming
harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is
found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-
way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied
roost removed, one bat box or alternate roost structure shall be installed in
similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those
which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above
ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Special status species protection plans and surveys
shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted to for review and
approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction permits. Any
required permits shall be obtained from the state and federal agencies prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The Environmental Monitor shall monitor environmental compliance of
the construction activities throughout the construction period or as stipulated in the
species- or resource-specific mitigation measure and provide monitoring reports to
the City.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
b. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the
California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
c. Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined
by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal,
etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
The study area contains riparian habitat, which may be under CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Section
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code. Future development on the project site
facilitated by the proposed project would not result in direct disturbances to Acacia Creek, Orcutt
Creek, or associated jurisdictional areas. However, widening Tank Farm Road along the project site
frontage and the implementation of potential off-site improvements have the potential to result in
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
44
temporary and permanent impacts to jurisdictional aquatic resources, including wetlands, other
waters, and riparian habitats. Approximately 0.14 acre of wetlands and 0.05 acre of other waters
potentially under U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the Regional Water Quality Control
Board (RWQCB) jurisdictions (Clean Water Act Sections 404 and 401, respectively) are present in the
study area (refer to Appendix B). In addition, 1.74 acres of streambed/riparian habitat potentially
subject to regulation by CDFW under Section 1600 et seq. of the CFGC, and RWQCB under Porter-
Cologne are also present. The exact location and area of potential impacts that would result from
implementation of potential off-site improvements are not yet known. However, off-site
improvements would impact these jurisdictional features within the potential off-site improvement
areas. Impacts to jurisdictional areas resulting from implementation of potential off-site
improvements are potentially significant.
The City has established a zoning regulation that requires a 35-foot setback for development off
both Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek. The setback distance is defined in terms of the distance from
the top of bank or edge of riparian drip line, whichever is farther from the creek. Mitigation
Measure BIO-2(a) requires implementation of construction BMPs that would avoid indirect impacts
to the riparian habitat and stream during construction activities. Modification to the existing
crossing over Acacia Creek or the development of a new crossing over Orcutt Creek would be
required to comply with the City’s Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards for creek
crossings. Nevertheless, potential impacts to jurisdictional features and associated riparian habitat
would result.
Mitigation Measures
The following measures would reduce impacts to jurisdictional features and associated riparian
habitat to a less than significant level.
BIO-3 Wetland, Stream, and Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring. Temporary
impact areas shall be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for
each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian
function. Permanent impacts on jurisdictional areas shall be offset through creation,
restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1.
Permitting agencies (CDFW, USACE, RWQCB) may require a higher mitigation ratio
associated with applicable permits. Furthermore, non-native invasive plants in
temporarily-disturbed areas within riparian and wetland habitats and within City’s
35-foot creek setback from Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek shall be removed, and
such areas shall be revegetated using native plants. Any restoration efforts shall
include an invasive plant removal element.
A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required to outline the approach that will be
taken for restoration and habitat creation or enhancement. Once approved, the
applicant will be responsible for Plan implementation, and the City will verify
success of the Plan. The plan Plan shall be prepared by a qualified restoration
ecologist. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
Description of the project/impact site,
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation,
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site,
Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site,
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period,
Environmental Checklist
Biological Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 45
Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site,
Success criteria and performance standards,
Reporting requirements, and
Contingency measures and funding mechanisms.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Crossing structure designs and the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted to for
review and approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction
permits. Any required permits shall be obtained from the state and federal agencies
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The Environmental Monitor shall monitor environmental compliance of
the construction activities throughout the construction period or as stipulated in the
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and provide monitoring reports to the City.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife
corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would result in increased residential
development in proximity to riparian areas along Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek, and the wildlife
corridors associated with these features. However, future development would be designed
consistent with the City’s required 35-foot creek setback from Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek, which
would ensure that development would not result in long-term adverse effects to wildlife utilization
and movement along these riparian areas and associated wildlife corridors.
Construction of potential off-site improvements would potentially result in temporary short-term
impacts to wildlife movement due to equipment access and staging in and around the riparian
corridor. Modification to the existing crossing over Acacia Creek or the development of a new
crossing over Orcutt Creek would be required to comply with the City’s Standard Specifications and
Engineering Standards for creek crossings. Depending on final design of a modified crossing over
Acacia Creek, the project could result in net improvements to flow and passage potential at this
location by alleviating the choke point currently caused by the existing undersized structure and
replacing older asphalt and concrete rubble with materials that facilitate passage. Because the
project site and immediate vicinity are already developed and disturbed, the increase in lighting,
noise, and human activity onsite due to the project would not result in a substantial change or long
term impact to wildlife movement through the region.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources,
such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
The City has established a zoning regulation that requires a 35-foot setback off both Acacia Creek
and Orcutt Creek. The setback distance is defined in terms of the distance from the top of bank or
edge of riparian drip line, whichever is farther from the creek.
Planted and naturally-occurring trees are present in the project site. The project may require
removal of naturally-occurring native trees. The City regulates tree removal within its jurisdiction.
Once the project plans have been finalized, the exact number, type, and locations of trees within
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
46
the project site to be removed, if any, shall be determined. If trees will be removed, the project
applicant would be required to show all tree removals as part of the architectural and landscape
plan submittal. The applicant will be required to develop and implement a tree protection and
replacement plan to ensure the project is consistent with local tree preservation and removal
regulations. As the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances, this impact
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
f. Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural
Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation
plan?
The project site is not located in any adopted Habitat Conservation Plans or Natural Community
Conservation Plans or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Therefore,
there would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 47
5 Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of a historical resource as
defined in §15064.5? □ □ ■ □
b. Cause a substantial adverse change in the
significance of an archaeological resource
as defined in §15064.5? □ ■ □ □
c. Directly or indirectly destroy a unique
paleontological resource or site or unique
geological feature? □ ■ □ □
d. Disturb any human remains, including
those interred outside of formal
cemeteries? □ □ ■ □
The analysis in this section is based on a Cultural Resources Technical Report conducted by Rincon
Consultants in November 2017 and updated in August 2018, and a Paleontological Resources
Assessment conducted by Rincon Consultants in November 2017. The Cultural and Paleontological
studies are included in this Initial Study as Appendix C.
Setting
The project site is located in the Central Coast archaeological region, one of eight organizational
divisions of the state. The Central Coast archaeological region extends from Monterey Bay to Morro
Bay, and includes the County of San Luis Obispo. The project site is located within Chumash
ethnographic territory, which extends from the City of Malibu, north beyond San Luis Obispo, and
inland as far as 42 miles (see Appendix C).
The Hidden Hills Mobilodge and the Lazy Acres RV Storage lot, located on the project site, include
mobile homes and facilities associated with the mobile home park. Historic aerial photographs of
the Mobilodge indicate that it is at least 50 years old, which is the minimum age requirement for
eligibility for the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). In addition, there is a structure
on the proposed eastern off-site improvement area (refer to Figure 4 in Section 2, Project
Description), that appears to be at least 50 years old (refer to Appendix C).
Discussion
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource
as defined in §15064.5?
On October 24, 2017, Rincon performed a search of the California Historical Resources Information
System (CHRIS) from the Central Coast Information Center (CCIC) located at the University of
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
48
California, Santa Barbara (see Appendix C). The search was conducted to identify previously
recorded cultural resources (prehistoric or historic), as well as previously conducted cultural
resources studies within the project site and 0.5-mile radius of surrounding it. The CHRIS search
included a review of the National Register of Historic Places and CRHR. The records search also
included a review of available historic maps and aerial photographs. Rincon also performed a field
survey of the project site on October 30, 2017, to visually observe all exposed ground surfaces for
potential artifacts, and on August 18, 2018 for the potential off-site improvement areas (refer to
Figure 4 in Section 2, Project Description).
The results of the cultural resources records search and pedestrian field survey conducted by Rincon
did not identify any historic cultural resources on the project site. The Hidden Hills Mobilodge
contains mobile homes and facilities infrastructure that are at least 50 years old (NETRonline 2017),
which is the minimum age requirement for eligibility for CRHR. However, mobile homes are not
considered permanent structures and do not qualify as built environment resources under CEQA.
One structure was identified within the proposed eastern off-site improvement area, a single-family
residence located at 660 Tank Farm Road. Historic aerial imagery indicates that this structure was
constructed more than 50 years ago (NETRonline 2017; UCSB 2018). The residence is not designated
for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources or
as a City of San Luis Obispo historic resource and is not located within an existing or potential
historic district. The remaining built environment resources within the project area include the
Hidden Hills Mobilodge, which includes temporary structures. As there are no historic structures on
the project site, future development facilitated by the proposed project would not cause an adverse
change to any historical resource.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological
resource as defined in §15064.5?
The CCIC records search identified 44 previously-conducted cultural resources studies within the
records search area. Of these, two studies included a portion of the project site (see Appendix C). In
addition, the CCIC records search identified eight previously recorded cultural resources within the
records search area (which included the project site and a half mile radius surrounding the site).
None of these resources are located within the project site.
, Although no cultural resources have been identified on the project site, based on the previously-
recorded resources identified in the records search area, previously-undiscovered cultural resources
may be present on the project site or within the adjacent potential off-site improvement areas
(refer to Figure 4 in Section 2, Project Description).
Because future development of the project site under the proposed project would involve grading
of previously-ungraded portions of the site, previously-undiscovered cultural resources may be
unearthed during project construction. Based on the presence of cultural resources in the area
surrounding the project site, general sensitivity, and poor surface visibility during the pedestrian
survey, future development requiring earth-disturbing activities within an approximately 100-foot
(30-meter) radius of the Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek riparian areas, or in the northern potential
off-site improvement area, would require an Extended Phase I (XPI) testing program to explore the
potential for buried cultural deposits. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-
2(c) would reduce this impact to a less than significant level.
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 49
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce impacts to potential cultural resources to
a less than significant level.
CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as
an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to
carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance in the
immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources
that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be
present because the area is a culturally-sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be
on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading,
trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities.
CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must
halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) shall be contacted immediately
to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional
work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be
warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.
CR-2(bc) Extended Phase I (XPI) Testing Program. An If cultural resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities an extended phase I (XPI) testing program,
utilizing standard shovel test pits and/or hand auguring at arbitrary levels, shall be
conducted for development activity that would require ground disturbance within
the potential off-site improvement areas, including riparian areas associated with
the Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek corridors, and in riparian areas immediately
north of the project site in the vicinity of the encounter.
If the XPI program identifies subsurface deposits that cannot be avoided by project
design, a Phase II evaluation program shall be prepared to determine whether
development would significantly impact identified resources.
If the Phase II evaluation program identifies identified resources as significant, a
Phase III data recovery program shall be prepared and implemented. The purpose of
the Phase III data recovery program is to recover, analyze, interpret, report, curate,
and preserve archaeological data that would otherwise be destroyed.
The testing and evaluation programs shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist
prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction permits. The
qualified archaeologist shall monitor compliance with testing and evaluation
program requirements during implementation of the testing and evaluation
programs.
CR-2(c) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must
halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
50
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be contacted
immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under
CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American
consultation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The project applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. If resources are found, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The requirement that construction work be
stopped in the event of discovery of archaeological resources shall be included on
construction plans prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The City shall confirm the qualifications of and approve the applicant’s
choice of a qualified archaeologist. The City shall inspect the site periodically during
grading and demolition to ensure compliance with this measure. The City shall
review construction plans and periodically inspect project construction to ensure
compliance with these measures.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Would the project directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or
unique geological feature?
The Paleontological Resource Assessment (see Appendix C), consisted of a fossil locality record
search at the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County (LACM) and review of existing geologic
maps and primary literature regarding fossiliferous geologic units within the proposed project
vicinity and region. A search of the paleontological locality records at the LACM resulted in no
previously recorded fossil localities within the project boundaries. However, McLeod (2017) reports
that at least two vertebrate localities have been recorded nearby from within older Quaternary
alluvium, which has a similar lithology to the Pleistocene sedimentary deposits that likely underlie
the project area at depth.
Quaternary alluvial sediments mapped at ground surface in the project area are Holocene in age,
and as such have low paleontological sensitivity, and shallow ground disturbance in these areas
would not be expected to impact scientifically significant paleontological resources. However, based
on regional geologic mapping and previously identified fossil localities, these Holocene sediments
may grade into older Pleistocene-aged sediments that have high paleontological sensitivity at as few
as six feet below ground surface. The maximum depth of proposed project ground disturbance is
unknown until project design is finalized. Therefore, any excavations in the project area that disturb
the buried highly sensitive Pleistocene alluvium could result in potential impacts to paleontological
resources. Implementation of Mitigation Measures CR-3(a) through CR-3(e) would reduce this
impact to a less than significant level.
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures would address the potentially significant impacts relating to the
discovery of paleontological resources during project implementation and ground-disturbing
activities. These measures would apply to all phases of project construction that would disturb the
buried Pleistocene alluvium (approximately six feet below ground surface) and would ensure that
any significant fossils present on-site are preserved through the recovery, identification, and
Environmental Checklist
Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 51
curation of previously unrecovered fossils. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-3(a) through
CR-3(c) would reduce potential impacts to paleontological resources to a less than significant level.
CR-3(a) Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing
activities under the project that are greater than six feet in depth, a qualified
professional paleontologist shall be retained to conduct paleontological monitoring
during project ground disturbing activities. The Qualified Paleontologist (Principal
Paleontologist) shall have at least a Master’s Degree or equivalent work experience
in paleontology, shall have knowledge of the local paleontology, and shall be
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.
Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, drilling with
an auger greater than 3 feet in diameter, and other excavation) within previously
undisturbed sediments at depths greater than six feet shall be monitored on a full-
time basis. Monitoring shall be supervised by the Qualified Paleontologist and shall
be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual
who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set forth by the SVP (2010),
which includes a B.S. or B.A. degree in geology or paleontology with one year of
monitoring experience and knowledge of collection and salvage of paleontological
resources.
The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Qualified
Paleontologist. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring
is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend reducing monitoring to periodic
spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be reinstated if any new ground
disturbances are required, and reduction or suspension would need to be
reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist. Ground-disturbing activity that does
not exceed six feet in depth within Quaternary alluvium would not require
paleontological monitoring.
CR-3(b) Fossil Discovery, Preparation, and Curation. In the event that a paleontological
resource is discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert
the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific
significance and collected. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the
lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and
curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along
with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Curation fees are assessed by
the repository, and are the responsibility of the project owner.
CR-3(c) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. At the conclusion of laboratory work and
museum curation, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the
paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The
report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of
the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of
fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The
report shall be submitted to the lead agency(s) for the project. If the monitoring
efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the
designated museum repository.
Plan Requirements, Timing, and Monitoring. The project applicant shall retain the
qualified paleontologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to the
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
52
issuance of any construction related permits, the City shall confirm that the training
of construction personnel has occurred. During initial ground disturbance, the
project applicant shall ensure that the qualified paleontologist is on-site and
monitoring during these activities. The Final Paleontological Monitoring Report shall
be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo once ground-disturbing activities are
finished.
Monitoring. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the City shall confirm the
qualifications of and approve the applicant’s choice of the qualified paleontologist.
The City shall inspect the site periodically during grading and demolition to ensure
compliance with this measure. The City shall review construction plans and
periodically inspect project construction to ensure compliance with these measures.
The City shall review and approval the Final Paleontological Monitoring Report.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries?
Ground disturbing construction activities have the potential to encounter or disturb undiscovered
human remains. If human remains are found, the State of California Health and Safety Code Section
7050.5 requires that no further disturbance occur until the County Coroner has made a
determination of origin and disposition pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 5097.98. In the
event of an unanticipated discovery of human remains, the County Coroner would be notified
immediately. If the human remains are determined to be prehistoric, the coroner would notify the
Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), which would determine and notify a most likely
descendant (MLD). The MLD would complete the inspection of the site within 48 hours of
notification and may recommend scientific removal and nondestructive analysis of human remains
and items associated with Native American burials. The project would adhere to the statutory
requirements of the State Health and Safety Code and Public Resources Code, which would ensure
proper procedures are implemented if human remains are uncovered. Compliance with applicable
State and local regulations regarding handling of human remains would ensure that this impact
would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 53
6 Geology and Soils
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Expose people or structures to potentially
substantial adverse effects, including the
risk of loss, injury, or death involving:
1. Rupture of a known earthquake
fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake
Fault Zoning Map issued by the
State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence
of a known fault? □ □ ■ □
2. Strong seismic ground shaking? □ □ ■ □
3. Seismic-related ground failure,
including liquefaction? □ ■ □ □
4. Landslides? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in substantial soil erosion or the
loss of topsoil? □ □ ■ □
c. Be located on a geologic unit or soil that
is made unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on or
offsite landslide, lateral spreading,
subsidence, liquefaction, or collapse? □ ■ □ □
d. Be located on expansive soil, as defined
in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building Code
(1994), creating substantial risks to life or
property? □ ■ □ □
e. Have soils incapable of adequately
supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems
where sewers are not available for the
disposal of wastewater? □ □ □ ■
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
54
Setting
San Luis Obispo is located in a geologically-complex and seismically-active region. Seismic conditions
have the potential to result in significant harm to both people and property. The Safety Element of
the City General Plan considers the effects of earthquakes, including the rupture of the ground
surface along a fault and the ground shaking that occurs from fault movement, as well as
liquefaction, settlement, erosion, landslides, and other geologic hazards (City of San Luis Obispo
2014b).
Surface Rupture and Ground Shaking
Surface rupture refers to the top of the ground moving unevenly along a fault. It typically occurs
within an area of linear traces along previous ruptures, which mark a fault zone, and often in
concert with movement on adjacent or intersecting faults. Ground shaking refers to the vibration
that occurs in response to displacement along a fault. Typically, ground shaking has a side-to-side
component as well as a vertical component, with the actual movement depending on the type of
fault, a site’s distance from the fault, and the rock and soil conditions at the site.
The Safety Element of the City General Plan shows active or potentially active fault lines in the City.
The nearest active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs northwest/southeast outside of the City
limits, and does not pass through the project site. The Los Osos Fault has been classified as active
within the last 11,000 years. Other faults in the vicinity of San Luis Obispo are the West Huasna,
Oceanic, and Edna faults (City of San Luis Obispo 2014b). Other faults are capable of producing
strong ground motion in San Luis Obispo include the Point San Luis, Black Mountain, Rinconada,
Wilmar, Pecho, Hosgri, La Panza, and San Andreas faults. The San Andreas Fault and the offshore
Hosgri Fault present the most likely source of ground shaking for San Luis Obispo (City of San Luis
Obispo 2014b).
Settlement and Liquefaction
Settlement occurs when the ground supporting part of a structure or facility lowers more than the
rest or becomes softer, usually because ground shaking reduces the voids between soil particles
(often with groundwater rising in the process). Liquefaction is the sudden loss of the soil’s
supporting strength due to groundwater filling and lubricating the spaces between soil particles as a
result of ground shaking. Soils in the San Luis Obispo area with high risk for liquefaction are typically
sandy and in creek floodplains or close to lakes. The likelihood of liquefaction increases with the
strength and duration of an earthquake. The project site is identified in the Safety Element of the
San Luis Obispo General Plan as being located in an area of very high liquefaction potential (City of
San Luis Obispo 2014b). A significant portion of the City is located within this “very high risk”
liquefaction zone. However, few properties in the City have identified a substantial liquefaction risk
once a soils engineer has conducted borings to evaluate the risk. Site-specific liquefaction risks
would be evaluated through a project soils report or engineer of record opinion based on
neighboring reports and underlying mapping.
Slope Stability and Landslides
Slope instability can occur as a gradual spreading of soil, a relatively sudden slippage, a rockfall, or in
other forms. Causes include steep slopes, inherently weak soils, saturated soils, and earthquakes.
Improper grading and man-made drainage contribute to slope instability. Slope instability may
result in gradual or sudden damage to buildings, roads, and utility lines. The project site is relatively
flat, and does not contain slopes or hillsides.
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 55
Discussion
a.1. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most
recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or
based on other substantial evidence of a known fault?
a.2. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving strong seismic ground shaking?
The project would result in the construction of new residential and mixed-use
commercial/residential buildings on the project site. There are no active or potentially active fault
lines crossing the project site. The nearest active fault is the Los Osos Fault, which runs
northwest/southeast outside of the City limits, and does not pass through the project site (City of
San Luis Obispo 2012).
Although no faults have been mapped across the project site, seismic events caused by active and
potentially active faults in the region could result in seismic ground shaking on-site. The City is
within Seismic Zone 4. A seismic hazard cannot be completely avoided in these regions; however,
effects can be minimized by implementing requirements specified in the California Building Code
(CBC). The CBC (incorporates the Uniform Building Code) and the California Division of Mines and
Geology Guidelines for Evaluating and Mitigating Seismic Hazards in California, Special Publication
117 (revised 2008), includes design and construction requirements related to fire safety, life safety,
and structural safety. Compliance with existing building standards would minimize potential safety
hazards from seismic ground shaking, and ensure impacts associated with the project would be less
than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.3. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?
c. Would the project be located on a geologic unit or soil that is made unstable as a result of the
project, and potentially result in on or offsite landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
d. Would the project be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1-B of the Uniform Building
Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life or property?
Development on the project site under the proposed project would be required to comply with the
CBC, the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, and applicable General Plan policies. As discussed
in Items a.1 and a.2 above, development on the project site would be required to comply with
applicable City Municipal Code Requirements and the CBC, which require documentation of soil
characteristics for designing structurally sound buildings to ensure new structures are built to resist
ground shaking, liquefaction risks, and unstable expansive soils. Policy 4.7 of the Safety Element of
the City General Plan states that development may be located in areas of high liquefaction potential
only if a site-specific investigation by a qualified professional determines that the proposed
development would not be at risk from settlement and liquefaction. In addition, the City requires
that preliminary grading and drainage reports would be prepared as part of future development of
the site facilitated by the proposed project. However, because such analyses have not been
completed, development of the site could result in the exposure of people or structures to
liquefaction hazards. Therefore, potential geotechnical hazards would be a potentially significant
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
56
impact. Implementation of Mitigation Measures GEO-1 is required to ensure that the project would
not expose people or structures to adverse geologic effects.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would reduce impacts regarding the project’s
potential geologic hazards.
GEO-1 Site Geotechnical Study. A geotechnical study shall be prepared for the project site
prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction
potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction
analysis procedures. If the site is confirmed to be in an area prone to seismically-
induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction potential
shall be prescribed and implemented. In addition to a liquefaction analysis, the
Geotechnical Study shall include an evaluation of the potential for soil settlement
and soil expansion beneath the project site. All on-site structures shall comply with
applicable methods of State and Local Building Codes.
Future development of the site shall incorporate all applicable engineering
requirements and recommendations as presented in the Geotechnical Study.
Suitable measures to reduce liquefaction, settlement, and soil expansion impacts
may include one or more of the following techniques, as determined by a registered
geotechnical engineer:
Specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
Removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for
liquefaction;
In-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or
Other alterations to the ground characteristics.
Excavation and re-compaction of on-site or imported soils;
Treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to re-
compaction; or
Foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential
settlement such as post tensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in
accordance with the California Building Code.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit a geotechnical study in
accordance with this mitigation measure for approval prior to site development.
Applicable engineering requirements shall be incorporated into project site plans
submitted for approval before the issuance of grading and building permits.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Department shall site
inspect to ensure development is in accordance with approved plans prior to
occupancy clearance. Community Development staff shall verify installation in
accordance with approved building plans.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Geology and Soils
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 57
a.4. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss,
injury, or death involving landslides?
The project site is generally flat, without slopes, hills, or mountains that would expose people or
structures to risks regarding landslides. As identified in the Safety Element of the City General Plan,
the project is not located in an area identified with landslide hazards. There would be no impact.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?
The site is previously developed, generally flat, and located in a partially-developed area of the City.
The most significant source of potential erosion of on-site would be during initial site ground
disturbance/construction and from stormwater runoff. Stormwater runoff is discussed in detail in
Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality. The project applicant would be required to develop a
Stormwater Control Plan which would describe design requirements to address the collection of
stormwater and the direction of run off flow to on and off site drainages. In addition, the project
applicant would be required to develop and implement a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP), which would describe best management practices to minimize on- and off-site erosion and
sediment run off during construction. Preparation of the required Stormwater Control Plan and
SWPPP would ensure that the project would not result in substantial temporary or long-term
erosion or loss of topsoil. In addition, the required dust-reduction measures discussed in Section 3,
Air Quality would further reduce soil erosion and loss of top soil during construction.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or
alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of
wastewater?
