HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/14/2005, PH1 - FISCAL INFORMATION FOR JUNE 14 AGENDA ITEM PH1 NtU FILE
MEETING AGENDA
DATE A /y a ITEM #�
council memomn6um
DATE: June 13, 2005
TO: City Council
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Direct
BY: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmeri�
SUBJECT: FISCAL INFORMATION FOR JUNE 14 AGENDA ITEM PHI
Councilperson Mulholland requested information on the fiscal impacts and benefits of annexing
properties within the Airport Area Specific Plan. We have provided her with copies of the
February 1994 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Angus
McDonald & Associates, and the June 1998 Airport Area Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis
report prepared by the City's Department of Finance. These reports are also available in the
Council Reading File and can be copied for individual Council Members at your request. As you
may recall, in 1994 the Airport Area included what is now the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Staff will be presenting the Airport Area Specific Plan in at least two separate meetings, June
14`x, and July 26`l'. Public Facilities Financing and Plan Implementation will be presented at the
July 26`s meeting when Bill Statler will discuss the fiscal issues related to the specific plan and
any subsequent annexation of the area into the City. The Council, however, may find the two
fiscal analysis reports useful for either of the meetings.
LASpecific Plans\AASP\CMem Redfile6-14-05.doc
COUNCI CDG DIP
CAO FIN DIR
ACAO FIRE CHIEF
ATTORNEY 5 PW DIR
11 CLERK`ORIG POLICE CHF
1-1 �H�ADS REC DIR
UTIL DIR
HR Dim.
Chem Redfile6-14-05
counat ' ,4
j agenda RepoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM: John Mandeville, Director of Coty Developme
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associate Plana
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Review the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), and
take public testimony on the proposed specific plan, including the minor changes to the
AASP requested by the Airport Land Use Commission.
2) Take public testimony on the plan, and provide staff with direction on Chapters 1.0
through 5.0.
3) Continue the hearing to July 26, 2005, to provide for additional review of the AASP,
including Chapters 6.0 through 9.0.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The AASP is a specific plan for the southern portion of the City's Urban Reserve that has been a
major work program item since 1994. The Specific Plan identifies land uses and establishes
infrastructure requirements for over 1000 acres of land adjacent to the airport. The EIR for the
AASP was certified on October 12, 2004, as part of the approval of the Margarita Area Specific
Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the AASP on March 9`h and April 13`t', 2005, and
recommended approval of the Plan to the City Council. The Planning Commission made
changes to the document, such as revisions to the zoning map and the table of allowed uses,
which have been incorporated into the current Planning Commission Draft document. The
Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed the AASP and provided positive feedback to City
staff, recommending minor changes to the document to insure consistency with the Airport Land
Use Plan. Public outreach to solicit input into the planning process has included newsletters,
public meetings and presentations to area-wide interest groups such as the Chamber of
Commerce.
DISCUSSION
Background
Previous planning efforts for the Airport Area (Attachment 1, Vicinity Map) have involved both
the City and the County. In the late 70's and during the 80's, the City's General Plan recognized
that one day the area would be developed with industrial and airport related uses, but until then
the area should remain in low intensity land use without urban services. In the 1980's the County
spearheaded an effort to have a specific plan prepared for both the Airport and Margarita Areas.
r-
Airport Area Specific Plan Page 2
County Service Area No. 22 (CSA 22) was created to assess property owners for the funds
needed to pay for the preparation of a specific plan.
A preliminary specific plan was completed in 1988, which provided the basis for the City's
designation of Airport Area land uses in the 1994 General Plan Land Use Element update. The
1994 Circulation Element update identified a street system that could serve the proposed land
uses. The 1994 Land Use Element also contained a policy that said the City should pursue
completion of a specific plan and annexation of the Airport Area by 1995. However,by 1996 the
policy had not been accomplished.