A private septic system was previously utilized on-site, and has been abandoned since 2008. The
project would connect to the City sanitary sewer system, and would not require the use of septic
tanks or other alternative wastewater disposal systems. There would be no impact regarding soil
capability.
NO IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
58
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 59
7 Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Generate greenhouse gas emissions,
either directly or indirectly, that may
have a significant impact on the
environment? □ □ ■ □
b. Conflict with any applicable plan, policy,
or regulation adopted for the purposes of
reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases? □ □ ■ □
Setting
In response to an increase in man-made GHG concentrations over the past 150 years, California has
implemented legislation to reduce statewide emissions. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) codifies the
Statewide goal of reducing emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below
2005 emission levels) and the adoption of regulations to require reporting and verification of
statewide GHG emissions. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) extends AB 32, requiring the State to further reduce
GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030.
On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board (ARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan,
which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 statewide target set by SB 32. The 2017 Scoping
Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends
that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent
with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050
(ARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals may be appropriate for plan-level
analyses (city, county, subregional, or regional level), but not for specific individual projects because
they include all emissions sectors in the State.
The vast majority of individual projects do not generate sufficient GHG emissions to directly
influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute
incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a
project are limited. The issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s
contribution towards an impact would be cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable”
means that the incremental effects of an individual project are significant when viewed in
connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).
Significance Thresholds
The City of San Luis Obispo has not adopted GHG emissions thresholds for use in CEQA documents.
In March 2012, the SLOAPCD adopted CEQA thresholds for GHG emissions. Based on the adopted
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
60
SLOAPCD guidance, the following three quantitative thresholds may be used to evaluate the level of
significance of GHG emissions impacts for residential and commercial projects:
1. Qualified GHG Reductions Strategies. A project would have a significant impact if it is not
consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy that meets the requirements of the State
CEQA Guidelines. If a project is consistent with a qualified GHG reduction strategy, it would
not have a significant impact; OR,
2. Bright-Line Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if it exceeds the “bright-line
threshold” of 1,150 metric tons CO2e/year; OR,
3. Efficiency Threshold. A project would have a significant impact if the efficiency threshold
exceeds 4.9 metric tons of CO2e/service population/year. The service population is defined as
the number of residents plus employees for a given project.
The efficiency threshold is specifically intended to avoid penalizing large-scale plans or projects that
incorporate emissions-reducing features and/or that are located in a manner that results in
relatively low vehicle miles traveled. The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, adopted in
2012, serves as the City’s qualified GHG reduction strategy. The GHG-reducing policy provisions
contained in the Climate Action Plan were prepared with the purpose of complying with the
requirements of AB 32 and achieving the goals of the AB 32 Scoping Plan.
The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a framework for achieving the 2030 statewide target set by SB 32.
The 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development, but
recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds
consistent with a statewide per capita goal of 6 MT CO2e by 2030 and 2 MT CO2e by 2050. As stated
in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals are appropriate for plan-level analyses. Therefore, the
project’s contribution to cumulative GHG impacts would be cumulatively considerable if
development under the proposed project would result in annual GHG emissions that would exceed
6 MT CO2e per capita.
Methodology
Calculations of CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions are provided to identify the magnitude of potential
project effects. The analysis focuses on CO2, CH4, and N2O because these make up 98.9 percent of all
GHG emissions by volume (IPCC 2007) and are the GHG emissions that the project would emit in the
largest quantities. Fluorinated gases, such as HFCs, PFCs, CFCs, and SF6, which are primarily
associated with industrial processes, were also considered for the analysis. However, because the
project is a residential and commercial development, the quantity of fluorinated gases would not
represent a substantial proportion of emissions from development on the project site. Emissions of
all GHGs are converted into their equivalent global warming potential in terms of CO2 (CO2e).
Calculations are based on the methodologies discussed in the California Air Pollution Control
Officers Association (CAPCOA) CEQA and Climate Change white paper (2008) and included the use of
the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (2009). GHG emissions associated
with the project were calculated using the most recent version of CalEEMod (version 2016.3.2)
(refer to Appendix A for CalEEMod emissions results and assumptions).
Construction Emissions
Construction of the project would generate temporary GHG emissions primarily as a result of
operation of construction equipment on-site, as well as from vehicles transporting construction
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 61
workers to and from the project site. Site preparation and grading typically generate the greatest
amount of emissions due to the use of grading equipment and soil hauling. This analysis assumes
25,000 cubic yards of soil would be imported to the site. CalEEMod provides an estimate of
emissions associated with the construction period, based on parameters such as the duration of
construction activity, area of disturbance, and anticipated construction.
CAPCOA does not discuss whether any of the suggested threshold approaches adequately address
impacts from temporary construction activity. As stated in the CEQA and Climate Change white
paper, “more study is needed to make this assessment or to develop separate thresholds for
construction activity” (CAPCOA 2008). Nevertheless, air districts such as the SLOAPCD have
recommended amortizing construction-related emissions over the life of the project; SLOAPCD
suggests the life of a project is typically 50 years for residential projects and 25 years for commercial
projects (SLOAPCD 2012). The project includes commercial uses; therefore, to provide a
conservative estimate of construction emissions, emissions were amortized over the shorter project
lifetime estimate of 25 years.
Operational Emissions
CalEEMod provides operational emissions of CO2, N2O, and CH4. Emissions from energy use include
emissions from electricity and natural gas use. The emissions factors for natural gas combustion are
based on the United States Environmental Protection Agency’s (U.S. EPA’s) AP-42 (Compilation of
Air Pollutant Emissions Factors) and California Climate Action Registry. Electricity emissions are
estimated by multiplying the energy use by the carbon intensity of the utility district per kilowatt
hour (CalEEMod User Guide 2017). The default electricity consumption values in CalEEMod include
the California Energy Commission-sponsored California Commercial End Use Survey and Residential
Appliance Saturation Survey studies.
Emissions associated with area sources, including consumer products, landscape maintenance, and
architectural coating were estimated in CalEEMod based on standard emission rates from ARB, U.S.
EPA, and emission factor values provided by the local air district (CalEEMod User Guide 2017).
Emissions from waste generation were estimated in CalEEMod and are based on the IPCC’s methods
for quantifying GHG emissions from solid waste using the degradable organic content of waste
(CalEEMod User Guide 2017). Waste disposal rates by land use and overall composition of municipal
solid waste in California were based on data available from the California Department of Resources
Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle).
Emissions from water and wastewater usage were estimated in CalEEMod based on the default
electricity intensity from the California Energy Commission’s 2006 Refining Estimates of Water-
Related Energy Use in California, using the average values for northern and southern California.
For mobile sources, CO2 and CH4 emissions from vehicle trips to and from the project site were
estimated using CalEEMod based on vehicle trip generation rates from the Draft Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study prepared by Central Coast Transportation Consulting (Appendix E).
Because CalEEMod does not calculate N2O emissions from mobile sources, N2O emissions were
estimated using the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol (CAPCOA 2009)
direct emissions factors for mobile combustion (Appendix A provides calculations). Rates for N2O
emissions were based on the vehicle fleet mix output generated by CalEEMod and the emission
factors found in the California Climate Action Registry General Reporting Protocol.
Because the project site is currently developed with a mobile home park, existing operational
emissions from this use were estimated and subtracted from the anticipated emissions under the
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
62
proposed project’s emissions, to establish the net increase in GHG emissions that would occur as a
result of redevelopment of the project site. Operational emissions associated with the existing
mobile home park include area and utility emissions, as well as mobile emissions from vehicle trips
entering and exiting the site.
Service Population
The service population of a project is the number of residents plus employees. As discussed in
Section 13, Population and Housing, the project would add approximately 498 536 new residents to
the City of San Luis Obispo. In addition, based on employment generation rates for retail uses from
the SLOAPCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLOAPCD 2012), the project would result in a net
increase of approximately 24 new employees (1.39 employees per 1,000 feet). Therefore, the total
service population would be 522 560 persons.
Discussion
a. Would the project generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a
significant impact on the environment?
Construction activities, energy use, daily operational activities, and mobile sources (traffic)
associated with development under the proposed project would result in new GHG emissions.
Project-related construction emissions are confined to a relatively short period of time in relation to
the overall life of the project. Therefore, construction-related GHG emissions were amortized over a
25-year period to determine the annual construction-related GHG emissions over the life of the
project. Table 6 shows construction emissions for the project.
Table 6 Construction Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Year Construction Emissions (MT CO2e/yr)
Total 2,050 2,012
Total Amortized over 25 Years 82 81
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets
As shown in Table 6, construction would result in an annualized average of 82 81 MT CO2e/yr.
Table 7 shows the project’s total annual GHG emissions, including operational emissions and
annualized construction emissions.
Environmental Checklist
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 63
Table 7 Combined Annual Emissions of Greenhouse Gases
Emission Source
Annual Emissions
(MT CO2e/yr)
Construction 82 81
Operational
Area 6
Energy 612
Solid Waste 67
Water 63
Mobile
CO2 and CH4 1,695 1,708
N2O 1 94 95
Proposed Total 2,619 2,632
Existing Total2 279 5
Net (Proposed – Existing) 2,340 2,627
Service Population 2 522 560 persons
Total MT CO2e/SP/year 4.5 4.7 CO2e/SP/year 3
SLOAPCD GHG Emissions Threshold 4.9 MT CO2e/SP/year
Project Population 498 536 persons
Total MT CO2e per capita/year 4.7 4.9 CO2e per capita/year 3
2017 Scoping Plan 2030 Per Capita Emissions Goal 6.0 MT CO2e per capita/year
1 N2O output is not calculated by CalEEMod. See N2O Mobile Emissions Worksheet in Appendix A
2 498 536 new residents plus 24 new employees.
3 All numbers may not sum exactly due to rounding.
See Appendix A for CalEEMod worksheets.
As shown in Table 7, the development under the proposed project would result in approximately 4.5
4.7 MT CO2e per service population per year, or 4.7 4.9 MT CO2e per capita per year. The project’s
annualized GHG emissions would not exceed the SLOAPCD GHG emissions threshold of 4.9 MT CO2e
or the 2017 Scoping Plan statewide 2030 per capita emissions goal of 6.0 MT CO2e per capita per
year. Therefore, the project’s GHG emissions impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
64
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the
purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
CAP Consistency
The City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan (CAP) serves as a qualified GHG reduction strategy
consistent with State CEQA Guidelines. The CAP outlines a course of action to improve
environmental, social, and economic sustainability and includes six emission reductions strategies:
1) buildings, 2) renewable energy, 3) transportation and land use, 4) water, 5) solid waste, and 6)
parks and open space. A project is considered consistent with the City’s CAP if it includes provisions
to further the emissions reduction goals in the Plan. Measures and goals from the CAP include
transportation and land use goals that promote residential developments in close proximity to
transit development and commercial areas to reduce the need for commuting, promoting mixed–
use development, and to implement water conservation techniques. The proposed project would
locate mixed-use development in close proximity to stops on the SLO Transit 1A (Johnson/Tank
Farm) route, as well as commercial business park and industrial uses south of Tank Farm and east of
Broad Street. The project would not conflict with any of the goals, policies, and programs of the
Climate Action Plan. Therefore, the project would be consistent with the Climate Action Plan.
Senate Bill 32
The 2017 Scoping Plan provides a framework for achieving the 2030 statewide emissions target
codified by SB 32, and recommends that local governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate
quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six metric tons (MT) CO2e by
2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (ARB 2017). As discussed above, the project would not conflict with
the goals of the locally-adopted GHG reduction strategy, and would not exceed the SLOAPCD GHG
emissions threshold of 4.9 MT CO2e or the 2017 Scoping Plan statewide 2030 per capita emissions
goal of 6.0 MT CO2e per capita per year. Because the project would be consistent with the 2017
Scoping Plan, which has been developed to achieve the statewide emissions target set by SB 32, this
impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 65
8 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Create a significant hazard to the public
or the environment through the routine
transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
c. Emit hazardous emissions or handle
hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within
0.25 mile of an existing or proposed
school? □ □ □ ■
d. Be located on a site that is included on a
list of hazardous material 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? □ □ □ ■
e. For a project located in 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? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ ■ □
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
66
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g. Impair implementation of or physically
interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation
plan? □ □ ■ □
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? □ □ □ ■
Setting
Airport Safety Hazards
The project site is located within the jurisdiction of both the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) adopted by the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission
(ALUC) in 1973 and updated in 2005. The project site is also located in the City’s Airport Overlay
Zone (AOZ) as identified in Chapter 7 of the City’s 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Update,
which includes guidance regarding airport safety issues. It should be noted that the ALUP is
currently undergoing an update, which is expected to be completed in late 2019. Both documents
put forth standards for development intensity within airport safety zones, and identify potential
airport safety hazards using similar, but different criteria governing allowable types and intensity of
future development and the location of safety zones based on differences in mapping. The ALUC
oversees development subject to the ALUP to ensure safety, while the City has ultimate jurisdiction
over potential land use decisions and future development. This section briefly describes the
operations at the Airport and associated physical safety hazards associated with the project site in
terms of both the ALUP and the Land Use and Circulation Element safety standards.
The 2014 Airport Land Use Compatibility Report prepared by Johnson Aviation in support of the
City’s recent Land Use and Circulation update process and the LUCE Update EIR analyzed potential
airport hazards and included recommendations to update safety and hazards planning around the
Airport based on guidance from the Caltrans California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook
(CALUPH) and other sources. The CALUPH describes the characteristics of “ideal” safety zones such
as “easily definable geometric shapes,” a limited number of five or six zones, a distinct progression
in the degree of safety risk farther from the runway, providing that “each zone should be as
compact as possible.” The Land Use Element and associated Airport Safety Zones implement these
suggested standards by identifying six revised safety zones that represent distinct progression in the
degree of safety risk farther from the runway. These Airport Safety Zones are supported by Land
Use Element and Circulation Element policies, programs, and development standards consistent
with those guidelines.
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 67
San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport
The Airport provides commuter, charter, and private aviation service to the City of San Luis Obispo
and vicinity. The primary hazard associated with land uses near the airport is the risk of aircraft
incidents on approach and take-off. Aircraft flight operations are determined largely by the physical
layout of the airport and rules of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) (City of San Luis Obispo
2014). The Airport has had a mix of commercial airline service and general aviation operations for
most of its history. At the time of the San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport (SBP) Master Plan
Update (adopted in 2005), business aviation accounted for approximately 5 percent of general
aviation operations, with most general aviation operations being flight training and leisure flying.
The split of general aviation operations at the Airport averaged 60 percent itinerant and 40 percent
local, and military operations accounted for less than 1 percent of total operations. Enplaned air
cargo at the Airport was growing at an average annual rate of 2.4 percent (Johnson Aviation 2014).
In 2015, the split of general aviation operations averaged 66 percent itinerant and 34 percent local,
with military operations continuing to account for less than 1 percent of total operations (San Luis
Obispo County Regional Airport 2015).
There are two runways at the Airport (see Figure 10). Runway 11-29 is utilized for most aircraft
operations, with 97 percent of all aircraft operating at the Airport using this runway for departures
and arrivals, as well as touch-and-go flights. Runway 7-25 is mostly used by small, light, general
aviation flights, only for General Aviation propeller aircraft. Both runways have parallel taxiways.
According to the Aviation Safety Areas Map of the ALUP, the project site is located northeast of
Runway 11-29, and is within Airport Safety Areas S-1c, which is the vicinity where aircrafts operate
frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes less than or equal to 500 feet above
ground level (agl).
AVIATION ACCIDENTS AT SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY REGIONAL AIRPORT
According to the California Airport Land Use Planning Handbook Accident Study, 68 percent of
aviation accidents occur over or within an airport, and accidents sites tend to occur close to the
extended runway centerline (Johnson Aviation 2014). There had been a total of 33 aviation
accidents or incidents associated with the Airport, six of which resulted in fatalities, between 1984
and 2014. Of these, five incidents resulting in emergency landings within Land Use Element and
Circulation Element defined AOZs between 1984 and 2014, none of which resulted in an on-ground
fatality or occurred within or adjacent to the project site.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
68
Figure 10 San Luis Obispo Regional Airport Safety Zones and Runways
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 69
Discussion
a. Would the project create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the
routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials?
b. Would the project 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?
The project includes the construction and operation of new commercial and residential
development. These uses would not involve the use or storage of large quantities of hazardous
materials. Small quantities of potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents
would be used during construction of the project. California Health and Safety Code, Division 20,
Chapter 6.5, and California Code of Regulations Title 22 – Hazardous Waste Management states that
waste that is toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive when tested in accordance with the California
Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 11, Section 66693, must be handled, stored, transported, and
disposed of in accordance with these regulations, which are more stringent than federal regulations.
The transport of materials during the construction of the project could pose a threat to residents
and people in the area. An accident involving such trucks could potentially expose nearby people to
health hazards. However, U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation laws and regulations
have been promulgated to track and manage the safe interstate transportation of hazardous
materials and waste. U.S. EPA administers permitting, tracking, reporting, and operations
requirements established by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). U.S. Department
of Transportation regulates the transportation of hazardous materials through implementation of
the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. This act administers container design, labelling, and
driver training requirements. State and local agencies enforce the application of these acts and
provide coordination of safety and mitigation responses in the case that accidents involving
hazardous materials occur. Enforcement of these regulations and rapid response by local agencies
would ensure that hazards to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and
accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are less than
significant.
In addition, the project would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations, as
well as the policies in the City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, which discuss safety and reducing
the risks of hazardous material exposure. Program 9.6 of the City’s Safety Element states that the
City shall ensure that transportation of hazardous materials follows Caltrans-approved routes, and
that all necessary safety precautions are taken to prevent hazardous material spills.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous
materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school?
The nearest school to the site is the Montessori School at Unity, located approximately one and a
half miles to the northeast. There are no schools within 0.25 miles of the project site, and the
project would not emit or handle large quantities of hazardous materials.
NO IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
70
d. Would the project be located on a site included on a list of hazardous material 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?
Rincon reviewed the Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC) - EnviroStor online database
and the State Water Resources Control Board - Geotracker online database for potential hazardous
material sites and contamination at the project site. No listed hazardous material sites/facilities or
active clean ups were identified on or adjacent to the site, and no listed Federal Superfund sites
were identified in the City of San Luis Obispo (DTSC 2017, SWRCB 2017). Therefore, construction of
the project would not result in hazards to the public or the environment.
NO IMPACT
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?
f. For a project near a private airstrip, would it result in a safety hazard for people residing or
working in the project area?
Airport safety is primarily related to the potential for operational aircraft accidents such as
emergency landings, or in rare cases crashes, as well as ensuring that land use development is
carried out in manner that minimizes or avoids risks associated with such aircraft incidents or
accidents. Minimizing or avoiding risks to residential land uses involves designating areas around the
ends of runways that must be free of objects or sensitive land uses, limiting the height of new
structures in the surrounding airspace, and understanding historical accident patterns. The risk of an
aircraft accident increases with proximity to the runway and its approach path, and airport land use
planning documents generally discourage development in the zones closest to the ends of runways
to prevent placing people at risk of aircraft-related hazards. As shown in Figure 10 the project site is
located approximately 1,500 feet northeast of Runway 11-29, which has a northwest-southeast
orientation. The project site is within Airport Safety Areas S-1c, which is the vicinity where aircrafts
operate frequently or in conditions of reduced visibility at altitudes less than or equal to 500 feet
above ground level (agl).
However, the project site is not within the trajectory of defined aircraft flight paths for Runway 11-
29, the extended runway centerline, or in the probable gliding distance for aircraft in expected
approach or departure courses depicted in the ALUP. In addition, the project does not include any
large public gathering areas, high intensive lightings, or tall obstructing uses. Because prevailing
flight patterns would not affect the project site, there would be a reduced likelihood of air traffic
accidents. Furthermore, the project does not include obstructions that pose risks to air navigation,
and the project would not otherwise expose people or workers to airport related risks.
The ALUC has reviewed the project and determined that development facilitated under the
proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment, and rezone would be consistent
with the ALUP. Therefore, this impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 71
g. Would the project impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency
response plan or emergency evacuation plan?
Construction of new residential and commercial structures on the project site would not impair
implementation of, or physically interfere with, an adopted emergency response plan or emergency
evacuation plan. The project would be required to comply with San Luis Obispo Fire Department
specifications and Chapter 5 of the California Fire Code, which would ensure that the project does
not interfere with emergency response or evacuation procedures.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
h. Would the project 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?
As identified in the Safety Element of the City General Plan, the site is not located in a moderate,
high, or very high fire hazard severity zone. The project site and surrounding parcels do not contain
wildlands, forests, or dense vegetation that would expose the project to wildfire risk. In addition,
the project would be required to adhere to the 2013 CBC Chapter 7A Partial Requirements which
requires certain construction materials and methods to minimize wildfire exposure hazards. These
include Class A fire rated roof assemblies, flame and ember intrusion resistant vents, and non-
combustible building side materials.
NO IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
72
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 73
9 Hydrology and Water Quality
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Violate any water quality standards or
waste discharge requirements? □ □ ■ □
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 or the local groundwater
table level (e.g., the production rate of
pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a
level that would not support existing land
uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)? □ □ ■ □
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 that would
result in substantial erosion or siltation
on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □
d. Substantially alter the existing drainage
pattern of the site or area, including the
course of a stream or river, or
substantially increase the rate or amount
of surface runoff in a manner that would
result in flooding on- or off-site? □ □ ■ □
e. Create or contribute runoff water that
would exceed the capacity of existing or
planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of
polluted runoff? □ □ ■ □
f. Otherwise substantially degrade water
quality? □ □ ■ □
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
74
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
g. Place housing in a 100-year flood hazard
area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate
Map, or other flood hazard delineation
map? □ ■ □ □
h. Place structures in a 100-year flood
hazard area that would impede or
redirect flood flows? □ ■ □ □
i. Expose people or structures to a
significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including that
occurring as a result of the failure of a
levee or dam? □ □ □ ■
j. Result in inundation by seiche, tsunami,
or mudflow? □ □ □ ■
Setting
Drainage Patterns
The project site is located in the San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, which drains an area of
approximately 84 square miles, including the City of San Luis Obispo and its surrounding hills,
mountains, and valleys. According to the San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan, average
seasonal precipitation in the City of San Luis Obispo is approximately 21 inches. Because the City is
part of a coastal watershed, it is subject to wide ranges in precipitation from droughts to heavy
storms (City of San Luis Obispo 2003).
The project is located between Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek. Orcutt Creek is an ephemeral stream
that flows in a southwesterly direction to meet Acacia Creek south of the project site. Acacia Creek
is an ephemeral stream that borders the western boundary of the project site and serves as a
tributary to the East Fork of San Luis Obispo Creek.
Water Quality
Neither Orcutt Creek nor Acacia Creek is on the 2012 Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list of impaired
waters for pathogens (State Water Resources Control Board 2018). Groundwater quality in the San
Luis Obispo Groundwater Basin has been reduced in part due to the degradation of surface waters
in San Luis Obispo Creek. Groundwater in the unconfined aquifers within the basin contains high
levels of nitrates, iron, manganese, and organic compounds.
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 75
Discussion
a. Would the project violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements?
f. Would the project otherwise substantially degrade water quality?
The protection of water quality is under the jurisdiction of the RWQCB. The project would be
required to comply with all state and federal requirements pertaining to the preservation of water
quality. A National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) General Permit for Storm Water
Discharges Associated with Construction Activities is required when a project involves clearing,
grading, disturbances to the ground (such as stockpiling), or excavation that would result in soil
disturbances of one or more acres of total land area. Coverage under the General Permit must also
be obtained prior to construction and the preferred project is subject to these requirements.
Under the conditions of the General Permit, the developer would be required to eliminate or reduce
non-storm water discharges to waters of the nation, develop and implement a Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) for the project construction activities, and perform inspections of
the storm water pollution prevention measures and control practices to ensure conformance with
the site SWPPP. The General Permit prohibits the discharge of materials other than storm water
discharges, and prohibits all discharges that contain a hazardous substance in excess of reportable
quantities established at 40 CFR 117.3 or 40 CFR 302.4. The General Permit also specifies that
construction activities must meet all applicable provisions of Sections 30 and 402 of the Clean Water
Act. Conformance with Section 402 of the Clean Water Act would ensure that the preferred project
does not violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements.
In addition, the project would be required to comply with the City’s and RWQCB’s Post-Construction
Stormwater Management Requirements for Development Projects in the Central Coast Region. To
demonstrate compliance, a Stormwater Control Plan would be required for the project. Based on
compliance with these existing State and local regulations, the project would not violate any water
quality standards or waste discharge requirements, or substantially degrade surface or groundwater
quality, and potential water quality impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with
groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering or
the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would
drop to a level that would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits
have been granted)?
The project site is currently developed with mobile homes and surface parking areas. There is an
existing water well on the project site, which may be used for future non-potable water use,
depending on City review of water quality testing data from the well. If not utilized for non-potable
water, the City would be expected to require that this well be destroyed (capped ) consistent with
all applicable State and local requirements or dedicated to the City for water quality and
groundwater monitoring.
The City of San Luis Obispo no longer draws groundwater for potable purposes as of 2015. As
discussed in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems, potable water for future residential and
commercial uses developed under the proposed project would be served by the existing City’s
sewer and water systems. The project site includes open space permeable vegetated areas and a
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
76
stormwater retention basin, which would aid in groundwater recharge. Therefore, the project would
not substantially deplete groundwater supplies and would not interfere with groundwater recharge.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project 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 that would result in
substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site?
d. Would the project substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including
the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in
a manner that would result in flooding on- or off-site?
e. Would the project create or contribute runoff water that would exceed the capacity of existing
or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff?
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would include re-grading of the project site
to raise building ground elevations above the existing 100-year floodplain (discussed further in
items g and h below). Re-grading would alter the existing drainage pattern on the project site.
However, the City would require preliminary grading and drainage reports be prepared as part of
future development of the site facilitated by the proposed project. These reports would include the
anticipated amount of fill material (currently anticipated to require approximately 25,000 cubic
yards) and the limits of a proposed revised AE flood zone. The final grading plan would be required
to be consistent with the requirements in the City’s Drainage Design Manual (DDM), matching post-
development flows to pre-development for the 2-year through 100-year storm events. The
proposed detention facilities and stormwater conveyance infrastructure would change the way
water is conveyed through the site and would result in changes to stormwater management control
and peak surface flows. However, the proposed detention structures and drainage facilities would
be required to meet applicable City requirements to ensure that runoff flows are either less than or
equal to existing conditions. This would ensure that the project does not result in an increase in
post-development peak runoff from the project site.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
g. Would the project place housing in a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on a federal Flood
Hazard Boundary, Flood Insurance Rate Map, or other flood hazard delineation map?
h. Would the project place structures in a 100-year flood hazard area that would impede or
redirect flood flows?
The project site is located between Orcutt Creek to the west and Acacia Creek to the east. As shown
in Figure 11, approximately half of the site is currently located in a flood area susceptible to 100-
year flood hazards. According to the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Flood
Insurance Rate Map 06079C1332G, the project site is located in Zone A, which is an unstudied zone
where no base flood elevations have been determined, but is potentially susceptible to a 1% annual
chance flood (FEMA 2012).
Future development facilitated by the proposed project would require re-grading of the property to
increase elevations on the westward portion of the project site, and installation of
detention/retention and drainage facilities. Re-grading the project site to accommodate future
development is expected to require approximately 25,000 cubic yards of fill material. Residential
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 77
Figure 11 FEMA Flood Hazard Area
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
78
and commercial building pads on the central portion of the project site would be elevated above the
post-development 100-year floodplain consistent with standards in the Special Floodplain
Management Zone Regulations. This would ensure that no housing would occur within the 100-year
floodplain, based on the City’s hydrologic and hydraulic models, and would ensure compliance with
the City Floodplain Management Regulations Code 17.84.050.
In addition, the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations require that projects within the 100-year
FEMA floodplain prepare a Master Drainage Plan, which demonstrates that new development
would not cause the 100-year flood elevation to increase more than 2.5 inches, cause stream
velocities to increase more than 0.3 feet per second, or cause a significant net decrease in floodplain
storage volume unless the conditions listed in the Managed Fill Criteria of the DDM are met.
Prior to any development, the project would also require a conditional letter of map revision
(CLOMR-F) application1 requesting that the FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary be redefined. With
the implementation of these measures, the project would be in compliance with FEMA and City
floodplain regulations and potential floodplain elevation increases affecting other properties would
be avoided. However, Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is required to ensure the final grading plan and
resulting post-development floodplain would exclude areas proposed for housing, and confirm that
the CLOMR application to redefine the FEMA 100-year floodplain boundary is approved and an
official letter of map revision (LOMR-F)2 is issued by FEMA.
Mitigation Measure
Implementation of Mitigation Measure HYD-1, would reduce impacts regarding the project’s
location in a floodplain hazard area.
HYD-1 Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision. The applicant shall
prepare the CLOMR application and obtain a LOMR from FEMA.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall prepare the CLOMR application
and submit it to FEMA.
Monitoring. The City will confirm that FEMA has approved the CLOMR prior to
issuance of a grading permit, and LOMR prior to issuance of a building permit.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
i. Would the project expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death
involving flooding, including that occurring as a result of the failure of a levee or dam?
j. Would the project result in inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?
The project site is located approximately six miles northeast of the Pacific Ocean. Elevations on the
project site range from approximately 147 to 176 feet above mean sea level, generally sloping
downwards towards Tank Farm Road. The nearest lake is Laguna Lake, approximately two miles
west of the site. Due to the proximity and topography between the site and the nearest largest
bodies of water, tsunami and seiche impacts would be less than significant. As identified in the City’s
1 A CLOMR is based on proposed conditions and does not change the FIRMs. A CLOMR is the method used by FEMA to let people know
that if projects are constructed per the design submitted to and approved by FEMA, revision of the FIRM panel with an official letter of
map revision (LOMR) is likely.
2 A LOMR is an official revision to the FIRMs issued by FEMA. LOMRs reflect changes to the 100-year floodplains or Special Flood Hazard
Areas (SFHA) shown on the FIRMs.
Environmental Checklist
Hydrology and Water Quality
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 79
Safety Element, the City is not located in a dam inundation area or Tsunami Inundation Zone. There
would be no impact associated with flooding as a result of levee or dam failure, or inundation by
seiche, tsunami, or mudflow.
NO IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
80
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Land Use and Planning
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 81
10 Land Use and Planning
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Physically divide an established
community? □ □ □ ■
b. Conflict with any applicable land use
plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project
(including but not limited to the general
plan, specific plan, local coastal program,
or zoning ordinance) adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an
environmental effect? □ □ ■ □
c. Conflict with an applicable habitat
conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City has approximately 46,725 residents (California Department of Finance 2017), and covers
roughly 13 square miles. Primary land uses in the City include residential development at a low to
moderate density, professional services, government facilities, and general retail. The core of the
City constitutes a compact urban form, including a downtown area and distinct surrounding
neighborhoods. The City is surrounded by a green belt, which defines a separation of urban uses
within the City and rural uses outside of the City. The project site currently includes three separate
land use/zoning designations with a Specific Plan overlay. The site includes 3.25 acres of Business
Park (BP), 6.85 acres of Medium Density Residential (R-2), and 2.65 acres of Open Space (OS).
Discussion
a. Would the project physically divide an established community?
The property was previously is currently utilized as a mobile home park; however the coaches
remaining on site are currently vacant. 13 of the existing 35 mobile units are occupied by rental
tenants with limited leases based on the commencement of the project. The project includes
approval of a mobile home park Conversion Impact Report (CIR), which documents replacement
housing assistance activities, pursuant to Section 5.45.030 of the Conversion Ordinance. Pursuant to
Section 5.45.150 of the City Municipal Code, current tenants would be given priority for renting
units in the new development. Therefore, no residents would be displaced with the redevelopment
of the site. There is one single-family home adjacent to the project site, but this residence does not
use the project site for access. The proposed service commercial zoning would be consistent with
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
82
the surrounding land uses. No project components would divide an established community, or place
pressure on adjacent properties for future development.
NO IMPACT
b. Would the project conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency
with jurisdiction over the project (including but not limited to the general plan, specific plan,
local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating
an environmental effect?
The Land Use, Circulation, and Housing Elements of the City’s General Plan, and the Zoning
Ordinance, are the primary land use planning guidance documents for the development pattern of
the City. The proposed General Plan Amendment, Specific Plan Amendment and the rezone is
consistent with existing general plan goals, programs, and policies, and zoning ordinance
requirements for the proposed service commercial zoning. The AASP was recently updated to allow
mixed-use projects within the C-S zone, subject to the approval of the Planning Commission. The
project will be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council.
The project site is located within the City’s ALUP area, and the project was reviewed and deemed
consistent with the ALUP on November 18, 2018 by the ALUC. Therefore, the project would be
consistent with applicable City goals, policies and programs.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project conflict with an applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community
conservation plan?
As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, there are no applicable habitat conservation plans or
natural community conservation plans that pertain to the project.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Mineral Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 83
11 Mineral Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Result in the loss of availability of a
known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of
the state? □ □ □ ■
b. Result in the loss of availability of a
locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local
general plan, specific plan, or other land
use plan? □ □ □ ■
Setting
Consistent with the requirements of the California’s Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975
(SMARA), the State Geologist has classified land based on the known or inferred mineral resource
potential. The Mineral Land Classification process identifies lands that contain economically
significant mineral deposits and primarily classifies land as Mineral Resource Zones (MRZ) 1-4. The
Division of Mines and Geology’s Guidelines for Classification and Designation of Mineral Lands,
defines MRZs as:
MRZ-1: Areas of No Mineral Resource Significance
MRZ-2: Areas of Identified Mineral Resource Significance
MRZ-3: Areas of Undetermined Mineral Resource Significance
MRZ-4: Areas of Unknown Mineral Resource Significance/No Known Mineral Occurrence
According to the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element, quarries and mines in the San Luis
Obispo area previously produced basaltic stone, “red rock,” and cinnabar. The extraction of mineral
resources is not permitted within City limits (pursuant to Section 17.08.070 of the Zoning
Regulations) and there are no active mines located within the project area (DOC 2017).
Discussion
a. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of
value to the region and the residents of the state?
b. Would the project result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource
recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan?
The project site is in the Incorporated City Limit of San Luis Obispo and therefore is not within a
designated mineral resource zone (Busch and Miller 2011). Based on a review of the Department of
Conservation’s Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources Well Finder, there are no oil or gas
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
84
wells or fields on the project site. The project does not propose the exploration or harvesting of oil
or gas resources. Because there are no identified significant mineral resources in the project site
vicinity, and the project does not propose exploration or mining, there would be no impact on
available mineral resources.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 85
12 Noise
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project result in:
a. Exposure of persons to or generation of
noise levels in excess of standards
established in the local general plan or
noise ordinance, or applicable standards
of other agencies? ■ □ □
b. Exposure of persons to or generation of
excessive groundborne vibration or
groundborne noise levels? □ □ ■ □
c. A substantial permanent increase in
ambient noise levels above those existing
prior to implementation of the project? □ □ ■ □
d. A substantial temporary or periodic
increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing
without the project? □ ■ □ □
e. For a project located in 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 expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise levels? □ □ ■ □
f. For a project near a private airstrip,
would it expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive
noise? □ □ ■ □
Setting
Noise Background
Noise in this study is defined as the unwanted sound that disturbs sensitive receptors.
Environmental noise levels typically fluctuate over time, and different types of noise descriptors are
used to account for this variability. Noise level measurements include intensity, frequency, and
duration, as well as time of occurrence. Noise level (or volume) is generally measured in decibels
(dB) using the A-weighted sound pressure level (dBA). Because of the way the human ear works, a
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
86
sound must be about 10 dBA greater than the reference sound to be judged as twice as loud. In
general, a 3 dBA change in community noise levels is noticeable, while 1-2 dBA changes are typically
not perceived. Quiet suburban areas typically have noise levels in the range of 40-50 dBA, while
arterial streets are in the 50-60+ dBA range. Normal conversational levels are in the 60-65 dBA
range, and ambient noise levels greater than 65 dBA can interrupt conversations.
Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point
sources (such as construction equipment). Noise from lightly traveled roads typically attenuates at a
rate of about 4.5 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise from heavily traveled roads typically
attenuates at about 3 dBA per doubling of distance; while noise from a point source typically
attenuates at about 6 dBA per doubling of distance. Noise levels may also be reduced by the
introduction of intervening structures. For example, a solid wall or berm that breaks the line-of-sight
reduces noise levels by approximately 5 to 10 dBA. The construction style for dwelling units in
California generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-interior noise levels of about 25 dBA with
closed windows (Federal Highway Administration [FHWA] 2006).
The time period in which noise occurs is important since nighttime noise tends to disturb people
more than daytime noise. Community noise is usually measured using Day-Night Average Level
(Ldn), which is the 24-hour average noise level with a 10-dBA penalty for noise occurring during
nighttime (10 PM to 7 AM) hours, or Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), which is the 24-hour
average noise level with a 5 dBA penalty for noise occurring from 7 PM to 10 PM and a 10 dBA
penalty for noise occurring from 10 PM to 7 AM. Noise levels described by Ldn and CNEL typically do
not differ by more than 1 dBA. In practice, CNEL and Ldn are often used interchangeably.
Some land uses are more sensitive to ambient noise than other uses due to the characteristics of
the exposed populations. For example, residences, motels, hotels, schools, libraries, churches,
nursing homes, auditoriums, museums, cultural facilities, parks, and outdoor recreation areas are
more sensitive to noise than commercial and industrial land uses. Sensitive receptors near the
project site include a single-family residence to the east.
Regulatory Setting
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GENERAL PLAN AND STATE OF CALIFORNIA NOISE STANDARDS
The Noise Element and Noise Guidebook (1996) of the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan uses
modified land use compatibility standards recommended by the California Department of Health
Services. The noise criteria for the City and the State of California for current and projected
conditions state that the noise intrusive to interior habitable space of residential units from exterior
sources should not exceed 45 dBA CNEL. The General Plan Noise Element restricts noise in outdoor
living areas due to transportation noise sources to 60 dB CNEL.
The following Noise Element policies are applicable to the project and the local noise environment:
Policy 1.4. New Transportation Noise Sources. Noise created by new transportation noise
sources, including road, railroad, and airport expansion projects, shall be mitigated to not
exceed the levels specified in Table 4.10-3 for outdoor activity areas and indoor spaces of noise-
sensitive land uses which were established before the new transportation noise source.
Policy 1.6. New Development and Stationary Noise Sources. New development of noise-
sensitive land uses may be permitted only where location or design allow the development to
meet the standards of Table 4.10-4, for existing stationary noise sources.
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 87
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO MUNICIPAL CODE CONSTRUCTION NOISE STANDARDS
Table 8 and Table 9 show the City’s maximum allowable noise levels for short-term operation of
mobile equipment and long-term operation of stationary equipment at residential properties.
Where technically and economically feasible, the City requires that construction activities that use
mobile or stationary equipment which may result in noise at residential properties be conducted so
that maximum sound levels from stationary equipment at affected properties would not exceed 60
dBA for single-family residences (Municipal Code 9.12.050). Except for emergency repair of public
service utilities, or where an exception is issued by the City Community Development Department,
the City prohibits operation of tools or equipment used in construction, drilling, repair, alteration, or
demolition work daily between the hours of 7:00 PM and 7:00 AM, or any time on Sundays or
holidays, such that the sound creates a noise disturbance across a residential or commercial
property line.
Table 8 Maximum Noise Levels for Nonscheduled, Intermittent, Short-term Operation
(Less than Ten Days) of Mobile Equipment
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
75 dBA 80 dBA 85 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all
day Sunday and legal holidays
60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
Table 9 Maximum Noise Levels for Repetitively Scheduled and Relatively Long-Term
Operation (Periods of Ten Days or More) of Stationary Equipment
Single-Family
Residential
Multi-Family
Residential
Mixed Residential/
Commercial
Daily, except Sundays and legal
holidays 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m.
60 dBA 65 dBA 70 dBA
Daily, 7:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. and all
day Sunday and legal holidays
50 dBA 55 dBA 60 dBA
Source: City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code
VIBRATION IMPACTS
Project construction would potentially expose nearby sensitive receptors to a temporary increase in
groundborne vibration levels. Groundborne vibration can expose nearby structures to vibration
damage or excessive vibration noise. The ground motion caused by vibration is measured as particle
velocity in inches per second (in/sec) peak particle velocity (PPV) and is referenced as vibration
decibels (VdB). The City of San Luis Obispo considers construction-related vibration significant if
construction-related activities create a vibration which is above the vibration perception threshold.
The vibration perception threshold is defined in the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code (Section
9.12.050) as “The minimum ground or structure-borne vibrational motion necessary to cause a
normal person to be aware of the vibration by such direct means as, but not limited to, sensation by
touch or visual observation of moving objects. The perception threshold shall be presumed to be a
motion velocity of 0.01 in/sec over the range of 1 to 100 Hz.”
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
88
Groundborne vibration levels associated with construction activities were estimated based on
methods in the 2013 California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans) Transportation and
Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Potential vibration levels were identified for onsite and
offsite locations that are sensitive to vibration, including adjacent residences. Vibration is estimated
based on the equipment used and the attenuated distance from the source.
Caltrans’ Transportation-and Construction-Induced Vibration Manual (Caltrans 2004) provides
general guidance on vibration issues associated with construction and operation of projects in
relation to human perception and structural damage. Table 10 indicates vibration levels at which
humans would be affected by vibration levels.
Table 10 California Department of Transportation Vibration Annoyance Potential Criteria
Human Response Condition
Maximum Vibration Level
(in/sec) for Transient Sources1
Maximum Vibration Level (in/sec) for
Continuous/Frequent Intermittent Sources2
Barely perceptible 0.04 0.01
Distinctly perceptible 0.25 0.04
Strongly perceptible 0.9 0.10
Severe 2.0 0.4
1 Transient construction vibrations are generated by a single isolated vibration event, such as blasting or wrecking balls.
2 Continuous/frequent intermittent vibrations result from equipment or activities such as excavation equipment, static compaction
equipment, tracked vehicles, vibratory pile drivers, and vibratory compaction equipment.
Source: California Department of Transportation 2013
In addition, the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006) was used to determine
whether or not groundborne vibration resulting from project-related construction would cause
damage to nearby structures. Damage criteria vary depending on the type of building adjacent to
the vibration source. For example, for older residential structures, the construction vibration
damage criterion is 98 VdB (0.3 in/sec PPV). For non-engineered timber and masonry (“fragile”)
buildings, the construction vibration damage criterion is 88 VdB (0.1 in/sec PPV). For the purpose of
this analysis, an impact would be significant if construction vibration from continuous/ frequent
intermittent sources exceeds 98 VdB (0.3 in/sec PPV).
Discussion
a. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of
other agencies?
A Sound Level Assessment was prepared by 45dB Acoustics in March 2017 (refer to Appendix D).
Existing sound levels were measured on the project site, and an acoustic software modeling tool
was used to estimate sound level contours based on topography, noise sources (including vehicle
traffic along Tank Farm Road and noise from airplanes taking off and landing at San Luis Obispo
Regional Airport), and measured sound level values. As described in the South Level Assessment,
the measured and estimated sound levels on the project site are primarily a result of vehicle traffic
along Tank Farm Road. Future noise levels from vehicle traffic along Tank Farm Road after buildout
of future development on the project site (including anticipated future traffic growth of
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 89
approximately two percent per year) would result in an increase in sound levels on the site of less
than three decibels above existing conditions.
Development of commercial mixed use or other building types on the project site along Tank Farm
Road would create a barrier to traffic noise on the project site, resulting in sound levels at future
potential outdoor activity areas across the site generally below 60 dBA CNEL. Potential residential
building elevations facing Tank Farm Road would experience exterior sound levels between 70 and
75 dBA CNEL at locations closest to Tank Farm Road. However, due to the barrier effect of
structures along Tank Farm Road, the majority of the remaining structures on the project site would
not experience exterior sound levels that would exceed 60 dBA CNEL. As described above, the
construction style for dwelling units in California generally provides a reduction of exterior-to-
interior noise levels of about 25 dBA with closed windows. Ordinary building construction
assemblies with a Sound Transmission Class (STC) of 20 or greater would ensure that interior sound
levels in habitable spaces would not exceed 45 dBA CNEL for buildings on the project site not
directly adjacent to Tank Farm Road. However, for structures nearest to Tank Farm Road, interior
sound levels could reach up to 50 dBA CNEL. Therefore, potential noise impacts at future residential
uses closest to Tank Farm Road would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-1 would require use of construction techniques intended
to reduce interior sound levels at residential units facing Tank Farm Road in structures on the
project site located closest to Tank Farm Road, which would ensure that interior noise levels would
not exceed the City’s interior standard in proposed residential, hotel, and office uses. Therefore,
implementation of Mitigation Measures N-1 would ensure that interior sound levels would not
exceed 45 dBA CNEL.
N-1 Interior Noise Reduction. If the final project site design includes residential units
facing Tank Farm Road in the structures located closest to Tank Farm Road Within
150 feet of the Tank Farm Road centerline, for any structure that includes
residential uses, the project site developer shall implement the following measures,
or similar combination of measures, which demonstrate that interior residential
noise levels in residences facing exposed to Tank Farm Road would be reduced
below to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. The required Furthermore,
as shown conceptually, final building design and location shall collectively provide
an effective attenuation shield from Tank Farm Road noise for active outdoor areas
within the development with the intent to achieve 60 dBA CNEL or less at a distance
of 250 feet from the centerline of Tank Farm Road. iInterior noise reduction shall be
achieved through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques,
which may include (but are not limited to):
In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such
as air conditioning shall be provided for all units facing exposed to Tank Farm
Road (passive ventilation may be provided, if mechanical ventilation is not
necessary to achieve interior noise standards, as demonstrated by a qualified
acoustical consultant).
All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50,
consisting of construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8
inch Type “X” gypsum board on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch
centers and 3 ½ inch fiberglass insulation.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
90
All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the noise
reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be
provided to the City for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure
that the selected windows and doors in combination with wall assemblies
would reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the City’s interior noise
standard.
All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust,
etc.) shall have at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
All windows and doors facing exposed to Tank Farm Road shall be installed in an
acoustically-effective manner. Sliding window panels shall form an air-tight seal
when in the closed position and the window frames shall be caulked to the wall
opening around the perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to
prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors shall seal air-tight around the full
perimeter when in the closed position.
The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department
by a qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise
reduction techniques included in residential, hotel, and office components of
the project would achieve interior noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA
CNEL.
Plan Requirements and Timing. These requirements shall be incorporated into all
the building plan submittals.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to approval of the building plans and shall verify installation in accordance with
approved building plans.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
d. Would the project result in a substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels
in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
Construction on the project site would require noise-generating equipment and vehicles that would
temporarily increase noise levels in the vicinity. The nearest noise-sensitive receptor to the project
site is the single-family residence located approximately 100 feet southeast of the project boundary.
Apart from minor grading, which would occur up to the project boundary, the majority of project
construction would occur closer to the center of the site. To reflect average conditions during
construction, the analysis of construction noise has been prepared based on the distance from the
center of the site to the nearest receptor, which is approximately 350 feet.
Noise levels typically attenuate (or drop off) at a rate of 6 dBA per doubling of distance from point
sources (such as construction equipment). The construction equipment listed in Table 11 is based on
standard construction equipment typically used during residential and commercial construction.
Construction equipment noise levels are shown at a standard minimum distance of 50 feet from the
source, at the minimum distance from the project site boundary to the nearest noise-sensitive
receptor of 100 feet, and at the average distance from the project site center to the nearest noise-
sensitive receptor of 350 feet.
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 91
Table 11 Typical Noise Levels Generated by Construction Equipment
Construction Phase
Combined Noise Level
50 feet (dBA Leq)
Combined Noise Level
100 feet (dBA Leq)
Combined Noise Level
350 feet (dBA Leq)
Demolition 86 80 70
Site Preparation 84 78 67
Grading 87 81 70
Building Construction 85 79 68
Paving 82 76 65
RCNM results are included in Appendix D
Source: Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM); individual equipment noise levels based on FTA 2006
As shown in Table 11, typical construction noise levels associated with the use of heavy construction
equipment would range from approximately 65 dBA Leq to 70 dBA Leq at 350 feet from the source.