In 1996, the Council directed staff to take the lead in organizing and paying for the completion of
the plan and the EIR, and to prepare a "lean and mean"plan focusing on infrastructure planning
for the land uses identified in the General Plan (Attachment 2). A consultant was hired in 1991.
Several revisions to the infrastructure master plans were necessary to respond to the changing
real estate market. The first draft specific plan was published in 2002, and was reviewed by the
Planning Commission. The Commission discussed the .plan but did not make any
recommendations at that time. Subsequent public hearings were delayed to allow staff to address
property owner concerns regarding the costs of the proposed public facilities, as well as the
environmental impacts of the proposed regional detention system.
After major components of the AASP were revised, the EIR was completed and a new draft of
the Specific Plan was published (See PC Report, Attachment 3). After hearings in March and
April of 2005, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the AASP to the City
Council (Attachments 3 and 4,PC Reports and Meeting Minutes).
Related Approvals
On October 12, 2004, the City Council approved the Margarita Area Specific Plan and certified
the Final EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans. Area specific "add-on" fees for water and wastewater service to the Margarita
Area and the Airport Area were first approved by Council resolution in 2002, and these fees were
updated in July of 2004 based on the Facilities Master Plans including revisions related to the
Nacimiento Water Project and Tank Farm Lift Station Project. The AASP includes fees to
recover the costs of plan preparation and for transportation. These two fees would be established
by Council resolution following approval of the Specific Plan.
Why the Airport Area Specific Plan Has Been a Policy Goal For 20 Years
The Airport Area is important to the City for many reasons. The most basic reason is its
proximity to the City and the effect that development in the area has on the City's economy, land
uses and circulation system. Without urban services, the area will continue to develop under
County standards, with water tanks for fire suppression and open areas for septic leach fields.
The 1994 General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) established the current boundaries of the
Airport Area, which is also within the City's Urban Reserve Line, and established the mechanism
for allowing the extension of urban services into the Airport Area. This mechanism is the
Airport Area Specific Plan.
t ��
Airport Area Spedrfic Plan Page 3
In the City's LUE, the Urban Reserve Line is drawn as the southern boundary of the Airport
Area, and the Airport Area is listed as a principal expansion area. Policy 1.13.2 of the LUE says
that areas within the Urban Reserve Line should be annexed before urban development occurs.
Adoption of the AASP is a necessary precursor to annexation, and delay in annexation of the
Airport Area will mean that additional development is likely to occur under County jurisdiction.
So, why should development of the Airport Area occur under City jurisdiction as opposed to
County jurisdiction? The following is a summary of three key responses to this important
question:
1) The City and the County have both designated the area for urban uses, but the City has taken
the lead in planning for the area by preparing a Specific Plan that incorporates San Luis
Obispo's strong preferences for resource protection and quality development that augment
the City's sense of place.
2) Natural resources protection and economic development are two important City programs
that are significantly furthered and enhanced by the goals, policies, programs and standards
contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan.
3) The Airport Area should develop as a part of the City in order to provide the City with
revenue to offset the costs the City will incur supporting the land uses in the Airport Area.
Urban development in the Airport Area increases the traffic on City streets, the use of City
facilities (parks, recreation, libraries) and the use of City services (police and fire protection).
Annexing the Airport Area will provide revenue that will offset the costs the City incurs by
providing services that Airport Area development creates a demand for.
4) By annexing the Airport Area, the City will be able to mitigate the impact of new
development. For example, annexation will give the City the authority to insure that traffic
impacts on City streets will be provided and paid for by new development.
5) The Council has established goals to provide living wage jobs and increase revenues to
compensate for years of state take-aways. Annexing the Airport Area will allow
development that can provide living wage jobs and result in approximately $450,000.00 of
additional city revenue.
6) It is not the County's usual function to install infrastructure for urban-type development. The
City's Public Works and Utilities Departments primary task is to plan, design and build urban
infrastructure, as presented in the AASP. This recognizes the fact that the City is in the
"business" of serving urban development, while the County serves a complex dual role as the
State's arm in health and welfare matters while providing services to the rural and
unincorporated areas of the County.