Based on the equipment noise levels shown in Table 11, the nearest single-family residence would
temporarily be exposed to noise levels above the City’s 60 dBA stationary equipment standard for
relatively long-term construction activity (10 days or more) at single-family residences (shown in
Table 9). Since the estimated noise levels during construction would exceed the applicable City
noise standard, the temporary noise impact would be potentially significant.
Mitigation Measures
Implementation of Mitigation Measure N-2(a) would require use of construction equipment best
management practices, including shielding stationary equipment, temporary sound barriers
between the construction site and the single-family residence to the southeast, and limiting
construction activity to daytime hours when people are typically awake. Mitigation Measure N-2(b)
would require nearby residential receptors to be notified of future construction activities at the site.
Acoustic shielding can reduce noise from stationary equipment by 5-10 dBA, and temporary sound
barriers can reduce noise from construction equipment by up to 10 dBA. Therefore, implementation
of Mitigation Measures N-2(a) and N-2(b) would ensure that noise levels would not exceed the
stationary equipment noise standards in the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter
9.12 (Noise Control).
N-2(a) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices. For all construction activity
at the project site that exceeds 60 dBA at the property line with the existing
residence to the southeast, the following noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include:
Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at
the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound
transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
92
For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with
appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities.
Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools.
The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays
(e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
T As needed, temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between the
construction site and the single-family residence to the southeast.
N-2(b) Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The
contractor shall inform the property owner of the single-family residence to the
southeast of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise
complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Proof of mailing the notice shall be provided to the Community Development
Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before
beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Construction plans shall note construction hours,
truck routes, and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and shall be
submitted to the City for approval prior to grading and building permit issuance for
each project phase. BMPs shall be identified and described for submittal to the City
for review and approval prior to building or grading permit issuance. BMPs shall be
adhered to for the duration of the project. The applicant shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted
prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction.
Schedule and neighboring property owner notification mailing list shall be
submitted 10 days prior to initiation of any earth movement. The Community
Development department shall confirm that construction noise reduction measures
are incorporated in plans prior to approval of grading/building permit issuance.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on
construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP measures are to be
implemented. A workday schedule will be adhered to for the duration of
construction for all phases.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction phases.
Building inspectors and permit compliance staff shall periodically inspect the site for
compliance with activity schedules and respond to complaints.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 93
b. Would the project result in exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
Construction activity on the project site would temporarily generate groundborne vibration. Table
12 shows the anticipated vibration levels from construction equipment based on a reference
distance of 25 feet, and the distance from the closest sensitive receptors (single-family residence
located at a minimum 100 feet southeast of the project site) for the types of construction
equipment that would be used on the project site. Although the average distance from construction
activity would be approximately 350 feet, due to the nature of vibration noise, analysis for vibration
impacts utilizes the minimum distance between source and receiver, as short durations of peak
vibration levels have the potential to damage structures. Therefore, the analysis below is based on a
minimum distance of 100 feet.
Table 12 Vibration Source Levels for Construction Equipment
Construction Equipment
Vibration Level at 25 feet1 Vibration Level at 100 feet1
Ppv (in/sec) VdB Ppv (in/sec) VdB
Large Bulldozer 0.089 87 0.003 69
Loaded Trucks 0.076 86 0.002 68
Jackhammer 0.035 79 0.001 61
Small Bulldozer 0.003 58 0.000 39
1 Calculated using equation from FTA Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment (2006): PPVequip = PPVref * (25/D)^1.5
Source: California Department of Transportation 2013
As shown in Table 12, periodic vibration levels could reach up to 0.003 in/sec or 69 VdB at 100 feet
from construction activity. Based on California Department of Transportation vibration criteria in
Table 10, the vibration level at the minimum distance of 100 feet would be in the barely perceptible
range of the nearby residence. Furthermore, vibration-generating construction activity would be
temporary and intermittent due to the nature of construction, and would only occur during daytime
hours. Based on vibration criteria in the FTA’s Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment, the
anticipated vibration level of 69 VdB at the nearest single-family residence would not result in
structural damage. Since development under the proposed project would not result in exposure to
excessive groundborne vibration, impacts associated with vibration would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
c. Would the project result in a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels above
levels existing without the project?
Components of the project would be expected to include typical rooftop mechanical equipment,
such as air handling units (heating and air conditioning) and exhaust fans. This type of equipment is
shielded for noise, and does not typically result in noise levels that would exceed approximately 55
dBA at 100 feet from the source. As described above, noise attenuates by approximately 6 dBA with
each doubling of distance from the source. The nearest sensitive receptor is approximately 100 feet
from the proposed project’s boundary and would not experience a perceptible permanent increase
in ambient noise levels above levels existing without the project from air handling units.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
94
Noise associated with operation of the project would primarily result from project-added traffic on
Tank Farm Road and Broad Street. For traffic-related noise, impacts would be significant if project-
generated traffic would result in exposure of sensitive receptors to an unacceptable increase in
traffic noise levels. The following roadways were analyzed for potential increases on roadway noise
(see Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, Appendix E).
Tank Farm Road – west of the project site (segment between Long Street and the project site)
Tank Farm Road – east of the project site (segment between the project site and the Mindbody
Traffic Signal)
Broad Street – north of Tank Farm Road (segment between Tank Farm Road and Industrial Way)
Broad Street – south of Tank Farm Road (segment between Tank Farm Road and Aero Drive)
The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study estimated the number of average daily trips
(ADT) from the project, in comparison to both existing and cumulative conditions.
Existing and Existing Plus Project
The existing ADT along study area roadways, and the anticipated ADT with development under the
proposed project, are shown in Table 13.
Table 13 Average Daily Trips on Study Area Roadways – Existing and Existing Plus Project
ADT
Roadway Existing Existing Plus Project Increase Percent Increase
Tank Farm Road
West of the project site
20,160 20,430 270 1.3%
Tank Farm Road
East of the project site
22,450 23,490 1,040 4.6%
Broad Street
North of Tank Farm Road
26,200 27,150 950 3.6%
Broad Street
South of Tank Farm Road
20,320 20,490 170 0.8%
Source: Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 13, the project would not increase roadway traffic along any study area roadway
by more than 4.6 percent. In general, a doubling of the intensity of a noise source (such as a
doubling of traffic along a roadway) results in a 3 dBA noise level increase. FHWA describes a 3 dBA
noise level increase as barely perceptible (FHWA 2017). A noise level increase of less than 3 dBA is
typically not perceptible for most people in an urban or suburban outdoor environment. The
anticipated increase in traffic along area roadways that would result from development under the
proposed project would not result in a perceptible traffic noise increase. Therefore, noise-sensitive
receptors in the vicinity of the project site would not be exposed to a substantial increase in
roadway noise under Existing plus Project conditions as a result of development under the proposed
project.
Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project
Cumulative roadway conditions, as discussed in Section 16, Transportation, are based on buildout of
planned projects in the project site vicinity. The cumulative ADT along study area roadways, and the
anticipated cumulative ADT with development under the proposed project, are shown in Table 14.
Environmental Checklist
Noise
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 95
Table 14 Average Daily Trips on Study Area Roadways – Cumulative and Cumulative
Plus Project
ADT
Roadway Cumulative
Cumulative Plus
Project Increase Percent Increase
Tank Farm Road
West of the project site 22,620 22,750 130 0.6%
Tank Farm Road
East of the project site 28,900 29,930 1,030 3.6%
Broad Street
North of Tank Farm Road 34,740 35,510 770 2.2%
Broad Street
South of Tank Farm Road 28,210 28,600 390 1.4%
Source: Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 14, the project would not increase roadway traffic along any study area roadway
by more than 3.6 percent. As discussed above, a doubling of the intensity of a noise generating
source results would result in a perceptible noise increase for most receptors. Under cumulative
conditions, the anticipated increase in traffic along area roadways that would result from
development under the proposed project would not result in a perceptible traffic noise increase.
Therefore, noise-sensitive receptors in the vicinity of the project site would not be exposed to a
substantial increase in roadway noise under Cumulative plus Project conditions as a result of
development under the proposed project.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. For a project located in 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 expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f. For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or
working in the project area to excessive noise?
As discussed in Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, the project site is within the City of San
Luis Obispo AASP. As identified in the ALUP and in the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,
the project site is outside the 60 dBA airport sound level contour, and within the 55 dBA airport
sound level contour. Airport noise levels at the project site are lower than existing road traffic noise
levels (see Appendix D). Therefore, the project would not expose people residing or working in the
project area to excessive noise levels from aircraft or other airport uses.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
96
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Population and Housing
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 97
13 Population and Housing
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Induce substantial population growth in
an area, either directly (e.g., by proposing
new homes and businesses) or indirectly
(e.g., through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)? □ □ ■ □
b. Displace substantial numbers of existing
housing, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
c. Displace substantial numbers of people,
necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere? □ □ □ ■
Setting
The City of San Luis Obispo currently has a population of 46,725 residents, and 21,140 housing units
(Department of Finance [DOF] City Population and Housing Estimates 2017). The City currently has a
residential density of 2.33 persons per household.
Discussion
a. Would the project induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example,
by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads
or other infrastructure)?
Development under the proposed project would add up to 249 new housing units to the City, and
remove the existing 35 coaches on the project site, which would result in approximately 498 536
new residents to the City (DOF 2018). Land Use Element Policy 1.11.2 (Residential Growth Rate)
states: “The City shall manage the growth of the city’s housing supply so that it does not exceed one
percent per year, on average, based on thresholds established by Land Use Element Table 3,
excluding dwellings affordable to residents with extremely low, very low or low incomes as defined
by the Housing Element. This rate of growth may continue so long as the City's basic service capacity
is assured. Table 3 shows the approximate number of dwellings and residents which would result
from the one percent maximum average annual growth rate over the planning period. Approved
specific plan areas may develop in accordance with the phasing schedule adopted by each specific
plan provided thresholds established by Table 3 are not exceeded. The City Council shall review the
rate of growth on an annual basis in conjunction with the General Plan annual report to ensure
consistency with the City’s gradual assimilation policy.”
As presented in LUCE Update EIR, Table 3 (One Percent City Population Growth Projection), the
anticipated number of people living in the City in 2035 would be 56,686, and the City has an
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
98
estimated urban reserve capacity of 57,200 people. The LUCE Update EIR states that “based on a
maximum annual residential unit growth rate of one percent per year, by the year 2035 (the
buildout year for the proposed LUCE Update) the maximum number of residential units in the city
would be 25,762,” which results in a population of 56,686. Based on anticipated buildout of the
adopted Land Use Element, approximately 25,601 dwelling units could be located in the City, noting
that the number of dwelling units anticipated in the General Plan was less than the maximum
number of residential units based on the one percent residential growth estimate (LUCE Update EIR,
Section 4.12.2).
While the proposed project would result in the development and occupation of 214 more housing
units than initially anticipated for the AASP (249 new residential units, less the 35 existing mobile
units on the site), this project (in addition to the cumulative development of housing within the City)
is subject to the one percent population growth policy identified in the Land Use Element, Table 3,
which further states that the one percent growth rate can be averaged over five year increments.
Cumulatively, residential buildout in the City up to the year 2035 would not exceed 25,762 units (or
56,686 people). Therefore, while the project would induce growth within the City, and specifically
the area subject to the AASP, the effect would be less than significant because this development,
and future development, are subject to the annual one percent growth over five year increments
limitation.
Based on employment generation rates for retail uses from the San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control
District’s (SLOAPCD) CEQA Air Quality Handbook (SLOAPCD 2012a), the potential new commercial
floor area under the proposed project would result in a net increase of approximately 24 new
employees (1.39 employees per 1,000 feet). Although the project would result in the generation of
new employees, these employees would likely come from the existing population in the City, and
would not contribute to new population growth.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
b. Would the project displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c. Would the project displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of
replacement housing elsewhere?
The project proposes to remove the existing coaches from the site. Although housing would be
removed, all existing coaches are currently vacant or have limited leases based on the
commencement of the project. The project includes approval of a mobile home park Conversion
Impact Report (CIR), which documents replacement housing assistance activities, pursuant to
Section 5.45.030 of the Conversion Ordinance. Pursuant to Section 5.45.150 of the City Municipal
Code, current tenants would be given priority for renting units in the new development. The project
would result in a net increase in housing units, and in accordance with the City’s Mobile Home Park
Conversion requirements (Chapter 5.45 of the City Municipal Code (2018a) relocation benefits and
provisions for re-housing prior mobile home residents were arranged by the current and previous
property owners. In addition, former residents would receive right of first refusal for new units,
including affordable units, that would be offered for rent for the future residential development on
site. Therefore, the project would not displace existing housing or population, and would not
necessitate replacement housing elsewhere.
NO IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 99
14 Public Services
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project result in substantial
adverse physical impacts associated with
the provision of new or physically altered
governmental facilities, or the need for
new or physically altered governmental
facilities, the construction of which could
cause significant environmental impacts,
in order to maintain acceptable service
ratios, response times or other
performance objectives for any of the
public services:
1 Fire protection? □ □ ■ □
2 Police protection? □ □ ■ □
3 Schools? □ □ ■ □
4 Parks? □ □ ■ □
5 Other public facilities? □ □ ■ □
Setting
Fire protection services are provided by the San Luis Obispo City Fire Department (SLOFD). SLOFD is
staffed by four administrative professionals, and 42 firefighters. Services provided by SLOFD include
fire response, emergency medical response, hazardous materials response, public assistance, and
non-emergency services such as fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, fire code
investigations, and public education (SLOFD 2016b).
The San Luis Obispo Police Department (SLOPD) provides police protection for the City. SLOPD has
86 employees including 60 sworn police officers, and is divided into two Bureaus: Operations and
Administrative Services. The Operations Bureau includes the Patrol Services Division, the Traffic
Safety Unit, Situation Oriented Response Team, and Neighborhood Services. The Administrative
Services Bureau includes the Administrative Services Division, Investigative Division,
Communications Division, and Records Unit (SLOPD 2016c).
The project site is within the San Luis Coastal Unified School District (SLCUSD). SLCUSD operates 10
elementary schools, two middle schools, three high schools, and an adult school.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
100
Discussion
a.1 Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire protection facilities, or the need for new or
physically altered fire or police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives?
The project site is within the existing service area of the SLOFD. The closest fire station to the
project site is City Fire Station 3, located at 1280 Laurel Lane, approximately two miles northeast of
the project site. The City has a mutual aid agreement with CALFIRE which allows for additional fire
or emergency assistance when needed, CALFIRE Fire Station 21 is located approximated 1 mile to
the southeast. New development would be subject to the SLOFD standards and California Fire Code
in all proposed buildings, including installation of fire hydrants, building sprinklers, provision of
adequate water supply and pressure, placement of fire extinguishers, provision of adequate fire
access to buildings, and other requirements.
The City’s Fire Master Plan (FMP) discusses current and future operations (Citygate 2009), and
concludes that the City does not have enough primary neighborhood fire stations to deliver
suburban response times to all outer areas, including the AASP. Since the FMP’s preparation in
2009, increasing population and new development have been further pressure on the department’s
ability to respond to requested services. In April 2018, the City’s Fire Marshal reviewed the project,
and determined that development facilitated by the proposed project may worsen response times
in the AASP (Maggio 2018).
The 2016 San Luis Obispo Fire Department Master Plan requires construction of a new fire station in
the southern area of the City when the southern area of the City reaches 90 percent buildout. In
April 2018, the City Council adopted amendments to the Capital Facilities Fee Program to include an
impact fee program to pay for acquisition and construction of a new fire station in the southern area
of the City. Future development under the proposed rezone would be required to contribute its fair
share to the costs of the planned new fire station in the southern area of the City prior to issuance
of building permits.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
a.2. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered fire or police protection facilities, or the need for new
or physically altered police facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or
other performance objectives?
The project site is within the existing service area of the SLOPD. The closest police station to the
project site is located at 1042 Walnut Street, approximately 2.5 miles northwest of the project site.
Although new residential uses would marginally increase the City’s population, the project site is
already served by existing police services, and no new police facilities would be required to provide
service. Since no new facilities would be required to be constructed as a result of the project, the
project would not result in adverse physical impacts.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Public Services
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 101
a.3, a.4, a.5. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered schools, or the need for new or physically
altered schools, parks, or other governmental/public facilities, the construction of
which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable
service ratios, response times or other performance objectives?
The project site is located in the existing services area of the City’s schools, parks, and other public
facilities. As discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing, future development under the
proposed project would include construction of new residential uses, which would increase the
population of San Luis Obispo by approximately 498 536 persons. The introduction of new residents
to the area would introduce new students to SLCUSD. Consistent with the requirements of Senate
Bill 50, the project would be required to pay a school impact fee (Government Code Section 65970)
to SLCUSD. SB 50 fees would be directed towards the maintenance of adequate schools service
levels, including increases in capacity.
In addition, as discussed in Section 15, Recreation, Sections 16.40.040 through 16.040.100 of the
City Municipal Code require project applicants to pay parkland in-lieu fees to offset potential
impacts on park facilities (2018a). Since the project would not require the need of new or expanded
school, park, or other public service facilities, the project would not result in adverse physical
impacts.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
102
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Recreation
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 103
15 Recreation
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
a. Would the project increase the use of
existing neighborhood and regional parks
or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the
facility would occur or be accelerated? □ □ ■ □
b. Does the project include recreational
facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities which
might have an adverse physical effect on
the environment? □ □ ■ □
Setting
There are 26 parks in the City of San Luis Obispo, including eight community parks, ten
neighborhood parks, and eight mini parks. Collectively, these parks include approximately 152 acres
of parkland, of which 34 acres are neighborhood parks. In addition to parks, the City owns or
manages approximately 7,000 acres of open space within and adjacent to San Luis Obispo. This open
space provides recreational opportunities such as fishing, hiking, and biking trails.
Existing recreational facilities near the project site include the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex
directly north of the project site, and E.A. French Park approximately a half mile east of the site.
Damon-Garcia Sports Complex is a Community Park open space area available by reservation
containing soccer fields, picnic area, and a large open space. E.A. French Park is a neighborhood park
with amenities/activities such as an outdoor barbeque area, basketball court, picnic tables, tennis
courts, playgrounds, and open space.
Discussion
a. Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other
recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
b. Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of
recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
As discussed in Section 13, Population and Housing, the project would allow construction of new
residential uses, which would increase the population of San Luis Obispo by approximately 498 536
persons. The project includes recreational opportunities for residents through the development of a
clubhouse and pool area. However, new residents would also use existing City recreational facilities
and areas, including the nearby Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, by reservation, and E.A. French Park.
As required by Sections 16.40.040 through 16.040.100 of the City Municipal Code, project applicants
are required to pay parkland in-lieu fees to help finance additional park space, maintenance or
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
104
equipment in the vicinity, offsetting potential impacts on City recreational facilities. With payment
of required parkland in-lieu fees, the project would not result in the deterioration of existing
neighborhood or regional parks, and would not result in the need for new recreational facilities, the
development of which could cause an adverse physical impact on the environment.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 105
16 Transportation/Traffic
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
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? □ ■ □ □
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? □ ■ □ □
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? □ □ □ ■
d. Substantially increase hazards due to a
design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible
use (e.g., farm equipment)? □ □ ■ □
e. Result in inadequate emergency access? □ □ ■ □
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or
programs regarding public transit,
bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or
otherwise substantially decrease the
performance or safety of such facilities? □ □ ■ □
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
106
Background and Setting
The analysis in this section is based on the Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study conducted
by Central Coast Transportation Consulting in May 2018 and the 650 Tank Farm- Tank Farm Road
Fair Share Calculation memorandum prepared in October 2018. The Draft Multimodal
Transportation Impact Study and the 650 Tank Farm- Tank Farm Road Fair Share Calculation
memorandum are included in this Initial Study as Appendix E.
Roadway conditions during the weekday AM and PM peak periods were evaluated at the following
nine intersections and along the following four roadways. Study intersections and segments were
identified for analysis in consultation with City staff, consistent with City policies.
Intersections
1. Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street
2. Tank Farm Road/Long Street
3. Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road
4. Tank Farm Road/Mindbody Traffic Signal
5. Broad Street/Capitolio Way
6. Broad Street/Industrial Way
7. Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
8. Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane
9. Broad Street/Aero Drive
Roadways
1. Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to Higuera Street)
2. Tank Farm Road (Broad Street to Orcutt Road)
3. Broad Street (Orcutt Road to Tank Farm Road)
4. Broad Street (Tank Farm Road to South City Limits)
The studied intersections and segments were evaluated under the following scenarios:
Existing Conditions reflect 2016 traffic counts and the existing transportation network.
Existing Plus Project adds project-generated traffic to existing conditions volumes.
Cumulative Conditions were developed using the City’s Travel Demand Model, which includes
planned network and land use changes expected upon buildout of the City’s General Plan.
Cumulative Plus Project represents future traffic conditions reflective of the buildout of the
City’s General Plan, including the proposed project.
The weekday AM peak period occurs between 7:00 AM and 9:00 AM, while the weekday PM peak
period occurs between 4:00 PM and 6:00 PM. These time periods were chosen as they reflect
typical commute periods when the surrounding commercial area experiences the greatest
congestion.
Pedestrian Facilities
Pedestrian facilities in the study area include sidewalks, crosswalks, and pedestrian signals at
signalized intersections. However, multiple studied segments do not currently have pedestrian
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 107
facilities or have discontinuous pedestrian facilities. South of Rockview Place, Broad Street has a
paved sidewalk only on the east side of the street. Broad Street between Tank Farm Road and Aero
Vista Lane has a discontinuous sidewalk on the east side of the street. East of the Union Pacific
Railroad overhead crossing, Tank Farm Road has a discontinuous sidewalk on its north side. West of
Broad Street, Tank Farm Road has no sidewalks on the north side of the road, and between Santa Fe
Road and Old Windmill Lane has no sidewalks on either side. All other study segments have paved
sidewalks on both sides of the street.
Bicycle Facilities
Bicycle facilities in the study area consist of Class II bike lanes, which provide a striped lane for one-
way bicycle travel on the side of a street. Broad Street and Tank Farm Road both have Class II bike
lanes on both sides of the road throughout the study segments.
Transit Service
The San Luis Obispo Regional Transit Authority (RTA) and the City of San Luis Obispo Transit Division
(SLO Transit) provide transit service to the study area. SLO Transit Routes 1 and 3 provide fixed-
route service to the study area. RTA offers Dial-A-Ride curb to curb services within the city limits.
Traffic Analysis Methodology & Regulatory Setting
City of San Luis Obispo Level of Service Standards
The City’s Circulation Element (2014) establishes the following multimodal minimum level of service
(LOS) standards:
Bicycle – An impact would be significant if a facility would degrade from LOS D or better to LOS
E or worse.
Pedestrian – An impact would be significant if a facility would degrade from LOS C or better to
LOS D or worse.
Transit – An impact would be significant if a facility would degrade from LOS D or better to LOS
E or worse, or if a segment with a baseline LOS E or LOS F would degrade in a contextually
significant manner.
Vehicle – An impact would be significant if a facility would degrade from LOS D or better to LOS
E or worse, and experience an increase of the V/C ratio by 0.01 or more.
The Circulation Element also establishes priorities for each mode, such that construction, expansion,
or alteration for one mode does not degrade the service level of a higher priority mode. In the study
area, modes are prioritized as follows: 1) vehicles, 2) transit, 3) bicycles, and 4) pedestrians.
Exceptions to multimodal priorities may apply when in conflict with safety or regulatory
requirements or conflicts with area character, topography, street design, and existing density.
In accordance to the criteria specified in the San Luis Obispo Circulation Element and LUCE Update
EIR, a project has a significant impact on the above modes of transportation when it causes an
exceedance to one of these LOS standards. For modes already operating below the established LOS
standards, any further degradation to the LOS score would also be considered a significant impact
under CEQA.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
108
Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project traffic volume forecasts were developed using the City’s
Travel Demand Model, which includes planned network and land use changes expected upon
buildout of the City’s General Plan. The following key network changes would shift travel patterns in
the study area, and were incorporated into the Cumulative baseline conditions:
Prado Road would extend as a four-lane regional route arterial from South Higuera Street to
Broad Street with a new intersection between Capitolio Way and Industrial Way.
A full interchange would be constructed at Prado Road and U.S. 101.
Victoria Avenue would be extended from Woodbridge Street to High Street.
Orcutt Road would be widened as a four-lane arterial from the railroad tracks to Johnson
Avenue.
Tank Farm Road would be widened to four lanes west of 250 Tank Farm Road and east of Santa
Fe Road.
The intersection of Tank Farm Road/Long Street would be signalized.
Transit conditions were assumed to remain the same as those in Existing conditions.
General Plan Policies
Policy 6.1.5 - Mitigation. For significant impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair
share of any improvements required. Potential improvements for alternative mode may include, but
are not limited to:
Pedestrian: Provision of sidewalk, providing or increasing a buffer from vehicular travel lanes,
increased sidewalk clear width, providing a continuous barrier between pedestrians and vehicle
traffic, improved crossings, reduced signal delay, traffic calming, no right turn on red, reducing
intersection crossing distance.
Bicycle: Addition of a bicycle lane, traffic calming, provision of a buffer between bicycle and
vehicle traffic, pavement resurfacing, reduced number of access points, or provision of an
exclusive bicycle path, reducing intersection crossing distance.
Transit: For transit-related impacts, developments shall be responsible for their fair share of any
infrastructural improvements required. This may involve provision of street furniture at transit
stops, transit shelters, and/or transit shelter amenities, pullouts for transit vehicles, transit
signal prioritization, provision of additional transit vehicles, or exclusive transit lanes.
Discussion
a. Would the project conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy establishing a measure
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?
b. Would the project 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?
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 109
f. Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or
pedestrian facilities, or otherwise substantially decrease the performance or safety of such
facilities?
Trip Generation
The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study estimates the number of vehicle trips generated
by the project using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in
Trip Generation Manual, 9th Edition, 2012 for Apartment (ITE LU 220) and Shopping Center (ITE LU
820) uses (Appendix E). These uses provide a reasonable approximation for vehicle trip generation
from anticipated development under proposed project based on the conceptual site plan (refer to
Figure 3). Table 15 shows the total number of new vehicles trips anticipated from this potential
development, as well as the net new trips that would result from implementation of the project. Net
new trips were determined by subtracting internal capture trips, pass-by trips, and trips associated
with the existing mobile home land use from the gross trip generation.
Table 15 Estimated Project Traffic Trip Generation
Weekday Peak Hour
ITE Land Use AM PM Total Daily Trips
Proposed
220: Apartment1 127 154 1,656
820: Shopping Center2 17 65 747
Subtotal 144 219 2,403
Reductions
Internal Trips 0 26 328
Pass-By Trips3 0 18 90
Existing Mobile Home Park4 15 11 150
Total 129 164 1,835
1 ITE Land Use Code #220, Apartment. Fitted curve equations used.
2 ITE Land Use Code #820, Shopping Center. Average rates used.
3 PM Peak Hour rate multiplied by a factor of 5 to determine daily trips.
4 PM Peak Hour rate multiplied by a factor of 10 to determine daily trips.
Source: Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 15, the anticipated development under the proposed project would be expected
to generate up to 1,835 net new vehicle trips on a daily basis, including 129 vehicle trips during the
morning peak hour and 164 new trips during the evening peak hour. These new trips represent the
increase in traffic associated with the proposed project compared to existing volumes.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
110
Existing and Existing Plus Project Conditions
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Existing conditions scenario provides an evaluation of current roadway and intersection
congestion based on existing traffic volumes. This condition does not include project-generated
traffic volumes. The Existing plus Project scenario evaluates existing conditions with the addition of
project-generated trips. Table 16 shows the peak hour intersection levels of service under existing
conditions and with project-added vehicle trips.
Table 16 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service – Existing and Existing Plus Project
Study Intersection
Peak
Hour
Existing Conditions Existing Plus Project
V/C
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS V/C
V/C
Delta
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1. Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street AM
PM
0.87
0.93
26.7
32.7
C
C
0.87
0.94
0.00
0.01
27.0
33.3
C
C
2. Tank Farm Road/Long Street AM
PM
0.19
0.40
1.9 (23.4)
3.8 (41.7)
C
E
0.19
0.42
0.00
0.02
1.9 (24.1)
4.0 (50.0)
C*
F*
3. Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road AM
PM
0.15
0.57
1.3 (20.5)
2.7 (39.6)
C
E
0.15
0.48
0.00
-0.09
1.1 (14.9)
2.0 (20.0)
B
C
4. Tank Farm Road/MindBody Traffic
Signal
AM
PM
0.77
0.91
7.4
14.7
A
B
0.78
0.95
0.01
0.04
6.3
9.3
A
A
5. Broad Street/Capitolio Way AM
PM
0.20
0.38
1.0 (14.7)
1.7 (23.5)
B
C
0.21
0.39
0.01
0.01
1.1 (15.4)
1.8 (24.8)
C
C
6. Broad Street/Industrial Way AM
PM
0.79
0.97
13.5
26.9
B
C
0.79
0.98
0.00
0.01
13.6
28.2
B
C
7. Broad Street/Tank Farm Road AM
PM
0.87
0.88
38.2
43.8
D
D
0.87
0.89
0.00
0.01
39.2
46.1
D
D
8. Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane AM
PM
0.14
0.47
0.8 (19.9)
2.1 (28.0)
C
D
0.15
0.48
0.01
0.01
0.8 (20.1)
2.1 (28.6)
C
D
9. Broad Street/Aero Drive AM
PM
0.66
1.07
7.6
32.9
A
C
0.66
1.11
0.00
0.04
7.7
33.8
A
C
The signalization of Tank Farm Road and Long Street is part of a condition of approval for the Long-Bonetti Ranch project, which is an
approved City of San Luis Obispo project. The signalized intersection is planned to be completed before the project is occupied.
Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle
Source: Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 16, study area intersections are currently operating acceptably at LOS D or better
during both the AM and PM peak hours, except for the Tank Farm Road/Long Street intersection
and the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection. Under Existing plus Project conditions, the
Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection would operate at LOS C during the PM peak hour as a
result of widening Tank Farm Road at the project site frontage. At the Tank Farm Road/Long Street
intersection, the side street approaches operate unacceptably during both Existing and Existing plus
Project conditions during the PM peak hour (Appendix E). However, as noted in the Draft
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study, this intersection is currently under final design for a traffic
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 111
signal, which is a condition of approval for the City approved Long-Bonetti Ranch project, and upon
installation, would result in acceptable operations at this location. Therefore, the project would not
result in a significant impact to intersection level of service under Existing plus Project conditions.
INTERSECTION VEHICLE QUEUING
Table 17 shows vehicle queues at study area intersections. Detailed queue and LOS results are
included in Appendix E.
The addition of project generated traffic would increase the eastbound left queue length by one to
two vehicle lengths at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection in the Existing plus Project
scenario due to project traffic turning north onto Broad Street. The queues for Tank Farm
Road/Santa Fe Road would decrease with the addition of the project as a result of widening Tank
Farm Road at the project site frontage. The increase in critical queues at the Broad Street/Tank Farm
Road intersection would be a potentially significant impact.
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Table 18 and Table 19 show the Existing plus Project level of service conditions along study area
roadway segments during AM and PM peak hours, respectively. The tables show level of service
conditions for all modal types (i.e. vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit users). Existing
conditions without project added vehicle trips are shown in the Draft Multimodal Transportation
Impact Study (Appendix E).
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
112
Table 17 Peak Hour Intersection Queues – Existing and Existing Plus Project
Study Intersection Movement
Store
Length (ft) Peak Hour
Existing Existing Plus Project
95th Percentile Queues (ft)1
1. Tank Farm Road/South
Higuera Street
WBL 670 AM
PM
125
#311
47
#316
WBR 250 AM
PM
63
93
63
94
NBR 140 AM
PM
30
61
30
63
SBL 165 AM
PM
#324
#471
#324
#477
3.Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road NBR 25 AM
PM
11
73
7
31
4. Tank Farm Road/MindBody
Traffic Signal
WBL 210 AM
PM
36
20
36
19
NBL 330 AM
PM
21
#183
23
#159
5. Broad Street/Capitolio Way WBL _ AM
PM
3
16
9
18
6. Broad Street/Industrial Way EBT/L 350 AM
PM
18
67
18
67
NBL 150 AM
PM
63
#96
63
#96
SBL 150 AM
PM
79
#274
79
#274
7. Broad Street/Tank Farm Road EBL 300 AM
PM
145
#277
173
#313
EBR 90 AM
PM
89
58
101
59
WBL 150 AM
PM
#265
#273
#266
#276
NBL 290 AM
PM
120
#210
122
#223
SBL 250 AM
PM
95
#244
95
#246
SBR 300 AM
PM
83
167
98
230
8. Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane EBL 75 AM
PM
11
51
11
53
9. Broad Street/Aero Drive EBT/L 310 AM
PM
32
83
32
84
1. Queue length that would not be exceed 95 percent of the time
# indicates that 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer
Detailed queues are included in Appendix E.
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 113
Table 18 Roadway Segments AM Peak Hour MMLOS – Existing Plus Project
Auto Pedestrian Bicycle Transit
Roadway Segment Direction Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
1a. Tank Farm Road – Old
Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road
EB
WB
2.34
2.34
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.79
2.71
C
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1b. Tank Farm Road – Santa Fe
Road to Broad Street
EB
WB
2.75
2.75
B
B
2.84
N/A
C
N/A
2.07
2.10
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Tank Farm Road – Broad
Street to UPRR
EB
WB
2.47
2.47
B
B
2.85
3.14
C
C
2.19
2.38
B
B
N/A
3.33
N/A
C
2b. Tank Farm Road – UPRR to
Orcutt Road
EB
WB
3.13
3.13
C
C
1.14
N/A
A
N/A
0.32
0.47
A
A
N/A
4.17
N/A
D
3a. Broad Street – Orcutt Road to
Industrial Way
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
B
3.20
N/A
C
N/A
2.24
2.10
B
B
4.66
N/A
E
N/A
3b. Broad Street – Industrial Way
to Tank Farm Road
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
2.88
N/A
C
N/A
2.12
2.06
B
B
5.55
N/A
F
N/A
4a. Broad Street – Tank Farm
Road to Aero Vista Lane
NB
SB
2.52
2.52
F
B
N/A
3.23
N/A
C
2.08
0.98
B
A
N/A
4.70
N/A
E
4b. Broad Street – Aero Vista
Lane to Aero Drive
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
B
2.89
2.19
C
B
1.25
0.93
A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4c. Broad Street – Aero Drive to
South City Limits
NB
SB
2.93
2.93
F
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.10
1.22
B
A
N/A
5.71
N/A
F
1. HCM 2010 LOS score and LOS
2. LOS is not established for segments without a sidewalk
3. LOS is not established without a directional transit route.
Table 19 Roadway Segments PM Peak Hour MMLOS – Existing Plus Project
Auto Pedestrian Bicycle Transit
Roadway Segment Direction Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
1a. Tank Farm Road – Old
Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road
EB
WB
2.34
2.34
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.81
2.92
C
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1b. Tank Farm Road – Santa Fe
Road to Broad Street
EB
WB
2.75
2.75
B
B
3.14
N/A
C
N/A
2.22
2.24
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Tank Farm Road – Broad
Street to UPRR
EB
WB
2.47
2.47
B
B
3.30
3.14
C
C
2.59
2.38
B
B
N/A
3.33
N/A
C
2b. Tank Farm Road – UPRR to
Orcutt Road
EB
WB
3.13
3.13
C
C
1.73
N/A
A
N/A
0.66
0.35
A
A
N/A
4.14
N/A
D
3a. Broad Street – Orcutt Road
to Industrial Way
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
F
B
3.67
N/A
D
N/A
2.40
2.13
B
B
4.72
N/A
E
N/A
3b. Broad Street – Industrial
Way to Tank Farm Road
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
2.82
N/A
C
N/A
2.13
2.10
B
B
5.54
N/A
F
N/A
4a. Broad Street – Tank Farm
Road to Aero Vista Lane
NB
SB
2.52
2.52
F
B
N/A
3.39
N/A
C
2.07
1.05
B
A
N/A
4.72
N/A
E
4b. Broad Street – Aero Vista
Lane to Aero Drive
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
2.33
2.68
B
B
0.83
1.18
A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4c. Broad Street – Aero Drive to
South City Limits
NB
SB
2.93
2.93
C
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.77
1.53
A
A
N/A
5.71
N/A
F
1. HCM 2010 LOS score and LOS
2. LOS is not established for segments without a sidewalk
3. LOS is not established without a directional transit route.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
114
Roadway Facilities
Several roadway segments in the study area would experience LOS F under Existing plus Project
conditions. However, none of these segments would experience a decline in LOS as a result of new
vehicle trips associated with the project (refer to Appendix E). The Draft Multimodal Transportation
Impact Study does not note any new deficiencies with the addition of project-added vehicles trips.
Therefore, impacts to roadway segment LOS would be less than significant.
Pedestrian Facilities
Multiple segments in the study area do not have a pedestrian LOS reported due to the absence of
pedestrian facilities, or currently have discontinuous pedestrian facilities. The addition of project-
generated pedestrian trips would not further degrade the level of service at any of these facilities,
or otherwise overburden or substantially decrease the effectiveness of the pedestrian network
under Existing plus Project conditions. Therefore, the project’s impacts on pedestrian facilities
would be less than significant.
Bicycle Facilities
All bicycle facilities operate at LOS C or better under Existing and Existing plus Project conditions.
Therefore, impact on bicycle facilities would be less than significant. As discussed in Section 2,
Project Description, future development of the project site under the proposed project may include
a pedestrian/bicycle access path from the northern site boundary to the existing pedestrian/bicycle
paths at the Damon Garcia-Sports Fields. This potential connection would be consistent with the
intent of the Bicycle Transportation Plan and the AASP, which show a planned Class I bicycle path
from Tank Farm up to Damon-Garcia via the Digital West property west of the project site.
Transit Facilities
Multiple segments in the study area would operate below the City’s transit LOS thresholds due to
the relatively infrequent service times and/or lack of bus stops on the specific segment under
existing and cumulative conditions. The addition of project-generated transit trips would not further
degrade the level of service at any of these facilities, or otherwise overburden or substantially
decrease the effectiveness of the transit network under Existing plus Project conditions. Therefore,
impact on transit facilities would be less than significant.
Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project Conditions
INTERSECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE
The Cumulative traffic scenario reflects planned network and land use changes expected upon
buildout of the City’s General Plan. Table 20 shows the peak hour intersection levels of service
under cumulative conditions and with project-added vehicle trips.
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 115
Table 20 Peak Hour Intersection Levels of Service - Cumulative and Cumulative Plus
Project
Study Intersection
Peak
Hour
Cumulative Conditions Cumulative Plus Project
V/C
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS V/C
V/C
Delta
Delay
(sec/veh) LOS
1. Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street AM
PM
1.35
1.70
94.9
78.9
F
E
1.35
1.71
0.00
0.01
94.9
79.2
F
E
2. Tank Farm Road/Long Street AM
PM
0.83
0.75
16.9
12.0
B
B
0.83
0.76
0.00
0.01
17.0
12.1
B
B
3.Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road AM
PM
>1.00
>1.00
- (>200)
- (>200)
F
F
>1.00
>1.00
-
-
- (>200)
- (>200)
F
F
4. Tank Farm Road/MindBody Traffic
Signal
AM
PM
0.76
0.96
17.4
38.0
B
D
0.85
0.99
0.09
0.03
18.7
42.5
B
D
5. Broad Street/Capitolio Way AM
PM
0.24
1.58
1.3 (25.2)
13.2 (191.2)
D
F
0.26
1.70
0.02
0.12
1.3 (26.6)
14.6 (>200)
D
F
6. Broad Street/Industrial Way AM
PM
1.05
1.35
35.1
106.1
D
F
1.06
1.38
0.01
0.03
36.8
113.9
D
F
7. Broad Street/Tank Farm Road AM
PM
1.36
1.82
103.2
134.9
F
F
1.37
1.91
0.01
0.09
105.2
142.6
F
F
8. Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane AM
PM
0.29
1.09
1.2 (26.7)
7.8 (132.3)
D
F
0.31
1.13
0.02
0.04
1.2 (27.8)
8.4 (142.6)
D
F
9. Broad Street/Aero Drive AM
PM
0.95
0.91
31.7
37.1
C
D
0.95
0.94
0.00
0.03
32.2
38.4
C
D
Delay is measured in average seconds per vehicle
Source: Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
As shown in Table 20, the following intersections would operate below the LOS D threshold with
project-added vehicle trips:
The Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street intersection would operate at LOS F during the AM
peak hour and LOS E during the PM peak hour during both Cumulative and Cumulative plus
Project conditions. The addition of project-generated trips would increase the worst movement
V/C ratio by 0.01 during the PM peak hour.
The Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection would operate at LOS F during both Cumulative
and Cumulative plus Project conditions.
The Broad Street/Capitolio Way intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour
during both Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions. The addition of project-
generated trips would increase the worst movement V/C ratio by 0.12 during the PM peak hour.
The Broad Street/Industrial Way intersection would operate at LOS F during both the AM and
PM peak hour, during both Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions. The addition of
project-generated traffic would increase the worst movement V/C ratio by 0.03.
The Broad Street and Tank Farm Road intersection would operate at LOS F during both the AM
and PM peak hours and both Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions. The addition
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
116
of project-generated traffic would increase the worst movement V/C ratio by 0.01 during the
AM peak hour and by 0.09 during the PM peak hour.
The Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane intersection would operate at LOS F during the PM peak hour
during both Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project conditions. The addition of project traffic
would increase the worst movement V/C ratio by 0.04 during the PM peak hour.
Under Cumulative conditions, the introduction of new vehicle trips associated with development on
the project site would substantially degrade the six listed study area intersections, with a worst-
movement V/C ratio increase of 0.1 or more, resulting in potentially significant level of service
impacts. Therefore, the project’s contribution to significant cumulative impacts would be
cumulatively considerable.
INTERSECTION VEHICLE QUEUING
Table 21 shows vehicle queues at study area intersections. Detailed queue and LOS results are
included in Appendix E.
Table 21 Peak Hour Intersection Queues - Cumulative and Cumulative Plus Project
Intersection Movement
Store
Length (ft)
Peak
Hour
Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project
95th Percentile Queues (ft)1
1. Tank Farm Road/South
Higuera Street
WBL 670 AM
PM
151
#434
153
#440
WBR 250 AM
PM
71
#340
71
#342
NBR 140 AM
PM
#297
63
#298
63
SBL 165 AM
PM
#681
#704
#681
#706
3.Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road NBR 25 AM
PM
48
167
48
174
4. Tank Farm Road/MindBody
Traffic Signal
WBL 210 AM
PM
#176
#199
#176
#196
NBL 330 AM
PM
73
#292
75
#303
5. Broad Street/Capitolio Way WBL _ AM
PM
20
191
22
202
6. Broad Street/Industrial Way EBT/L 350 AM
PM
41
111
41
111
NBL 150 AM
PM
#67
#98
#67
#98
SBL 150 AM
PM
#115
#311
#115
#311
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 117
Intersection Movement
Store
Length (ft)
Peak
Hour
Cumulative Cumulative Plus Project
95th Percentile Queues (ft)1
7. Broad Street/Tank Farm Road EBL 300 AM
PM
#197
#523
#245
#553
EBR 90 AM
PM
308
56
#347
57
WBL 150 AM
PM
#554
#405
#554
#409
NBL 290 AM
PM
#251
#319
#256
#346
SBL 250 AM
PM
#237
#523
#237
#529
SBR 300 AM
PM
#796
346
#824
#450
8. Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane EBL 75 AM
PM
24
169
26
176
9. Broad Street/Aero Drive EBT/L 310 AM
PM
73
#360
73
#361
1. Queue length that would not be exceed 95 percent of the time
# indicates that 95th percentile volume exceeds capacity, queue may be longer
Detailed queues are included in Appendix E.
As shown in Table 21, the following intersections would experience queueing deficiencies with the
addition of project-generated traffic in the Cumulative scenario:
At the Tank Farm/South Higuera Street intersection, queues would exceed storage length during
at least one peak hour on the westbound right, northbound right, and southbound left turning
movements. The addition of project-generated traffic would increase queues by less than one
vehicle length.
At the Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road intersection, the northbound right turn queue length
would exceed storage length during both peak hours under Cumulative and Cumulative plus
Project conditions. The addition of project-generated traffic would increase queues by less than
one vehicle length.
At the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road intersection, the addition of project generated traffic to
queues that exceed storage would result in an increase of more than one vehicle length during
at least one peak hour on the eastbound left and right, northbound left, and southbound right
movements.
At the Broad Street/Aero Vista Lane intersection, the eastbound left movement would exceed
storage during the PM peak hour both with and without project-added vehicle traffic. The
addition of project-generated traffic would increase this queue by less than one vehicle length.
During the Cumulative scenario conditions, the introduction of new vehicle trips generated by
development on the project site would result in significant queuing impacts at the four listed study
area intersections. Therefore, the project’s contribution to significant cumulative queuing impacts
would be cumulatively considerable.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
118
ROADWAY SEGMENT LEVEL OF SERVICE
Table 22 and Table 23 show the Cumulative plus Project level of service conditions along study area
roadway segments during AM and PM peak hours. The tables show level of service conditions for all
modal types (i.e. vehicle, pedestrian, bicyclist, and transit users). The baseline cumulative conditions
without project added vehicle trips are shown in the Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
(Appendix E).
Table 22 Roadway Segments AM Peak Hour MMLOS1 – Cumulative Plus Project
Auto Pedestrian2 Bicycle Transit3
Roadway Segment Direction Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
1a. Tank Farm Road – Old
Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road
EB
WB
2.34
2.34
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.98
2.88
C
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1b. Tank Farm Road – Santa Fe
Road to Broad Street
EB
WB
2.75
2.75
B
B
3.22
3.13
C
C
2.25
2.38
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Tank Farm Road – Broad
Street to UPRR
EB
WB
2.47
2.47
B
B
2.99
3.51
C
D
2.35
2.60
B
B
N/A
3.38
N/A
C
2b. Tank Farm Road – UPRR to
Orcutt Road
EB
WB
3.13
3.13
C
C
0.95
N/A
A
N/A
0.13
0.34
A
A
N/A
4.14
N/A
D
3a. Broad Street – Orcutt Road to
Industrial Way
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
3.36
N/A
C
N/A
2.30
2.29
B
B
4.69
N/A
E
N/A
3b. Broad Street – Industrial Way
to Tank Farm Road
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
3.08
3.57
C
D
2.22
2.28
B
B
5.58
N/A
F
N/A
4a. Broad Street – Tank Farm
Road to Aero Vista Lane
NB
SB
2.52
2.52
F
B
N/A
3.66
N/A
D
2.23
1.15
B
A
N/A
4.76
N/A
E
4b. Broad Street – Aero Vista
Lane to Aero Drive
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
3.23
2.94
C
C
1.35
1.27
A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4c. Broad Street – Aero Drive to
South City Limits
NB
SB
2.93
2.93
F
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.13
1.49
B
A
N/A
5.85
N/A
F
1. HCM 2010 LOS score and LOS; 2. LOS is not established for segments without a sidewalk; 3. LOS is not established without a
directional transit route.
Source: Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E)
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 119
Table 23 Roadway Segments PM Peak Hour MMLOS1 – Cumulative Plus Project
Auto Pedestrian2 Bicycle Transit3
Roadway Segment Direction Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS Score LOS
1a. Tank Farm Road – Old
Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road
EB
WB
2.34
2.34 E4 N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.89
3.00
C
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1b. Tank Farm Road – Santa Fe
Road to Broad Street
EB
WB
2.75
2.75
B
B
3.59
3.08
D
C
2.37
2.37
B
B
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2a. Tank Farm Road – Broad
Street to UPRR
EB
WB
2.47
2.47
B
B
3.88
3.23
D
C
2.86
2.44
C
B
N/A
3.34
N/A
C
2b. Tank Farm Road – UPRR to
Orcutt Road
EB
WB
3.13
3.13
C
C
1.55
N/A
A
N/A
0.58
0.06
A
A
N/A
4.10
N/A
D
3a. Broad Street – Orcutt Road
to Industrial Way
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
F
F
4.26
N/A
E
N/A
2.56
2.24
B
B
4.81
N/A
E
N/A
3b. Broad Street – Industrial Way
to Tank Farm Road
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
F
F
3.23
3.36
C
C
2.30
2.22
B
B
5.60
N/A
F
N/A
4a. Broad Street – Tank Farm
Road to Aero Vista Lane
NB
SB
2.52
2.52
F
B
N/A
3.64
N/A
D
2.31
1.14
B
A
N/A
4.76
N/A
E
4b. Broad Street – Aero Vista
Lane to Aero Drive
NB
SB
2.14
2.14
B
F
3.27
3.13
C
C
1.19
1.34
A
A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
4c. Broad Street – Aero Drive to
South City Limits
NB
SB
2.93
2.93
F
C
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.07
1.62
B
A
N/A
5.78
N/A
F
1 HCM 2010 LOS score and LOS
2 LOS is not established for segments without a sidewalk
3 LOS is not established without a directional transit route; 4. The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study evaluated segment
LOS using a different methodology than was used in the 2014 Circulation Element Update. LOS for this segment is estimated using
generalized LOS thresholds obtained from the U.S. Department of Transportation Quality/Level of Service Handbook.