Even though both the City and County Land Use Plans for the area are essentially the same, the
City has taken on the responsibility of preparing a detailed plan for the area that focuses on
infrastructure. Each development that is now being approved by the County is "on its own" in
providing water for consumption, water for fire protection, transportation improvements, septic
tanks and leach fields. If the present pace and type of development continues under County
jurisdiction it is likely that there will come a time when the lack of an overall approach to these
f - 3
Airport Area Specffic Plan Page 4
issues will cause problems within this area. The lack of potable water south of Buckley Road
adjacent to the airport is one such emerging problem.
As part of the City's existing urban area, the approval of the Airport Area Specific Plan and the
future annexation of the Airport Area will provide access to infrastructure that is far superior than
what could be provided under a "go-it alone" approach. The economic benefits that will result
from implementation of the City's infrastructure plans, and through the implementation of the
property development standards and design standards in the Specific Plan, are expected to benefit
the City as a whole.
At this point in time, the question is not if the Airport Area is going to develop, but how.
According to the General Plan, the City's specific plan process is the appropriate mechanism to
answer this question. It is with this foundation that the Airport Area Specific Plan has been
recommended for approval by the Planning Commission.
Planning Commission Review
The recommendation by the Planning Commission comes after hearings on March 9, 2005
(Attachment 3, Report and Minutes), and April 13, 2005, (Attachment 4, Report and Minutes).
The Planning Commission discussed the Plan's components in detail, heard a significant amount
of public testimony (see Meeting Minutes and Council Reading File for public correspondence to
the Planning Commission) and made several important changes to the document. The changes
made by the Commission are summarized below.
I) The Commission changed the proposed zoning on Clarion Way, a small street located on a
cul-de-sac east of Santa Fe Road, from Manufacturing to Service Commercial. This change
was made after the Commission heard a request from property owners and their
representative. The Commission made the change to more accurately reflect current County
zoning and recent development along the street.
2) The Commission implemented recent changes to the Draft Specific Plan that were necessary
for airport compatibility purposes. Over the years the City has coordinated the preparation of
the AASP closely with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC). Recent changes to the
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) required some late changes to the AASP to insure
consistency between the two documents. These changes included the addition of Section 4.5
to Chapter 4, which is needed to address the Detailed Area Plan and Cluster Development
Zone provisions of the ALUP. As discussed in more detail later in this report, the Airport
Land Use Commission has reviewed the AASP and has provided very positive statements to
the City regarding the airport safety provisions included in the Specific Plan.
3) The Planning Commission made three changes to Table 4.3, including allowing light
manufacturing in the BP zone, allowing Banks in the Service Commercial zone with the
approval of an Administrative Use Permit, and allowing Broadcast Studios in all zones
provided that the installation of antennas receive the approval of a minor use permit to insure
compatibility with airport operations. The changes were made based on property owner
request and other public testimony. Table 4.3 was developed in consideration of the fact that
development in the Airport Area does not pose the same compatibility problems that exist in
other parts of the City, where commercial development may be next to a neighborhood or
Airport Area Specffic Plan Page 5
where a larger variety of business types may be located near each other. Table 4.3 was also
developed in consideration of existing uses in the area and County zoning in order to insure
that the adoption of the Specific Plan creates as few non-conforming uses as possible.
4. Figure 6-1, Primary Circulation System, was amended by the Planning Commission based on
a request from the County Airports Manager. The figure now reflects the proposed
realignment of Santa Fe Road, which is a County project. The realignment is necessary to
accommodate an expanded runway at the airport, which is a central component of the new
Airport Master Plan.
5. The Planning Commission deleted the following policy and program from Chapter 3.0.
Policy 3.2.26 was deleted because the issue is covered by standards contained in Chapter 4.
Program 3.3.4 was deleted based on a written request by Unocal. Unocal's statement
indicates that Program 3.3.4 was a constraint to their ability to remediate and restore property
north of Tank Farm Road as determined to be necessary by the on-going Surface Evaluation,
Remediation and Restoration Team (SERRT) process (see Council Reading File Unocal's
written correspondence to Planning Commission and a overview of the SERRT project).
Policy 3.2.26: Approach and Climb-Out Paths
Retain extensive undeveloped land under the approach and climb-out
paths for the main runway (see Chapter 4).
Program 3.3.4: Expand Wetlands
Expand the existing major wetland north of Tank Farm Road to the
northwest and provide a suitable upland edge, in conjunction with
redevelopment of the part of the Unocal property that contained company
offices.
•ti
I
Lt ..•1FR
=Expansion
•
J
. ..l .t,It lrit YJl ITIf Jtf.f ti Jit,
V
r' Existing Wetland Edge `— u
• s
The area north of Tank Farm Road where wetland expansion is envisioned is located to the
northwest of the existing edge to the wetlands. According to the City's Natural Resources
Manager, expansion of the wetlands in this area has long been envisioned as a way to improve
the quality of the habitat in this area. City staff disagrees with the concern that Program 3.3.4
I -�
Airport Area Specffic Plan Page 6
constrains Unocal's ability to follow the SERRT process, and the program could be clarified to
this effect. Staff is recommending that the Council consider adding Program 3.3.4 back into
Chapter 3 with additional language to clarify how the program would be implemented with
respect to the SERRT process. The above graphic shows the area of concern.
6. The Planning Commission also made changes to some of the standards provided in Chapter
4. These changes include a revision to the parking table to increase the maximum parking
ratio permitted for offices. This change was made because medical offices require parking at
the ratio of 1 space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The table was also changed to
increase the maximum parking ratio for business services, research, design and
manufacturing from I space per 300 square feet to 1 space per 250 square feet. This change
was made based on testimony provided by SESLOC Federal Credit Union, which plans to
develop a facility on their property adjacent to the City's sports fields.
In addition to the changes listed above, the Planning Commission unanimously recommended
that the City Council consider revising the standards for public improvements to reduce
amenities in the Specific Plan area if the fees for plan preparation and transportation exceed the
estimates provided in the Specific Plan. These fees are set by Council resolution after the
Specific Plan is adopted. The Planning Commission recommendation would best be
implemented through a new Specific Plan policy, but the Commission chose not to recommend
specific language for such a policy. As mentioned previously, the impact fees for water and
wastewater service to the area have already been established. The Planning Commission's
recommendation relates to fees for plan preparation and transportation. Staff does not expect
that the actual fees for these items will exceed Specific Plan estimates and no policy changes are
recommended at this time.
Overview of the Plan
The Specific Plan provides a more detailed application of the policy direction contained in the
General Plan. The Plan is organized into chapters that reflect a progression of values and
objectives, with land planning fundamentals informing subsequent levels of detail, such as
development standards. Land management and natural resource protection are the most
fundamental values guiding the Plan.
Conservation and Resource Management
Chapter 3 of the AASP focuses on the preservation and enhancement of important natural
resources and open space. As stated in the chapter introduction, "Physical development and
resource conservation within the Airport Area are seen as inter-related strategies for maintaining
a sustainable, high-quality environment for the San Luis Obispo community." The key resources
in the area include an extensive wetlands complex, native grasslands and other rare species
habitat. The ability to pursue a strong program for resource conservation in the Airport Area is
facilitated by two extraneous factors, soil contamination in the former Unocal tank farm area and
airport safety requirements, which both inhibit physical development. These two factors, taken
together with the community's long-standing preferences for environmental protection and
quality of life issues, allow for the designation of over 30% of the Plan area as open space.