Source: Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study (see Appendix E); 650 Tank Farm- Tank Farm Road Fair Share Calculation
Memorandum
Roadway Facilities
Several segments in the study area would have a V/C ratio that is greater than one under the
Cumulative plus Project scenario, which results in LOS F. The 650 Tank Farm- Tank Farm Road Fair
Share Calculation memorandum evaluated the LOS on Tank Farm Road from Old Windmill Lane to
Santa Fe Road segment, and identified that the LOS would be reduced to E under the methodology
that was used in the 2014 Circulation Element Update (refer to Appendix E). The addition of project-
added vehicles trips does not result in a decline in LOS at any study area roadway segment, and the
nearby intersections along these segments would constrain flow before the segments. However, the
project would be required to pay its fair share toward the widening of Tank Farm Road to four lanes
between Santa Fe Road and Old Windmill Lane, where the existing LOS impact is exacerbated by
project-added vehicle trips. Therefore, the project’s contribution to the cumulative automobile LOS
impacts at this intersection would be cumulatively considerable.
Pedestrian Facilities
Multiple segments in the study area do not have a pedestrian LOS reported due to the absence of
pedestrian facilities, or currently have discontinuous pedestrian facilities. Under Cumulative
conditions, multiple segments currently operate at unacceptable conditions. However, none of the
segments in the study area would experience a substantial decrease in level of service as a result of
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
120
project-added traffic. Therefore, the project’s impacts on pedestrian facilities would be less than
significant.
Bicycle Facilities
All bicycle facilities operate at LOS C or better under Cumulative and Cumulative plus Project
conditions. Therefore, impact on bicycle facilities would be less than significant.
Transit Facilities
Multiple segments in the study area would operate below the City’s transit LOS thresholds due to
the relatively infrequent service times and/or lack of bus stops on the specific segment under
existing and cumulative conditions. The addition of project-generated transit trips would not further
degrade the level of service at any of these facilities, or otherwise overburden or substantially
decrease the effectiveness of the transit network under Cumulative plus Project conditions.
Therefore, impact on transit facilities would be less than significant.
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure T-1 would reduce the queueing impact at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection to a less than significant level. Mitigation Measure T-2 would address the project’s
contribution to significant cumulative intersection and segment level of service and queueing
impacts.
The effectiveness of these improvements at reducing identified level of service and queueing
impacts is discussed in Appendix E. With implementation of Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2,
identified impacts would be reduced to a less than significant level, and the project’s contribution to
significant cumulative impacts would not be cumulatively considerable.
T-1 Broad Street/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. The project applicant
shall pay fair share costs for required intersection improvements to address the
project’s identified queueing impact at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection. Required intersection improvements include:
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road: Re-stripe the existing cross-sectional width to
provide a second southbound left turn lane.
Alternatively, the identified queueing impact at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection would be eliminated if the applicant provides a vehicular connection to
the adjacent site to the east, which would allow use of the traffic signal at Industrial
Way.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall calculate the fair share costs required
for payment by the applicant. The applicant shall pay fair share costs upon
acceptance by the City of final design plans and in accordance with the timing of
improvements. A funding mechanism shall be established as a condition of project
approval.
Otherwise, the City shall verify that a vehicular connection to the adjacent site to
the east, which would allow use of the traffic signal at Industrial Way, is provided on
project site plans.
Environmental Checklist
Transportation/Traffic
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 121
Monitoring. The City shall verify payment of fair share costs (or inclusion of a
vehicular connection to the adjacent site to the east on project site plans) upon
acceptance by the City of final design plans.
T-2 Fair Share Costs for Required Intersection Improvements. The project applicant
shall pay fair share costs for required intersection and segment improvements to
address the project’s contribution to identified cumulative intersection and
segment level of service and queueing impacts. Required intersection
improvements include:
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street: Install a second southbound left turn
lane.
Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road: Install a multi-lane roundabout.
Broad Street/Industrial Way: Convert the east and west approaches from split
phasing to permissive phasing and restripe both approaches to provide
dedicated left turn lanes and shared through/right turn lanes.
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road: Add a second southbound left turn lane, add a
dedicated northbound right turn lane, convert the westbound right turn lane to
a shared through/right lane, and establish time-of-day timing plans.
Required segment improvements include:
Tank Farm Road from Old Windmill Lane to Santa Fe Road: Roadway widening.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall calculate the fair share costs required
for payment by the applicant for development of the project site. The applicant
shall pay fair share costs upon acceptance by the City of final design plans and in
accordance with the timing of improvements. A funding mechanism shall be
established as a condition of project approval.
Monitoring. The City shall verify payment of fair share costs upon acceptance by the
City of final design plans and in accordance with the timing of improvements.
Residual Impacts Associated with Off-Site Improvements
Implementation of mitigation measures that require off-site improvements would generally not
result in significant residual impacts, as these improvements would occur within existing roadway
rights-of-way where possible, or within urbanized paved/landscaped areas immediately adjacent to
existing roadway rights-of-way. Additional lanes, including roundabouts, may require new
improvements outside of existing rights-of-way with the potential to result in residual impacts. At
this time, because the specific details of these improvements are not known with certainty, a
generalized analysis of potential impacts is provided herein.
During construction of these improvements, potential issue areas that may be temporarily affected
would include air quality, cultural resources, hazards and hazardous materials, water quality, noise
and transportation. Construction-related environmental impacts would be mitigated through
compliance with City permitting and construction monitoring requirements and standard SLOAPCD
dust and diesel emission control measures. Long-term impacts of these improvements would
include land use impacts associated with acquisition of additional right-of-way.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
122
c. Would the project 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?
The project would not result in any changes in air traffic patterns. Therefore, the project would not
result in any new safety hazards or increased safety risks. Refer to Section 8, Hazards and Hazardous
Materials, for a complete discussion of airport related hazards and risks.
NO IMPACT
d. Would the project substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or
dangerous intersections) or incompatible use (e.g., farm equipment)?
The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study includes an analysis of hazardous conditions for
the conceptual site plan (Figure 3). The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study analysis is
based on the conceptual site plan for the proposed project, since a final design for development on
the project site has not yet been submitted to the City. The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact
Study determined there was no measurable increase in hazardous conditions. Final plans for future
development on the project site would be subject to review and approval by the City of San Luis
Obispo, and final plans for internal circulation would be required to adhere to applicable policies in
the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan (City of San Luis Obispo 2011). Since the proposed
project would not result in on-site hazards, and final plans for internal circulation would require
approval of City staff, including the Fire Department, this impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
e. Would the project result in inadequate emergency access?
The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study includes an analysis of on-site circulation and
site access for the conceptual site plan. The Draft Multimodal Transportation Impact Study
determined that the layout depicting two intersections on Tank Farm Road, an arterial street, would
be inconsistent with the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan policies (Appendix E). The Draft
Multimodal Transportation Impact Study analysis is based on the conceptual site plan for the
proposed project, shown in Figure 3, since a final design for development on the project site has not
been submitted to the City.
Final plans for future development on the project site would be subject to review and approval by
the City of San Luis Obispo, and final plans for internal circulation and access would be required to
adhere to the policies listed in the City’s Access and Parking Management Plan (City of San Luis
Obispo 2011). Internal circulation, including ingress and egress would be required to accommodate
emergency vehicles, consistent with applicable Fire Department standards. Since the proposed
project would not result in on-site hazards or inadequate emergency access, and final plans for site
access and internal circulation would require approval of City staff, including the Fire Department,
this impact would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Tribal Cultural Resources
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 123
17 Tribal Cultural Resources
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource, defined in a Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place,
cultural landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape,
sacred place, or object with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
a. Listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical
Resources, or in a local register of
historical resources as defined in Public
Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or □ □ ■ □
b. A resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by
substantial evidence, to be significant
pursuant to criteria set forth in
subdivision (c) of Public Resources Cod
Section 2024.1. In applying the criteria
set forth in subdivision (c) of Public
Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead
agency shall consider the significant of
the resource to a California Native
American tribe. □ □ ■ □
Setting
California Assembly Bill 52 of 2014 (AB 52), enacted in July 2015, establishes that “A project with an
effect that may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural resource is
a project that may have a significant effect on the environment” (PRC Section 21084.2). AB 52
further states that lead agencies shall establish measures to avoid impacts that would alter the
significant characteristics of a tribal cultural resource, when feasible (PRC Section 21084.3).
AB 52 establishes a formal consultation process for California tribes regarding those resources. The
consultation process must be completed before a CEQA document can be certified. Under AB 52,
lead agencies are required to “begin consultation with a California Native American tribe that is
traditionally and culturally affiliated with the geographic area of the proposed project.” Native
American tribes to be included in the process are those that have requested notice of projects
proposed within the jurisdiction of the lead agency.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
124
Discussion
a. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is listed or eligible for listing in the
California Register of Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources as defined
in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k)?
b. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a tribal cultural
resource as defined in Public Resources Code 21074 that is a resource determined by the lead
agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code Section 2024.1?
Rincon staff contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 20, 2017 to
request a Sacred Lands File (SLF) search of the project site and a contact list of Native Americans
culturally affiliated with the project site that may have knowledge of cultural resources within the
area. The NAHC responded on October 31, 2017, stating that the results of the SLF search was
positive, and provided the telephone number of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties, whom they recommended be contacted for more information. The NAHC also provided a
list of 10 groups and/or individuals who may have cultural resources concerns for the project.
Rincon sent letters to these 10 contacts and left a voice message for the Salinan Tribe of Monterey
and San Luis Obispo Counties on October 31, 2017. Rincon assisted the City of San Luis Obispo with
AB 52 consultation by providing instructions, legislation information, draft letters, a project location
map, and a correspondence tracking sheet to be used during consultation. Letters were sent to each
of the groups listed on the NAHC’s Tribal Consultation list on November 15, 2017. The City has not
received any requests for consultation from any of these groups regarding the proposed project.
On November 11, 2017, Fred Collins of the Northern Chumash Tribal Council contacted Rincon
requesting a copy of the report prepared for the project and stated he would review and make
comments on the document. Rincon responded on the same day stating that the report was not yet
complete but would coordinate with the City of San Luis Obispo to provide a final copy of the report.
On November 11, 2017, Patti Dunton of the of the Salinan Tribe of Monterey and San Luis Obispo
Counties contacted Rincon regarding a recorded Sacred Site to the northeast of the project site at
the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex, but stated that she was unaware of any cultural resources
located at the project site. Ms. Dunton requested Native American monitoring for the project given
the proximity of the Sacred Site to the project location and asked for a copy of the report.
Mitigation Measures CR-2(a) through CR-2(c), in Section 5, Cultural Resources, require monitoring of
the site during subsurface construction disturbance, and describe procedures for unanticipated
discovery of cultural resources.
On November 14, 2017, Freddie Romero of the Santa Ynez Band of Chumash Indians contacted
Rincon to verify if local Tribes had been notified of the project, and deferred comments to these
local groups.
As of August 2018, Rincon has not received any additional responses from Native American contacts
regarding Sacred Lands or cultural resources within the project area.
As no cultural resources (see Section 5, Cultural Resources) or tribal cultural resources have been
identified on site, and as to date, no responses have been provided regarding Sacred Lands or
cultural resources on site, impacts to tribal cultural resources are considered less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 125
18 Utilities and Service Systems
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Would the project:
a. Exceed wastewater treatment
requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board? □ ■ □ □
b. Require or result in the construction of
new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities,
the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ ■ □ □
c. Require or result in the construction of
new storm water drainage facilities or
expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects? □ □ ■ □
d. Have sufficient water supplies available
to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new
or expanded entitlements needed? □ ■ □ □
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? □ ■ □ □
f. Be served by a landfill with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the
project’s solid waste disposal needs? □ □ ■ □
g. Comply with federal, state, and local
statutes and regulations related to solid
waste? □ □ ■ □
Setting
Wastewater
The City’s wastewater collection system and Water Resource Recovery Facility (WRRF) is managed
by the Utilities Department. The wastewater collection system consists of approximately 141 miles
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
126
of gravity sewer lines, three miles of force main, and nine sewer lift stations. Wastewater is
conveyed to the WRRF, located on Prado Road near U.S. 101.
The WRRF treats about 4.5 million gallons per day (mgd) during dry weather conditions. The current
treatment capacity of the WRRF during dry weather conditions is 5.1 mgd. Average dry-weather
treatment flows have been stable over the past several years due to a balance between increased
population and improved water conservation. In 2015, average flows to the WRRF were
approximately 3.5 mgd.
Water
The City Utilities Department provides water service throughout the City. The City obtains water
from five sources: Salinas Reservoir (Santa Margarita Lake), Whale Rock Reservoir, Nacimiento
Reservoir, and recycled water from the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility. Although
groundwater is listed as a potential water source, the City of San Luis Obispo transitioned from
utilizing groundwater for potable purposes with the last withdrawal occurring in April 2015. The
groundwater wells remain in operable stand by position, but no groundwater is currently pumped
(City of San Luis Obispo 2018b). Total annual water use in the City was 4,975 acre feet in 2017 (City
of San Luis Obispo 2016a). The 2014 Land Use and Circulation Element Update estimated that water
demand will increase to 7,815 acre feet per year (AFY) upon build-out (City of San Luis Obispo
2014c). The City’s estimated total water supply is 10,130 AFY, including the City’s primary water
supply (7,496 AFY), reliability reserve (1,225 AFY), and secondary water supply (1,409 AFY) (City of
San Luis Obispo 2018c).
Based on the City’s Urban Water Management Plan and LUCE Update EIR, the City does not
currently anticipate a need for supplemental water supplies through the year 2035. The City’s 2015
Urban Water Management Plan incorporates mandated water conservation targets in response to
the severe drought conditions. The City’s 2015 budgeting gallons per capita per day (GPCD) was 117,
and the actual 2015 GPCD was 92. As noted in the Plan, the City met and surpassed 2015 interim
water use reduction targets.
Stormwater
The City’s stormwater drainage system is a separate system that collects surface runoff and conveys
it to community retention basins, and eventually out to the ocean. The project site is located in the
San Luis Obispo Creek Watershed, between Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek. Orcutt Creek joins
Acacia Creek south of the project site. Acacia Creek serves as a tributary to the East Fork of San Luis
Obispo Creek. San Luis Obispo Creek is the main tributary in the City, discharging into the Pacific
Ocean at Avila Bay. The City’s stormwater drainage system currently consists of 59 miles of storm
sewer with 2,148 drainage inlets and 490 storm drain manholes (City of San Luis Obispo 2010).
Solid Waste
State Assembly Bill (AB) 939 requires that all communities in the State of California shall recycle at
least 50% of the solid waste from the waste stream. With the passage of AB 341 the State has
adopted a goal of recycling 75% by the year 2020. To meet these goals, the City has contracted with
San Luis Garbage Company to offer the City’s businesses and residents commingled single-stream
recycling.
SB 1016 simplifies the waste reduction measurement process, by moving from diversion estimates
to measuring disposal per capita. The purpose of the per capita disposal measurement system
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 127
(Chapter 343, Statutes of 2008 [Wiggins, SB 1016]) is to simplify the process of goal measurement as
established by AB 939. SB 1016 accomplishes this by changing to a disposal-based indicator (the per-
capita disposal rate) which uses only two factors: a jurisdiction's population (or in some cases
employment) and its disposal as reported by disposal facilities (CalRecycle 2017a).
AB 1826 requires businesses to recycle their organic waste, depending on the amount of waste they
generate per week. This law also requires local jurisdictions across the state to implement an
organic waste recycling program to divert organic waste generated by businesses, including
multifamily residential dwellings that consist of five or more units (multifamily dwellings are not
required to have a food waste diversion program) (CalRecycle 2018). The law phases in the
requirements over time based on the amount and type of waste the business produces on a weekly
basis, with full implementation realized in 2019. Additionally, the law contains a 2020 trigger that
increases the scope of affected businesses if waste reduction targets are not met. The
implementation schedule is as follows:
January 1, 2016: Local jurisdictions shall have an organic waste recycling program in place.
January 1, 2017: Businesses that generate 4 cubic yards of organic waste per week shall arrange
for organic waste recycling services.
January 1, 2019: Businesses that generate 4 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per
week shall arrange for organic waste recycling services.
Summer/Fall 2021: If CalRecycle determines that the statewide disposal of organic waste in
2020 has not been reduced by 50 percent of the level of disposal during 2014 (based on annual
reports prepared by jurisdictions), the organic recycling requirements on businesses will expand
to cover businesses that generate 2 cubic yards or more of commercial solid waste per week.
The San Luis Obispo County Integrated Waste Management Authority estimates that the daily per-
capita solid waste disposal rate from all sources in the State of California is approximately 4 to 5
pounds. In the City, between 2007 and 2010, the population-related solid waste disposal rate
ranged between 4.4 and 5.4 pounds per person, and the employment solid waste disposal rate
ranged between 11.7 and 13.8 pounds per person (City of San Luis Obispo 2014c). The regional
waste collection facility is Cold Canyon Landfill, located approximately six miles south of the City on
Highway 227. The Cold Canyon Landfill operates with a remaining capacity of 3,915,000 tons (based
on 2015 data) and annual throughput of 100,000 to 250,000 tons per year (CalRecycle 2017b). The
landfill is expected to reach capacity in 2040.
Discussion
a. Would the project exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional
Water Quality Control Board?
b. Would the project require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment
facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
e. Would the project 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?
The proposed new residential and commercial development would increase the amount of
wastewater generated on site, and require service from the WRRF. The estimated net increase in
wastewater generated by the project is shown in Table 24.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
128
Table 24 Estimated Wastewater Generation
Land Use Quantity EDUs Generation Rate Amount (gpd)
Existing Use
Mobile Homes 35 units 35 150 gpd/EDU 5,250
Proposed Uses
Residential Units 249 units 211.10 150 gpd/EDU 31,665
Commercial Space 17,500 sf 60 gpd/1,000 sf 1,050
Proposed Subtotal 32,715
Net Change (Proposed – Existing) 27,465
EDU = equivalent dwelling unit
gpd = gallons per day
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 2018 Uniform Design Criteria – Section 7 Wastewater Design Standards
As shown in Table 24, potential future development under the proposed project would result in a
net increase of 27,465 gallons per day (0.027 mgd). The WRRF has a current excess capacity of 0.6
mgd. The project’s anticipated wastewater demand is within the current excess capacity of the
WRRF, but the proposed project would increase wastewater generation beyond what is anticipated
in the City’s General Plan, based on the existing zoning allowances. The project applicant would be
required by the City to pay wastewater impact fees to fund improvements to the City’s wastewater
conveyance system. However, because the project would increase wastewater generation beyond
what is anticipated in the City’s General Plan, future development may exceed the capacity of the
City’s wastewater systems.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Mitigation Measures
Mitigation Measure UT-1 is required to reduce wastewater flow generations associated with
development under the proposed project, and would ensure capacity of wastewater system’s
collection, transmission, and treatment to a less than significant level. The application of this
measure would also further reduce regional wastewater generation.
UT-1 Wastewater Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall define and incorporate into the project design an Inflow and
Infiltration reduction strategy consistent with the City’s Wastewater Infrastructure
Renewal Strategy. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall
be required to implement, and demonstrate off-site sewer rehabilitation that
results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater
collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to
offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by one of the
following:
Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or
B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the
project, to be achieved by the verified replacement of compromised private
sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer, or any property
owner located within said basins; or
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 129
Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program, or similar inflow and
infiltration reduction program to be developed by City if program is in place
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or any other off-site sewer
rehabilitation proposed by the developer and approved by the Utilities Director,
which will achieve a reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the
additional wastewater flow contributed by the project. The final selection of the
inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities
Director.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate wastewater
reduction measures into development plans and submit evidence to the Utilities
Department that these provisions would result in quantifiable inflow and infiltration
reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2
or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase.
Monitoring. The Utilities Department shall verify compliance prior to issuance of
building permits.
c. Would the project 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?
See Section 9, Hydrology and Water Quality, for a full discussion of stormwater generation, run off,
impervious surfaces, and associated potential impacts. As discussed, the project includes an on-site
retention basin, which would be designed to ensure that peak flows from the project would not
exceed existing conditions, and would not necessitate the construction of new stormwater drainage
facilities.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
d. Would the project have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing
entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed?
Water for existing uses on the project site is supplied by an on-site well. Future development under
the proposed project would connect to the City’s water supply. Table 25 compares the City’s
available water with the project’s projected usage. Based on the current uses and wastewater
generation at the site, and the conceptual land use plan for the project, annual water demand
associated with future development of the project site is estimated at approximately 27.5 AFY.
Table 25 Comparison of City Water Supply to Project Use
City Water Supply
City Water
Demand
City Water
Availability
Existing
Water Demand
Projected
Water Demand
Projected
Increase in
Demand
10,130 AFY 7,815 AFY 2,315 AFY 5.5 AFY 32.8 AFY 27.5 AFY
AFY = acre feet per year
Sources: –Will-Serve letter for existing use on the project site; City of San Luis Obispo 2014c; City of San Luis Obispo 2018c
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
130
The project’s estimated annual water demand would be 32.8 AFY. Based on the existing water
demand on the site of 5.5 AFY, the net increase in water demand would be approximately 27.5 AFY,
or 1.2 percent of the City of San Luis Obispo’s current available potable water of 2,315 AFY.
Accordingly, the City currently has sufficient existing municipal water supply to provide potable
water to the project. However, the proposed project would increase water demand beyond what is
anticipated in the City’s General Plan, based on the existing zoning allowances.
Consistent with Ahwahnee Water Principles and the City’s General Plan, Conservation and Open
Space Policy 10.2.2, the project would be required to irrigate open space and landscaping with
recycled water. Project irrigation design would be required to use available tools to ensure water
efficiency, including utilizing dedicated landscape water meters, soil moisture sensors, central
irrigation controllers and master valves combined with flow sensors as well as weather based
irrigation controllers that are tied to California Irrigation Management Information System (CIMIS)
weather data for the larger landscape areas. Because the project would increase water demand
beyond what is anticipated in the City’s General Plan, the impact to the City’s water supply would be
potentially significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
Mitigation Measures
The following mitigation measures are required to reduce potable water demands associated with
development under the proposed project, and would ensure capacity of the water system’s
treatment, storage, and distribution to a less than significant level. The application of the mitigation
measures would also further reduce regional water demands.
UT-2 Water Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
define and incorporate into the project design water reduction measures consistent
with the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the developer shall be required to implement, and demonstrate water
offsets that result in quantifiable water demand reductions in the City’s potable
water distribution system with an amount equal to offset the project’s water flow
increase. This may be satisfied by one of the following:
Sufficient reductions in potable water demands, commensurate with the
additional water demands contributed by the project, to be achieved by verified
conversions of existing irrigation system from potable water to recycled water
systems located within the City’s potable water distribution system;
Participation in the construction of new mains for the recycled water
transmission system; or construction of any other recycled water main
proposed by the developer and approved by the Utilities Director, which will
achieve a reduction in potable water demands commensurate with the
additional water demands contributed by the project.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate water reduction
measures into development plans and submit evidence to the Utilities Department
that these provisions would result in quantifiable water demand reductions in the
City’s potable water distribution system with an amount equal to offset the
project’s water flow increase.
Environmental Checklist
Utilities and Service Systems
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 131
Monitoring. The Utilities Department shall verify compliance prior to issuance of
building permits.
f. Would the project be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate
the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
g. Would the project comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid
waste?
Solid waste would be generated during construction and demolition of the existing on-site
structures. In accordance with AB 341, potential future development under the proposed project
would divert a minimum of 50 percent of construction waste from landfills, which would reduce
potential impacts to the Cold Canyon Landfill. The amount of waste generated from operation of the
project is shown below in Table 26.
Table 26 Estimated Solid Waste Generation
Land Use Size Generation Factor Total (lbs/day) Total (tons/day)
Existing Uses
Mobile Homes 35 coaches 4 lbs/du/day 140 0.070
Proposed Project
Residential Unit 249 du 4 lbs/du/day 996 0.498
Commercial Space 17,500 sf 2.5 lbs/1000 sf/day 44 0.022
Proposed Project Subtotal 1,040 0.520
Total Net Solid Waste Generation (Proposed – Existing) 900 0.450
Total Solid Waste Sent to Landfill (Assuming 50% diversion rate) 450 0.225
Notes: sf = square feet, lbs = pounds, du= dwelling unit, ( ) denotes subtraction
Coaches conservatively estimated as dwelling units.
*CalRecycle Waste Generation Rates, available at http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/wastechar/WasteGenRates/
As shown in Table 26, potential future development under the proposed project would generate
approximately 450 pounds, or 0.225 tons, of solid waste per day. The project’s incremental increase
in solid waste (0.225 tons per day) would be within the remaining permitted capacities of Cold
Canyon Landfill (3,915,000 tons). Therefore, the project would be served by entities with sufficient
permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs, and would not result
in a substantial physical deterioration of public solid waste facilities.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
132
This page intentionally left blank.
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 133
19 Mandatory Findings of Significance
Potentially
Significant
Impact
Less than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact No Impact
Does the project:
a. Have the potential to substantially
reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self-sustaining
levels, 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? □ ■ □ □
b. 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 past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the
effects of probable future projects)? □ ■ □ □
c. Have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or
indirectly? □ ■ □ □
Discussion
a. Does the project have the potential to substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife
species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, 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?
As discussed in this Initial Study, development of the project has the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment in several issue areas without the incorporation of the identified mitigation
measures. As discussed in Section 4, Biological Resources, in order to avoid or reduce potential
adverse impacts to special status plants and animals, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-
1(a) through BIO-2(g) would be required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. As
discussed in Section 5, Cultural Resources, the project has the potential to uncover and disturb
previously unidentified archaeological cultural resources. Mitigation Measures CR-1, and CR-2(a)
through CR-2(c) would reduce these impacts to a less than significant level. In addition, due the
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
134
potential presence of paleontological resources on the project site, Mitigation Measures CR-3(a)
through CR-3(e) are required to reduce impacts to a less than significant level. With the
incorporation of the mitigation measures discussed throughout this Initial Study, impacts pertaining
to plant and animal habitats and eliminating examples of California history would be less than
significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
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 past projects, the effects of other current
projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
As described in the discussion of environmental checklist Sections 1 through 18, all environmental
issues considered in this Initial Study were found to have either no impact, a less than significant
impact, or a less than significant impact with mitigation incorporated. Cumulative impacts of several
resource areas have been addressed in the individual resource sections, including Section 3, Air
Quality, Section 7, Greenhouse Gas Emissions, Section 12, Noise, Section 16,
Transportation/Circulation, and Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems (CEQA Guidelines Section
15064(h)(3)). Other issues (e.g., Geology/Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials) are by their nature
project-specific and impacts at one location do not add to impacts at other locations or create
additive impacts. Therefore, the impacts of development of the site under the proposed project
would be individually limited and not cumulatively considerable.
Although incremental changes in certain issue areas would occur as a result of the project,
development of the site under the proposed project would be required to be consistent with
existing general plan goals, programs, and policies, and zoning ordinance requirements for the
proposed service commercial zoning. All environmental impacts that could occur as a result of the
project would be reduced to a less than significant level through compliance with existing
regulations and applicable General Plan policies and Municipal Code requirements discussed in this
Initial Study and implementation of the mitigation measures recommended in this Initial Study for
the following resource areas: air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils,
hydrology and water quality, noise, transportation, and utilities and service systems.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
c. Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on
human beings, either directly or indirectly?
Effects on human beings are generally associated with impacts related to such issue areas as air
quality, geology and soils, hydrology and water quality, noise, traffic safety, and hazards. As
discussed in this Initial Study, implementation of the project would result in potential environmental
impacts with respect to air quality, hydrology and water quality, geology and soils, and
transportation. As discussed in Section 3, Air Quality, the project would generate air quality
pollutants above SLOAPCD operational thresholds (ROG + NOX). However, Mitigation Measures AQ-
1(a) through AQ-1(c) are required to reduce operational and construction emissions. As discussed in
Section 6, Geology and Soils, Mitigation Measure GEO-1 would ensure that a geotechnical report is
prepared, that any potential geologic hazards are documented and analyzed, and that all
recommendations in the report are implemented as part of the project. This would ensure that
geologic hazards are reduced, and impacts remain less than significant. As discussed in Section 9,
Hydrology and Water Quality, since the project is located in a mapped 100-year flood zone,
Environmental Checklist
Mandatory Findings of Significance
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 135
Mitigation Measure HYD-1 is required, which would ensure that the site is removed from the FEMA
100-year flood plain, and that proposed future residents would not be exposed to special flood zone
hazards. As discussed in Section 16, Transportation, Mitigation Measures T-1 and T-2 would
introduce circulation improvements pertaining to the Tank Farm Road/Broad Street Intersection, as
well as require the project applicant to pay their fair share of fees towards improvements necessary
to reduce the project’s contribution to cumulative automobile level of service and queueing
impacts. As discussed in Section 18, Utilities and Service Systems, Mitigation Measure UT-1 and UT-2
would require wastewater reduction measures and water conservation measures. As discussed
throughout this Initial Study, with implementation of identified Mitigation Measures, the project
would not cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly and
impacts would be less than significant.
LESS THAN SIGNIFICANT WITH MITIGATION INCORPORATED
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
136
This page intentionally left blank.
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 137
Mitigation Summary
AQ-1(a) SLOAPCD Operational Emissions Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading
permits, the applicant shall incorporate into the project design the following
emissions reduction measures to ensure daily ozone precursor emissions would not
exceed the SLOAPCD 25 lbs/day threshold:
Use low-VOC architectural coatings for both interior and exterior surfaces on all
buildings.
Use water-based or low-VOC cleaning products.
Provide and require the use of battery powered or electric landscape
maintenance equipment for new development.
In addition, to comply with SLOAPCD guidelines for operational emissions
mitigation, the applicant shall define and incorporate into project design at least
four of the following standard emission reduction measures from the SLOAPCD
CEQA Air Quality Handbook (Table 3-5). Emission reduction measures shall include,
but would not be limited to:
Provide a pedestrian friendly and interconnected streetscape with good access
to/from the development for pedestrians, bicyclists, and transit users to make
alternative transportation more convenient, comfortable, and safe.
Provide shade over 50% of parking spaces to reduce evaporative emissions from
parked vehicles.
Incorporate traffic calming modification into project roads to reduce vehicle
speeds and increase pedestrian and bicycle usage and safety.
Work with SLOCOG to create, improve, or expand a nearby ‘Park and Ride’ lot
with car parking and bike lockers in proportion to the size of the project.
Implement on-site circulation design elements in parking lots to reduce vehicle
queuing and improve the pedestrian environment.
Provide employee lockers and showers to promote bicycle and pedestrian use.
One shower and 5 lockers for every 25 employees is recommended.
Exceed Cal Green standards by 25% for providing on-site bicycle parking: both
short term racks and long term lockers, or a locked room with standard racks
and access limited to bicyclists only.
Provide improved public transit amenities (covered transit turnouts, direct
pedestrian access, bicycle racks, covered bench, smart signage, route
information displays, lighting, etc.)
Provide bicycle-share program for development.
Provide neighborhood electric vehicles/car-share program for the development.
Provide dedicated parking for carpools, vanpools, and/or high-efficiency
vehicles to meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2.
Provide vanpool, shuttle, mini bus service (alternative fueled preferred).
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
138
Provide child care facility on site.
Implement programs to reduce employee vehicle miles traveled (e.g. incentives,
SLO Regional Rideshare trip reduction program, vanpools, onsite employee
housing, alternative schedules (e.g. 9–80s, 4–10s, telecommuting, satellite work
sites etc.).
Provide a lunchtime shuttle to reduce single occupant vehicle trips and/or
coordinate regular food truck visits.
Provide free-access telework terminals and/or wi-fi access in multi-family
projects.
Meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2 standards for providing EV charging
infrastructure.
Install 1 or more level 2 or better EV charging stations.
Meet or exceed Cal Green Tier 2 standards for building energy efficiency.
Design roof trusses to handle dead weight loads of standard solar-heated water
and photovoltaic panels.
AQ-1(b) Fugitive Dust Control Measures. Construction projects shall implement the
following dust control measures so as to reduce PM10 emissions in accordance with
SLOAPCD requirements.
Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
Water trucks or sprinkler systems shall be used during construction in sufficient
quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site. Increased watering
frequency shall be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed
(non-potable) water shall be used whenever possible;
All dirt stock pile areas shall be sprayed daily as needed;
Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans shall be implemented as soon as possible
following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than
one month after initial grading shall be sown with a fast germinating, non-
invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation shall be stabilized using
approved chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in
advance by the SLOAPCD;
All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved shall be completed as soon
as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site;
All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or
shall 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;
Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets,
or wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site;
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 139
Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto
adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers with reclaimed water shall be used
where feasible;
AQ-1(c) Standard Control Measures for Construction Equipment. The following standard air
quality mitigation measures shall be implemented during construction activities at
the project site:
Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified
motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB’s Tier 2 certified engines or
cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State Off-Road
Regulation;
Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification
standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-
Road Regulation;
Construction or trucking companies with fleets that do not have engines in their
fleet that meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g.
captive or NOX exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes.
Signs shall be posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind
drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive
receptors;
Electrify equipment when feasible;
Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible; and
Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as
compressed natural gas, liquefied natural gas, propane or biodiesel.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate operational
emissions reduction measures into development plans and submit evidence to the
Community Development Department that these provisions would reduce long-
term operational emissions have been reduced to below daily threshold levels prior
to issuance of grading permits. Fugitive dust control measures and standard control
measures for construction equipment shall be shown on grading and construction
plans prior to issuance of permits.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to issuance of grading or construction permits. The contractor or builder shall
designate a person or persons to monitor fugitive dust emissions as necessary
during construction to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20
percent opacity, and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include
holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in progress. The name and
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
140
telephone number of such persons shall be provided to the SLOAPCD Compliance
Division prior to the start of any grading, earthwork or demolition. The Community
Development Department shall site inspect to ensure construction activities are
completed in accordance with approved plans, and development is in accordance
with approved plans prior to occupancy clearance. Community Development staff
shall verify installation of operational emissions reduction measures in accordance
with approved building plans.
BIO-1(a) Special Status Plant Species Surveys. Prior to the start of vegetation management
activities on the project site, or prior to the start of any construction activity within
potential off-site improvement areas, the developer shall ensure an approved
biologist conducts surveys for special status plant species throughout suitable
habitat. Surveys shall be conducted when plants with potential to occur are in a
phenological stage conducive to positive identification (i.e., usually during the
blooming period for the species), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for
special status plant species throughout suitable habitat within all potential
vegetation management areas. Reference sites must be visited prior to botanical
surveys to confirm target species are detectable. Valid botanical surveys will be
considered current for up to five years; if construction has not commenced within
five years of the most recent survey, botanical surveys must be repeated.
BIO-1(b) Special Status Plant Species Avoidance. If special status plant species are
discovered within the project site or potential off-site improvement areas, an
approved biologist shall flag and fence these locations before construction activities
start to avoid impacts. During vegetation management activities, any special status
plants identified during the survey must be flagged for avoidance.
BIO-1(c) Restoration Plan. If avoidance is not feasible; all impacts shall be mitigated at a
minimum ratio of 2:1 (number of acres or individuals restored to number of acres or
individuals impacted) for each species as a component of habitat restoration. A
qualified biologist shall prepare and submit a restoration plan to the City for
approval. The approved Plan shall be implemented by the applicant with the City
verifying that the success criteria have been met. The restoration plan shall include,
at a minimum, the following components:
Description of the project/impact site (i.e., location, responsible parties, areas
to be impacted by habitat type);
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation project [type(s) and area(s) of habitat to
be established, restored, enhanced, and/or preserved; specific functions and
values of habitat type(s) to be established, restored, enhanced, and/or
preserved];
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation site (location and size,
ownership status, existing functions and values);
Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation site (rationale for
expecting implementation success, responsible parties, schedule, site
preparation, planting plan [including species to be used, container sizes, seeding
rates, etc.]);
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period, including weed removal
and irrigation as appropriate (activities, responsible parties, schedule);
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 141
Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation site, including no less than
quarterly monitoring for the first year, along with performance standards,
target functions and values, target acreages to be established, restored,
enhanced, and/or preserved, and annual monitoring reports to be submitted to
the City for a minimum of five years at which time the applicant shall
demonstrate that performance standards/success criteria have been met;
Success criteria based on the goals and measurable objectives; said criteria to
be, at a minimum, at least 80% survival of container plants and 30% relative
cover by vegetation type;
An adaptive management program and remedial measures to address any
shortcomings in meeting success criteria;
Notification of completion of compensatory mitigation and agency
confirmation; and
Contingency measures (initiating procedures, alternative locations for
contingency compensatory mitigation, funding mechanism).
BIO-2(a) Best Management Practices. The following Best Management Practices (BMPs)
shall be implemented for project construction activities within the work area.
No pets or firearms shall be allowed at the project site during construction
activities.
All trash that may attract predators must be properly contained and removed
from the work site. All such debris and waste shall be picked up daily and
properly disposed of at an appropriate site.
All refueling, maintenance, and staging of equipment and vehicles shall occur at
least 50 feet from defined edges of riparian and wetland vegetation, and Acacia
Creek and Orcutt Creek and in a location where a spill would not drain toward
aquatic habitat. A plan must be in place for prompt and effective response to
any accidental spills prior to the onset of work activities. All workers shall be
informed of the appropriate measures to take should an accidental spill occur.
Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged
materials shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or
contaminants shall be cleaned from the project site and recycled or disposed of
to the satisfaction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board.
Prior to construction activities within 30 feet of potentially jurisdictional
features, including Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek, the drainage features shall be
fenced with orange construction fencing and signed to prohibit entry of
construction equipment and personnel unless authorized by the City. Fencing
should be located a minimum of 30 feet from the edge of the riparian canopy or
top of bank and shall be maintained throughout the construction period for
each phase of development. Once all phases of construction in this area are
complete, the fencing may be removed.
Erosion control and landscaping specifications allow only natural-fiber,
biodegradable meshes and coir rolls, to prevent impacts to the environment
and to fish and terrestrial wildlife.
All vehicles and equipment shall be in good working condition and free of leaks.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
142
Construction work shall be restricted to daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM) to
avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species.
Concrete truck and tool washout shall be limited to locations designated by a
qualified biologist or a Qualified Storm-water Practitioner such that no runoff
will reach Acacia Creek or Orcutt Creek.
All open trenches shall be constructed with appropriate exit ramps to allow
species that accidentally fall into a trench to escape. Trenches will remain open
for the shortest period necessary to complete required work.
No water will be impounded in a manner to attract sensitive species.
BIO-2(b) Worker Environmental Awareness Program. Prior to the initiation of construction
activities (including staging and mobilization), all personnel associated with project
construction shall attend a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP)
training.
The training shall be conducted by a qualified biologist, to aid workers in recognizing
special status resources that may occur in the project area. The specifics of this
program shall include identification of the sensitive species and habitats, a
description of the regulatory status and general ecological characteristics of
sensitive resources, and review of the limits of construction and avoidance
measures required to reduce impacts to biological resources within the work area. A
fact sheet conveying this information shall also be prepared for distribution to all
contractors, their employers, and other personnel involved with construction of the
project. All employees shall sign a form provided by the trainer documenting they
have attended the training.
BIO-2(c) California Red-legged Frog Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following shall
be implemented to avoid and minimize potential impacts to CRLF.
A pre-construction survey of the proposed disturbance footprint (within the
project site or potential off-site improvement areas) for California red-legged
frog shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 48 hours prior to the start
of project construction to confirm this species is not present in the work area.
In the event the pre-construction survey identifies the presence of individuals of
CRLF, or if individuals of these species are encountered during construction,
then the applicant shall stop work and comply with all relevant requirements of
the Federal Endangered Species Act prior to resuming project activities.
Only City- and USFWS-approved biologists shall participate in activities
associated with the capture, handling, and monitoring of CRLF.
If activities occur between November 1 and April 30, the qualified biologist shall
conduct a pre-activity clearance sweep prior to start of project activities on the
morning following any rain events of 0.1 inch or greater.
BIO-2(d) Coast Range Newt, Two-striped Garter Snake, and Western Pond Turtle Impact
Avoidance and Minimization. A qualified biologist shall conduct a pre-construction
survey within 48 hours of initial ground disturbing activities associated with any off-
site improvements, including modifications to the existing crossing over Acacia
Creek or the development of a new crossing over Orcutt Creek. The survey area
shall include any proposed disturbance area(s) and all proposed ingress/egress
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 143
routes. If any of these species are found and individuals may be injured or killed by
work activities, the biologist shall be allowed sufficient time to move them from the
project site before work activities begin. The biologist(s) shall relocate any coast
range newts, two-striped garter snakes, and/or western pond turtles the shortest
distance possible to a location that contains suitable habitat that is not likely to be
affected by activities associated with the project.
BIO-2(e) Steelhead – South-central California Coast DPS Impact Avoidance and
Minimization. The applicant shall implement the following to avoid and minimize
potential impacts to steelhead.
Construction associated with the widening of the existing crossing over Acacia
Creek shall be restricted to periods of dry weather from April 16 through
October 31, and shall not be conducted within 48 hours after a rain event of
0.25 inch or greater, or until an approved biologist confirms there is no longer a
chance for flowing water to enter the work area.
Widening of the existing crossing shall follow the design standards developed by
the City of San Luis Obispo and shall be developed in a manner that does not
impede wildlife movement.
BIO-2(f) Nesting Birds Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following actions shall be
undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to nesting birds:
For construction activities occurring during the nesting season (generally
February 1 to September 15), a qualified biologist shall conduct surveys for
nesting birds covered by the California Fish and Game Code and the Migratory
Bird Treaty Act shall be conducted by a qualified biologist no more than 14 days
prior to vegetation removal. The surveys shall include the disturbance area plus
a 500-foot buffer around the site. If active nests are located during the pre-
construction survey or during construction, all construction work shall be
conducted outside a buffer zone from the nest to be determined by the
qualified biologist. The buffer shall be a minimum of 50 feet from the nest tree
for non-raptor bird species and at least 300 feet from the nest tree for raptor
species. Larger buffers may be required depending upon the status of the nest
and the construction activities occurring in the vicinity of the nest. The buffer
area(s) shall be closed to all construction personnel and equipment until the
adults and young are no longer reliant on the nest site. A qualified biologist shall
confirm that breeding/nesting is completed and young have fledged the nest
prior to removal of the buffer.
If feasible To account for most nesting birds, removal of vegetation within
suitable nesting bird habitats will should be scheduled to occur in the fall and
winter (between September 16 and February 14 January 31), and after the
young have fledgeding and before the initiation of the nesting season.
If a suspected American bald eagle nest is discovered during the pre-
construction survey, then the applicant shall consult with the City, USFWS, and
CDFW regarding appropriate nest buffers and nest monitoring. If a nest is
discovered with construction underway, a no-activity buffer a minimum of 660
feet from the nest must be implemented, or as otherwise directed by CDFW and
USFWS, until appropriate authorizations are obtained. Any subsequent buffer
adjustments shall be made in consultation with the City, CDFW and USFWS and
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
144
shall rely on monitoring observations and activity at the site. Additional
avoidance measures for special status bird nests such as American bald eagle
nests are often required, and would be developed in consultation with the City,
CDFW and USFWS.
The Worker Environmental Awareness Program (Mitigation Measure BIO-2[b])
shall provide good housekeeping practices of equipment and materials that
discourage nests being established within the construction area.
BIO-2(g) Roosting Bat Impact Avoidance and Minimization. The following actions shall be
undertaken to avoid and minimize potential impacts to roosting bats:
Prior to issuance of grading permits, a qualified biologist shall conduct a survey
of existing structures within the project site to determine if roosting bats are
present. The survey shall be conducted during the non-breeding season
(November through March). The biologist shall have access to all interior attics,
as needed. If a colony of bats is found roosting in any structure, further surveys
shall be conducted sufficient to determine the species present and the type of
roost (day, night, maternity, etc.) If the bats are not part of an active maternity
colony, passive exclusion measures may be implemented, in close coordination
with CDFW. These exclusion measures must include one-way valves that allow
bats to exit the structure but are designed so that the bats may not re-enter the
structure.
If a bat colony is excluded from the project site, appropriate alternate bat
habitat as determined by a qualified biologist shall be installed on the project
site or at an approved location offsite.
Prior to removal of any trees, a survey shall be conducted by a qualified
biologist to determine if any of the trees proposed for removal or trimming
harbor sensitive bat species or maternal bat colonies. If a non-maternal roost is
found, the qualified biologist, in close coordination with CDFW shall install one-
way valves or other appropriate passive relocation method. For each occupied
roost removed, one bat box or alternate roost structure shall be installed in
similar habitat and should have similar cavity or crevices properties to those
which are removed, including access, ventilation, dimensions, height above
ground, and thermal conditions. Maternal bat colonies may not be disturbed.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Special status species protection plans and surveys
shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted to for review and
approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction permits. Any
required permits shall be obtained from the state and federal agencies prior to
issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The Environmental Monitor shall monitor environmental compliance of
the construction activities throughout the construction period or as stipulated in the
species- or resource-specific mitigation measure and provide monitoring reports to
the City.
BIO-3 Wetland, Stream, and Riparian Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring. Temporary
impact areas shall be restored at a one to one (1:1) ratio (one acre of restoration for
each acre of impact) to offset temporary losses in wetland, stream, or riparian
function. Permanent impacts on jurisdictional areas shall be offset through creation,
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 145
restoration, and/or enhancement of in-kind habitats at a minimum ratio of 2:1.
Permitting agencies (CDFW, USACE, RWQCB) may require a higher mitigation ratio
associated with applicable permits. Furthermore, non-native invasive plants in
temporarily-disturbed areas within riparian and wetland habitats and within City’s
35-foot creek setback from Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek shall be removed, and
such areas shall be revegetated using native plants. Any restoration efforts shall
include an invasive plant removal element.
A Mitigation and Monitoring Plan is required to outline the approach that will be
taken for restoration and habitat creation or enhancement. Once approved, the
applicant will be responsible for Plan implementation, and the City will verify
success of the Plan. The plan Plan shall be prepared by a qualified restoration
ecologist. The plan shall include, but not be limited to the following components:
Description of the project/impact site,
Goal(s) of the compensatory mitigation,
Description of the proposed compensatory mitigation-site,
Implementation plan for the compensatory mitigation-site,
Maintenance activities during the monitoring period,
Monitoring plan for the compensatory mitigation-site,
Success criteria and performance standards,
Reporting requirements, and
Contingency measures and funding mechanisms.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Crossing structure designs and the Mitigation and
Monitoring Plan shall be prepared by the applicant and shall be submitted to for
review and approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction
permits. Any required permits shall be obtained from the state and federal agencies
prior to issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The Environmental Monitor shall monitor environmental compliance of
the construction activities throughout the construction period or as stipulated in the
Mitigation and Monitoring Plan and provide monitoring reports to the City.
CR-2(a) Retain a Qualified Principal Investigator. In accordance with the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Policies 3.5.6 and 3.5.7, a qualified principal investigator, defined as
an archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for
professional archaeology (hereafter qualified archaeologist), shall be retained to
carry out all mitigation measures related to archaeological resources.
Monitoring shall involve inspection of subsurface construction disturbance in the
immediate vicinity of known sites, or at locations that may harbor buried resources
that were not identified on the site surface. A Native American monitor shall also be
present because the area is a culturally-sensitive location. The monitor(s) shall be
on-site on a full-time basis during earthmoving activities, including grading,
trenching, vegetation removal, or other excavation activities.
CR-2(b) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must
halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
146
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) shall be contacted immediately
to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under CEQA, additional
work such as data recovery excavation and Native American consultation may be
warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.
CR-2(bc) Extended Phase I (XPI) Testing Program. An If cultural resources are encountered
during ground-disturbing activities an extended phase I (XPI) testing program,
utilizing standard shovel test pits and/or hand auguring at arbitrary levels, shall be
conducted for development activity that would require ground disturbance within
the potential off-site improvement areas, including riparian areas associated with
the Orcutt Creek and Acacia Creek corridors, and in riparian areas immediately
north of the project site in the vicinity of the encounter.