Chapter 3 includes a range of policies and programs to guide future City decisions on
conservation, management and development related issues.
Airport Area Specific Plan ', Page 7
Land Use
Chapter 4 of the AASP provides the land use program for the 1061 acres within the Plan's
boundaries, which is based on the direction provided by Chapter 3. Other than the existing
mobile home park on Tank Farm Road, no residential uses are included in the Plan because of
soil contamination and airport compatibility issues. Commercial land within the Airport Area is
divided between Business Park (114 acres) and Services and Manufacturing (358 acres).
Business Park land is located along Broad Street and the northern extension of Santa Fe Road.
Land designated as Services and Manufacturing is located along Buckley Road, Santa Fe Road,
Tank Farm Road, Suburban Road, South Higuera Street and the proposed Unocal Collector
Road. The distribution of urban uses is based on the General Plan, and is modified to reflect
more detailed planning for the area. Chapter 4 includes all of the development related standards,
such as parking requirements, setback standards, parcel dimensions, height limits, and a matrix
of allowed uses (Table 4.3). Chapter 4 also includes incentives for providing .such things as
public plazas, private recreational facilities for employees, and child or elder care facilities.
Property condition standards are also listed to insure that properties are maintained free of
dilapidated buildings, trash or debris, and dead or overgrown landscaping.
Community Design
Chapter 5 was developed at the same time as the Citywide Community Design Guidelines, and
was reviewed and recommended for approval by the Architectural Review Commission in 2002.
The introduction to Chapter 5 states that new development should reflect the area's unique
character and tradition, and enhance San Luis Obispo's unique sense of place. The discussion
identifies five physical qualities that contribute to the Airport Area's identity. These qualities are
summarized as openness, connectivity, transition, ruralness and diversity. Chapter 5 goes on to
provide goals, guidelines and standards to insure that building designers consider these important
qualities when proposing new development. In summary, the design guidelines are intended to
insure that new development respects the existing visual resources and development while
meeting the City's high standards for building design.
Circulation and Transportation
Chapter 6 provides a primary circulation plan, a bicycle plan and a transit plan, which are
designed to meet the multi-modal transportation objectives outlined in the Circulation Element of
the General Plan and to meet the transportation demands generated by the proposed land use
program. The chapter provides goals, guidelines and standards for each type of roadway,
including parkway arterial, arterial, collector and local roads. Standards are also provided for
roundabouts, and the primary circulation plan identifies areas where roundabouts may be
appropriate. Certain intersections are also identified as appropriate locations for interim
roundabouts, which could accommodate up to 3,700 vehicles per hour, but would need to be
expanded or replaced with a more conventional traffic control system if traffic volumes exceeded
this threshold. Finally, transportation demand management requirements are built into the
Specific Plan, which require employers of 50 people or more to participate in programs to help
achieve General Plan goals for reducing average vehicle ridership.
1
Airport Area Specific Plan _ Page 8
Utilities
Chapter 7 details the utilities and service requirements for the Airport Area. The details for
water, sewer and storm-water management are based on the Public Facilities Master Plans that
were developed at the same time as the Specific.Plan. This chapter includes policies for storm
drainage, water, wastewater, energy, telecommunications, high-speed data access, infrastructure
undergrounding, and police and fire protection services. The current draft departs significantly
from previous drafts because of the elimination of a planned regional storm water detention
system. The regional system was eliminated after the last draft of the AASP because of costs,
environmental impacts and airport safety. Elimination of a regional system was made possible
by the City's preparation and adoption of the Waterways Management Plan and the
accompanying Drainage Design Manual. These documents provide developers and their
engineers with standards and requirements to insure that post-development run-off matches pre-
development conditions. This is normally accomplished with on-site detention and metering of
storm flows so the rate and volume of run-off is unchanged. In some cases developers may
choose to make downstream improvements to accommodate increased run-off from a project site,
if a detention basin is not feasible or desirable.