If the XPI program identifies subsurface deposits that cannot be avoided by project
design, a Phase II evaluation program shall be prepared to determine whether
development would significantly impact identified resources.
If the Phase II evaluation program identifies identified resources as significant, a
Phase III data recovery program shall be prepared and implemented. The purpose of
the Phase III data recovery program is to recover, analyze, interpret, report, curate,
and preserve archaeological data that would otherwise be destroyed.
The testing and evaluation programs shall be prepared by a qualified archaeologist
prior to the issuance of grading permits, and shall be submitted for review and
approval by the City prior to the approval of grading and construction permits. The
qualified archaeologist shall monitor compliance with testing and evaluation
program requirements during implementation of the testing and evaluation
programs.
CR-2(c) Unanticipated Discovery of Cultural Resources. If cultural resources are
encountered during ground-disturbing activities, work in the immediate area must
halt and an archaeologist meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional
Qualifications Standards for archaeology (NPS 1983) should be contacted
immediately to evaluate the find. If the discovery proves to be significant under
CEQA, additional work such as data recovery excavation and Native American
consultation may be warranted to mitigate any significant impacts.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The project applicant shall retain a qualified
archaeologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. If resources are found, the
project applicant shall retain a qualified archaeologist and Native American monitor
prior to the issuance of grading permits. The requirement that construction work be
stopped in the event of discovery of archaeological resources shall be included on
construction plans prior to the issuance of grading permits.
Monitoring. The City shall confirm the qualifications of and approve the applicant’s
choice of a qualified archaeologist. The City shall inspect the site periodically during
grading and demolition to ensure compliance with this measure. The City shall
review construction plans and periodically inspect project construction to ensure
compliance with these measures.
CR-3(a) Paleontological Monitoring. Prior to the commencement of ground disturbing
activities under the project that are greater than six feet in depth, a qualified
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 147
professional paleontologist shall be retained to conduct paleontological monitoring
during project ground disturbing activities. The Qualified Paleontologist (Principal
Paleontologist) shall have at least a Master’s Degree or equivalent work experience
in paleontology, shall have knowledge of the local paleontology, and shall be
familiar with paleontological procedures and techniques.
Ground disturbing construction activities (including grading, trenching, drilling with
an auger greater than 3 feet in diameter, and other excavation) within previously
undisturbed sediments at depths greater than six feet shall be monitored on a full-
time basis. Monitoring shall be supervised by the Qualified Paleontologist and shall
be conducted by a qualified paleontological monitor, who is defined as an individual
who meets the minimum qualifications per standards set forth by the SVP (2010),
which includes a B.S. or B.A. degree in geology or paleontology with one year of
monitoring experience and knowledge of collection and salvage of paleontological
resources.
The duration and timing of the monitoring shall be determined by the Qualified
Paleontologist. If the Qualified Paleontologist determines that full-time monitoring
is no longer warranted, he or she may recommend reducing monitoring to periodic
spot-checking or cease entirely. Monitoring would be reinstated if any new ground
disturbances are required and reduction or suspension would need to be
reconsidered by the Qualified Paleontologist. Ground-disturbing activity that does
not exceed six feet in depth within Quaternary alluvium would not require
paleontological monitoring.
CR-3(b) Fossil Discovery, Preparation, and Curation. In the event that a paleontological
resource is discovered, the monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert
the construction equipment around the find until it is assessed for scientific
significance and collected. Once salvaged, significant fossils shall be identified to the
lowest possible taxonomic level, prepared to a curation-ready condition, and
curated in a scientific institution with a permanent paleontological collection along
with all pertinent field notes, photos, data, and maps. Curation fees are assessed by
the repository, and are the responsibility of the project owner.
CR-3(c) Final Paleontological Mitigation Report. At the conclusion of laboratory work and
museum curation, a final report shall be prepared describing the results of the
paleontological mitigation monitoring efforts associated with the project. The
report shall include a summary of the field and laboratory methods, an overview of
the project geology and paleontology, a list of taxa recovered (if any), an analysis of
fossils recovered (if any) and their scientific significance, and recommendations. The
report shall be submitted to the lead agency(s) for the project. If the monitoring
efforts produced fossils, then a copy of the report shall also be submitted to the
designated museum repository.
Plan Requirements, Timing, and Monitoring. The project applicant shall retain the
qualified paleontologist prior to the issuance of grading permits. Prior to the
issuance of any construction related permits, the City shall confirm that the training
of construction personnel has occurred. During initial ground disturbance, the
project applicant shall ensure that the qualified paleontologist is on-site and
monitoring during these activities. The Final Paleontological Monitoring Report shall
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
148
be submitted to the City of San Luis Obispo once ground-disturbing activities are
finished.
Monitoring. Prior to initial ground disturbance, the City shall confirm the
qualifications of and approve the applicant’s choice of the qualified paleontologist.
The City shall inspect the site periodically during grading and demolition to ensure
compliance with this measure. The City shall review construction plans and
periodically inspect project construction to ensure compliance with these measures.
The City shall review and approval the Final Paleontological Monitoring Report.
GEO-1 Site Geotechnical Study. A geotechnical study shall be prepared for the project site
prior to site development. This report shall include an analysis of the liquefaction
potential of the underlying materials according to the most current liquefaction
analysis procedures. If the site is confirmed to be in an area prone to seismically-
induced liquefaction, appropriate techniques to minimize liquefaction potential
shall be prescribed and implemented. In addition to a liquefaction analysis, the
Geotechnical Study shall include an evaluation of the potential for soil settlement
and soil expansion beneath the project site. All on-site structures shall comply with
applicable methods of State and Local Building Codes.
Future development of the site shall incorporate all applicable engineering
requirements and recommendations as presented in the Geotechnical Study.
Suitable measures to reduce liquefaction, settlement, and soil expansion impacts
may include one or more of the following techniques, as determined by a registered
geotechnical engineer:
Specialized design of foundations by a structural engineer;
Removal or treatment of liquefiable soils to reduce the potential for
liquefaction;
In-situ densification of soils or other alterations to the ground characteristics; or
Other alterations to the ground characteristics.
Excavation and re-compaction of on-site or imported soils;
Treatment of existing soils by mixing a chemical grout into the soils prior to re-
compaction; or
Foundation design that can accommodate certain amounts of differential
settlement such as post tensional slab and/or ribbed foundations designed in
accordance with the California Building Code.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The Applicant shall submit a geotechnical study in
accordance with this mitigation measure for approval prior to site development.
Applicable engineering requirements shall be incorporated into project site plans
submitted for approval before the issuance of grading and building permits.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to issuance of grading permits. The Community Development Department shall site
inspect to ensure development is in accordance with approved plans prior to
occupancy clearance. Community Development staff shall verify installation in
accordance with approved building plans.
HYD-1 Conditional Letter of Map Revision/Letter of Map Revision. The applicant shall
prepare the CLOMR application and obtain a LOMR from FEMA.
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 149
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall prepare the CLOMR application
and submit it to FEMA.
Monitoring. The City will confirm that FEMA has approved the CLOMR prior to
issuance of a grading permit, and LOMR prior to issuance of a building permit.
N-1 Interior Noise Reduction. If the final project site design includes residential units
facing Tank Farm Road in the structures located closest to Tank Farm Road Within
150 feet of the Tank Farm Road centerline, for any structure that includes
residential uses, the project site developer shall implement the following measures,
or similar combination of measures, which demonstrate that interior residential
noise levels in residences facing exposed to Tank Farm Road would be reduced
below to the City’s 45 dBA CNEL interior noise standard. The required Furthermore,
as shown conceptually, final building design and location shall collectively provide
an effective attenuation shield from Tank Farm Road noise for active outdoor areas
within the development with the intent to achieve 60 dBA CNEL or less at a distance
of 250 feet from the centerline of Tank Farm Road. iInterior noise reduction shall be
achieved through a combination of standard interior noise reduction techniques,
which may include (but are not limited to):
In order for windows and doors to remain closed, mechanical ventilation such
as air conditioning shall be provided for all units facing exposed to Tank Farm
Road (passive ventilation may be provided, if mechanical ventilation is not
necessary to achieve interior noise standards, as demonstrated by a qualified
acoustical consultant).
All exterior walls shall be constructed with a minimum STC rating of 50,
consisting of construction of 2 inch by 4 inch wood studs with one layer of 5/8
inch Type “X” gypsum board on each side of resilient channels on 24 inch
centers and 3 ½ inch fiberglass insulation.
All windows and glass doors shall be rated STC 39 or higher such that the noise
reduction provided will satisfy the interior noise standard of 45 dBA CNEL.
An acoustical test report of all the sound-rated windows and doors shall be
provided to the City for review by a qualified acoustical consultant to ensure
that the selected windows and doors in combination with wall assemblies
would reduce interior noise levels sufficiently to meet the City’s interior noise
standard.
All vent ducts connecting interior spaces to the exterior (i.e., bathroom exhaust,
etc.) shall have at least two 90 degree turns in the duct.
All windows and doors facing exposed to Tank Farm Road shall be installed in an
acoustically-effective manner. Sliding window panels shall form an air-tight seal
when in the closed position and the window frames shall be caulked to the wall
opening around the perimeter with a non-hardening caulking compound to
prevent sound infiltration. Exterior doors shall seal air-tight around the full
perimeter when in the closed position.
The applicant shall submit a report to the Community Development Department
by a qualified acoustical consultant certifying that the specific interior noise
reduction techniques included in residential, hotel, and office components of
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
150
the project would achieve interior noise levels that would not exceed 45 dBA
CNEL.
Plan Requirements and Timing. These requirements shall be incorporated into all
the building plan submittals.
Monitoring. The Community Development Department shall verify compliance prior
to approval of the building plans and shall verify installation in accordance with
approved building plans.
N-2(a) Construction Equipment Best Management Practices. For all construction activity
at the project site that exceeds 60 dBA at the property line with the existing
residence to the southeast, the following noise attenuation techniques shall be
employed to ensure that noise levels are maintained within levels allowed by the
City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, Title 9, Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control). Such
techniques shall include:
Sound blankets on noise-generating equipment.
Stationary construction equipment that generates noise levels above 60 dBA at
the project boundaries shall be shielded with barriers that meet a sound
transmission class (a rating of how well noise barriers attenuate sound) of 25.
All diesel equipment shall be operated with closed engine doors and shall be
equipped with factory-recommended mufflers.
For stationary equipment, the applicant shall designate equipment areas with
appropriate acoustic shielding on building and grading plans. Equipment and
shielding shall be installed prior to construction and remain in the designated
location throughout construction activities.
Electrical power shall be used to power air compressors and similar power tools.
The movement of construction-related vehicles, with the exception of
passenger vehicles, along roadways adjacent to sensitive receptors shall be
limited to the hours between 7:00 AM and 7:00 PM, Monday through Saturday.
No movement of heavy equipment shall occur on Sundays or official holidays
(e.g., Thanksgiving, Labor Day).
Temporary sound barriers shall be constructed between the construction site
and the single-family residence to the southeast.
N-2(b) Neighboring Property Owner Notification and Construction Noise Complaints. The
contractor shall inform the property owner of the single-family residence to the
southeast of the project site of proposed construction timelines and noise
complaint procedures to minimize potential annoyance related to construction
noise. Proof of mailing the notice shall be provided to the Community Development
Department before the City issues a zoning clearance. Signs shall be in place before
beginning of and throughout grading and construction activities. Noise-related
complaints shall be directed to the City’s Community Development Department.
Plan Requirements and Timing. Construction plans shall note construction hours,
truck routes, and construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) and shall be
submitted to the City for approval prior to grading and building permit issuance for
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 151
each project phase. BMPs shall be identified and described for submittal to the City
for review and approval prior to building or grading permit issuance. BMPs shall be
adhered to for the duration of the project. The applicant shall provide and post
signs stating these restrictions at construction site entries. Signs shall be posted
prior to commencement of construction and maintained throughout construction.
Schedule and neighboring property owner notification mailing list shall be
submitted 10 days prior to initiation of any earth movement. The Community
Development department shall confirm that construction noise reduction measures
are incorporated in plans prior to approval of grading/building permit issuance.
All construction workers shall be briefed at a pre-construction meeting on
construction hour limitations and how, why, and where BMP measures are to be
implemented. A workday schedule will be adhered to for the duration of
construction for all phases.
Monitoring. City staff shall ensure compliance throughout all construction phases.
Building inspectors and permit compliance staff shall periodically inspect the site for
compliance with activity schedules and respond to complaints.
T-1 Broad Street/Tank Farm Road Intersection Improvements. The project applicant
shall pay fair share costs for required intersection improvements to address the
project’s identified queueing impact at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection. Required intersection improvements include:
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road: Re-stripe the existing cross-sectional width to
provide a second southbound left turn lane.
Alternatively, the identified queueing impact at the Broad Street/Tank Farm Road
intersection would be eliminated if the applicant provides a vehicular connection to
the adjacent site to the east, which would allow use of the traffic signal at Industrial
Way.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall calculate the fair share costs required
for payment by the applicant. The applicant shall pay fair share costs upon
acceptance by the City of final design plans and in accordance with the timing of
improvements. A funding mechanism shall be established as a condition of project
approval.
Otherwise, the City shall verify that a vehicular connection to the adjacent site to
the east, which would allow use of the traffic signal at Industrial Way, is provided on
project site plans.
Monitoring. The City shall verify payment of fair share costs (or inclusion of a
vehicular connection to the adjacent site to the east on project site plans) upon
acceptance by the City of final design plans.
T-2 Fair Share Costs for Required Intersection Improvements. The project applicant
shall pay fair share costs for required intersection improvements to address the
project’s contribution to identified cumulative intersection level of service and
queueing impacts. Required intersection improvements include:
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
152
Tank Farm Road/South Higuera Street: Install a second southbound left turn
lane.
Tank Farm Road/Santa Fe Road: Install a multi-lane roundabout.
Broad Street/Industrial Way: Convert the east and west approaches from split
phasing to permissive phasing and restripe both approaches to provide
dedicated left turn lanes and shared through/right turn lanes.
Broad Street/Tank Farm Road: Add a second southbound left turn lane, add a
dedicated northbound right turn lane, convert the westbound right turn lane to
a shared through/right lane, and establish time-of-day timing plans.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The City shall calculate the fair share costs required
for payment by the applicant for development of the project site. The applicant
shall pay fair share costs upon acceptance by the City of final design plans and in
accordance with the timing of improvements. A funding mechanism shall be
established as a condition of project approval.
Monitoring. The City shall verify payment of fair share costs upon acceptance by the
City of final design plans and in accordance with the timing of improvements.
UT-1 Wastewater Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the
applicant shall define and incorporate into the project design an Inflow and
Infiltration reduction strategy consistent with the City’s Wastewater Infrastructure
Renewal Strategy. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the developer shall
be required to implement, and demonstrate off-site sewer rehabilitation that
results in quantifiable inflow and infiltration reduction in the City’s wastewater
collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or B.3 in an amount equal to
offset the project’s wastewater flow increase. This may be satisfied by one of the
following:
Sufficient reductions in wastewater flow within sub-basins A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2 or
B.3, commensurate with the additional wastewater flow contributed by the
project, to be achieved by the verified replacement of compromised private
sewer laterals, or public sewer mains, either by the developer, or any property
owner located within said basins; or
Participation in a sewer lateral replacement program, or similar inflow and
infiltration reduction program to be developed by City if program is in place
prior to issuance of certificate of occupancy; or any other off-site sewer
rehabilitation proposed by the developer and approved by the Utilities Director,
which will achieve a reduction in wastewater flow commensurate with the
additional wastewater flow contributed by the project. The final selection of the
inflow and infiltration reduction project will be approved by the Utilities
Director.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate wastewater
reduction measures into development plans and submit evidence to the Utilities
Department that these provisions would result in quantifiable inflow and infiltration
reduction in the City’s wastewater collection system in sub-basin A1, A2, A3, A4, B.2
or B.3 in an amount equal to offset the project’s wastewater flow increase.
Mitigation Summary
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 153
Monitoring. The Utilities Department shall verify compliance prior to issuance of
building permits.
UT-2 Water Reduction Measures. Prior to issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall
define and incorporate into the project design water reduction measures consistent
with the City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. Prior to issuance of a certificate of
occupancy, the developer shall be required to implement, and demonstrate water
offsets that result in quantifiable water demand reductions in the City’s potable
water distribution system with an amount equal to offset the project’s water flow
increase. This may be satisfied by one of the following:
Sufficient reductions in potable water demands, commensurate with the
additional water demands contributed by the project, to be achieved by verified
conversions of existing irrigation system from potable water to recycled water
systems located within the City’s potable water distribution system;
Participation in the construction of new mains for the recycled water
transmission system; or construction of any other recycled water main
proposed by the developer and approved by the Utilities Director, which will
achieve a reduction in potable water demands commensurate with the
additional water demands contributed by the project.
Plan Requirements and Timing. The applicant shall incorporate water reduction
measures into development plans and submit evidence to the Utilities Department
that these provisions would result in quantifiable water demand reductions in the
City’s potable water distribution system with an amount equal to offset the
project’s water flow increase.
Monitoring. The Utilities Department shall verify compliance prior to issuance of
building permits.
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
154
References
Bibliography
Busch and Miller. Department of Conservation – California Geological Survey. Updated Mineral Land
Classification Map for Concrete-Grade Aggregates in the San Luis Obispo-Santa Barbara
Production-Consumption Region, California – North Half. 2011. Accessible at:
ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/pub/dmg/pubs/sr/SR_215/SR_215_Plate1A.pdf
California Department of Transportation. Transportation- and Construction-Induced Vibration
Guidance Manual. June 2004.
California Department of Transportation. State Scenic Highways- San Luis Obispo County. 2015.
Accessible at:
http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm
California Department of Finance (DOF). May 2017. City/County Population and Housing Estimates.
Web Accessible from: http://www.dof.ca.gov/Forecasting/Demographics/Estimates/E-5/
California Energy Commission (CEC). California Energy Demand 2010-2020 - Commission Adopted
Forecast and Demand Forecast. Adopted December 2, 2009. Publication # CEC-100-2009-
012-CMF. Available at: www.energy.ca.gov/2009publications/CEC-200-2009-012/index.html
California Association of Environmental Professionals (AEP). 2015. Beyond 2020: The Challenge of
Greenhouse Gas Reduction Planning by Local Governments in California. Web accessible at:
https://www.califaep.org/images/climate-change/AEP_White_Paper_Beyond_2020.pdf
CalReycle. Per Capita Disposal and Goal Measurement (2007 and Later). 2017a. Accessible at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/LGCentral/Basics/PerCapitaDsp.htm
______. Facility/Site Summary Details: Cold Canyon Landfill. 2017b. Accessible at:
http://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/SWFacilities/Directory/40-AA-0004/Detail/
______. Mandatory Commercial Organics Recycling. 2018. Accessible at:
https://www.calrecycle.ca.gov/recycle/commercial/organics
California Air Pollution Control Officers Association (CAPCOA). CEQA and Climate Change
whitepaper. January 2008. Available at: www.capcoa.org/wp-
content/uploads/2012/03/CAPCOA-White-Paper.pdf
California Air Resources Board (ARB). Frequently Asked Questions About Executive Order B-30-15.
April 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2030_carbon_target_adaptation_faq.pdf
______. 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14, 2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf.
California Climate Action Registry. January 2009. General Reporting Protocol. Available at:
www.climateregistry.org/tools/protocols/general-reporting-protocol.html
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 155
Citygate Associates, LLC. January 2009. Fire Department Master Plan for the City of San Luis Obispo,
CA. Volume 1 of 3 – Main Report. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=4618
Department of Conservation-Division of Oil, Gas, and Geothermal Resources-Well Finder. 2017.
https://maps.conservation.ca.gov/doggr/wellfinder/#close
Department of Toxic Substances Control. EnviroStor Database. 2017. Accessible at:
http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/
Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Flood Map Service Center. 2012. Accessible at:
https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search#searchresultsanchor
Federal Highway Administration. Construction Noise Handbook. August 2006. Accessible at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/Environment/noise/construction_noise/handbook/
______. Highway Traffic Noise Analysis and Abatement Policy and Guidance. August 2017. Available
at:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environMent/noise/regulations_and_guidance/polguide/polgui
de02.cfm
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science
Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M.
Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor and H.L. Miller (eds.)]. Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA
Los Angeles County Sanitation District Loadings for Each Class of Land Use. 2015/2016. Accessible at:
http://www.lacsd.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?blobid=8975
Maggio, Rodger. 2018. Fire Marshal, City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department. Personal
communication via email regarding fire services with Rachel Cohen, City Planner, City of San
Luis Obispo, April 2018.
San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District. 2001 Clean Air Plan, San Luis Obispo County.
December 2001. Available at:
www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/business/pdf/CAP.pdf
______. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. April 2012a. Available at:
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/CEQA_Handbook_2012_v1.pdf
______. Greenhouse Gas Thresholds and Supporting Evidence. March 2012b. Available at:
www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/Greenhouse%20Gas%20Thresholds%20and
%20Supporting%20Evidence%204-2-2012.pdf
______. 2015 Annual Air Quality Report. September 2016.
http://www.slocleanair.org/images/cms/upload/files/2015aqrt-FINAL.pdf
San Luis Obispo, City of. General Plan. Noise. 1996. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6643
______. Waterway Management Plan. 2003. Available at:
www.slocountywater.org/site/Flood%20Control%20and%20Water%20Conservation%20Dist
rict%20Zones/ZONE%209/pdf/wmp.pdf
City of San Luis Obispo
650 Tank Farm Road Mixed-Use Project
156
______. General Plan. Conservation and Open Space. Revised April 4, 2006. Available at:
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter6-
COSE.pdf
______. General Plan. Water and Wastewater. July 2010. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6649
______. Access and Parking Management Plan. 2011. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=2602
______. General Plan. Circulation. December 2014a. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6637
______. General Plan. Safety. March 2014b. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6645
______. Land Use and Circulation Element Update Program EIR. September 2014c. Available at:
www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6719
______. General Plan. Land Use. June 2014d. Available at:
www.slocity.org/communitydevelopment/download/unifiedgeneralplan/Chapter1-
Land%20Use%20June2010.pdf
______. Airport Area Specific Plan. September 2014e. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
______. General Plan. Housing. 2015. Available at: www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6639
______. Utilities Department. 2015 Urban Water Management Plan. 2016a. Accessible at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=10913
______. Fire Department. 2016b. Available at: www.slocity.org/fire/about.asp
______. Police Department. 2016c. Available at: www.slocity.org/police/about.asp
______. San Luis Obispo Transit – Short Range Transit Plan. 2016d. Available at:
http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=15295
______. Municipal Code. March 2018a. Available at: www.codepublishing.com/ca/sanluisobispo/
______. Groundwater. 2018b. Accessible at: http://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/utilities-department/water/water-sources/ground-water
______. 2018c. Planning Commission Agenda Report. Subject: Amendment to the General Plan
Water and Wastewater Management Element (GPA 1454-2018) and Proposed Negative
Declaration of Environmental Effect (EID 1455-2018). Meeting date: April 11, 2018. Item
Number 15. Available at: http://opengov.slocity.org/weblink/1/doc/77488/Page1.aspx
Society of Vertebrate Paleontology. 2010. Standard Procedures for the Assessment and Mitigation
of Adverse Impacts to Paleontological Resources. Society of Vertebrate Paleontology Impact
Mitigation Guidelines Revision Committee.
South Coast Air Quality Management District. California Emissions Estimator Model User’s Guide.
Version 2016.3.2. October 2017. Available online at: http://www.aqmd.gov/docs/default-
source/caleemod/user's-guide---october-2017.pdf?sfvrsn=6
State Water Resources Control Board. Geotracker Database. 2017. Accessible at:
http://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov
References
Initial Study – Mitigated Negative Declaration 157
______. Final 2012 California Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b)
Report). Accessed March 2018. Accessible at:
https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/2012state_ir_reports/categ
ory5_report.shtml
List of Preparers
Rincon Consultants, Inc. prepared this IS-MND under contract to the City of San Luis Obispo. Persons
involved in data gathering analysis, project management, and quality control are listed below.
RINCON CONSULTANTS, INC.
Richard Daulton, Principal
Rob Mullane, Senior Program Manager
Chris Bersbach, Senior Project Manager/Technical Services Program Manager
Jamie Deutsch, Associate Biologist
Mattie Cardenaz, Environmental Planner
Nik Kilpelainen, Environmental Planner