Financing
Chapter 8 presents the Public Facilities Financing Plan that was prepared to evaluate the ability
of the land uses proposed in the AASP to fund the required utilities and services needed to serve
the area. The Financing Plan was prepared for both the Margarita Area and the Airport Area and
the financing chapters in the respective specific plans are virtually identical. The impact fees that
have already been established (water, wastewater) and additional fees proposed in the AASP
(transportation, plan preparation fees) are consistent with City policy that new development must
pay its own way and not be subsidized by the City's general fund. As a reality check, staff
compared the proposed impact fees to those of other communities and found that while the
AASP fees are high for the County, they compare favorably to other California communities.
Fees are anticipated to make up 5%-15% of land and improvement costs, whereas fees in the
range of 10%-20% are common in California.
Airport Land Use Commission Requested Changes
On May 18, 2005, the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) reviewed the Planning
Commission Draft of the AASP and was supportive of the document. The ALUC provided City
staff with several minor changes to the document that are intended to help clarify aviation safety
requirements (Attachment 5). The ALUC will review the AASP again on June 15, 2005, at
which time they will determine if it is consistent or inconsistent with the.Airport Land Use Plan.
Based on the ALUC's discussion and the input provided, it is expected that they will find the
AASP to be consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan, with the recommended changes. City
staff has involved the ALUC in the drafting of the document and the Commission was pleased by
the careful attention paid to Airport Land Use Plan provisions.
Environmental Review
The Final Program EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans was certified by the City Council on October 12, 2004, when the
Airport Area Specific Plan Page 9
Margarita Area Specific Plan was approved. Although no action is required relative to the
environmental document, as part of a decision to approve the AASP, the City Council must make
Findings for Significant Environmental Effects, Findings of Overriding Consideration and must
approve the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the AASP. Attachment 6 includes the draft
resolution, as recommended by the Planning Commission, which includes the required
environmental findings in Exhibit A. The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is attached to the
resolution as Exhibit B.
EIR Alternatives and Avila Ranch
The EIR includes three land use and circulation alternatives to the proposed project. The
alternatives analyses were prepared in sufficient detail to allow the Council to modify the Plan
with components of the alternatives. During the Planning Commission's review of the AASP, a
representative of the Avila Ranch indicated that they were considering development of a major
portion of the property, which is located between Buckley Road and the existing Urban Reserve
Line. Two other properties in the area (Dioptics and Zoo-Med) already have development
approvals through the County. Attachment 8 includes a map of this area identifying key
properties outside of the City's urban reserve and adjacent to the Specific Plan's boundaries.
Extending the Urban Reserve Line down to Buckley Road and including the Avila Ranch within
the Specific Plan's boundaries is considered in Alternative #3 (Attachment 9). Therefore, the
environmental impacts of this alternative were considered in the EIR. The Avila Ranch
representative provided the Commission with a packet of information regarding potential uses of
the Avila Ranch property, which is included in the Council Reading File. The property owners
have indicated their willingness to propose a project that would be supported by decision makers
in the City or in the County, however their preliminary proposal includes a housing component
that has not been envisioned for this area.
Attachment 10 includes two figures showing the County's urban and rural land use categories for
the Avila Ranch and adjacent properties, including property east of Broad Street where the
County has recently approved a development plan for the Morabito-Burke properties. Property
east of the Avila Ranch and west of the airport is outside of the County's designated urban
reserve and is zoned agriculture.
If directed to do so by the City Council, City staff could discuss development possibilities with
the owners of the Avila Ranch. However, no changes to the proposed Specific Plan boundaries
are recommended at this time because the owner's plans for the property are preliminary and
differ from those anticipated by the EIR alternatives. Should the property owners in this area
choose to pursue a development project within the City, the specific plan amendment process
would be an available option that is likely to be more efficacious than making revisions to the
Specific Plan at this time.
Recommended Council Review Procedure
At the beginning of the hearing staff will summarize the specific planning process, how the
specific plan is organized, the Planning Commission's recommendation, and issues that have
been raised. After general Council questions, the Council may wish to allow public comments
and testimony. Following public comment staff suggests the Council members provide specific
Airport Area Specific Plan Page 11
ALTERNATIVES
1. Provide specific direction for revisions and continue the hearing to July 26, 2005.
2. Determine that extensive revisions to the Specific Plan are needed and refer the project
back to the Planning Commission.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1: Vicinity Map
Attachment 2: Council Minutes—March 11, 1997
Attachment 3: Planning Commission Agenda Report and Meeting Minutes—3/9/05
Attachment 4: Planning Commission Agenda Report and Meeting Minutes—4/13/05
Attachment 5: Changes to the.AASP requested by the Airport Land Use Commission
Attachment 6: Draft Resolution, as recommended by the Planning Commission
Attachment 7: Draft Ordinance, as recommended by the Planning Commission
Attachment 8: AASP Land Use Map and Key Adjacent Properties
Attachment 9: EIR Alternative#3,Land Use Map
Attachment 10: SLO Area Plan (County) - Urban Reserve and Zoning for Airport Area
COUNCIL READING FILE
A. Final Program Environmental Impact Report
B. Public Correspondence Submitted to Planning Commission
C. San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport Land Use Plan
LAAASRa p(CAR1)Aoc
Airport Area Specdic Plan Page 10
questions and comments on each chapter, in succession, from 1.0 — Introduction through 5.0 —
Community Design. For the July 26h hearing staff will return with responses to any issues raised
at the June hearing that can not be dealt with immediately and the Council can proceed with
specific questions and comments on chapters 6.0 — Circulation & Transportation through 9.0 —
Implementation. If there are no substantial changes, the Council may adopt the Specific Plan at
the July hearing or direct staff to return on August 23'd for final review and action.
CONCURRENCES
The AASP was developed by the Community Development Department in close coordination
with other City departments including Public Works, Utilities,Fire, Police, Parks and Recreation,
Finance, Administration and the City Attorney's Office.
Public Outreach and Participation
The specific plan process has benefited from a significant amount of public participation. The
City has made outreach efforts and accepted property owner input during every step of the
process. The City's most recent outreach efforts are summarized below:
1) Newsletters The City has provided newsletter updates to over 500 people who live, work, or
own property in an around the area. An additional 200 people received the newsletters
because they had requested that their names be included on the City's contact list for the area.
2) Public Meeting: Prior to the current round of public meetings, City staff invited property
owners and interested individuals to an informational meeting in the Council Chamber. The
meeting was attended by approximately 20 interested individuals. Staff provided a
presentation and held a question and answer period for attendees. The meeting was followed
up with one on one contact with various property owners.
3) Interest Group Meetings: City staff has provided presentations for the SLO Chamber of
Commerce Economic Development Committee (April 21, 2005) and the SLO Property
Owner's Association (March 3, 2005).
4) Planning Commission: Planning Commission meetings in March and April were well
attended by interested individuals and addressing public testimony was a major focus of the
Commission's review.
FISCAL IMPACT
When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by a fiscal impact analysis, which
found that overall the General Plan was fiscally balanced. Adoption of this specific plan will not
significantly alter revenues since it conforms to the adopted General Plan. Furthermore, the
Public Facilities Financing Plan (Chapter 8) shows that the land uses proposed in the Airport
Area can support the public facilities required to serve the area through impact fees and increased
tax revenues.
[ - to
M 40 Attachment 1
1--------------
1
1
1
1
Y'
1
1• 1
1 1
t�
1
1
:
..............
:
:.........:.'::::...:::::::::::'.' ......:::
:x:Y::
::::iEii:iiii :::i"E:
..................................... E EEccE::::::::::rciE3iii•
..... ::::::::::•
.......................................... ,
.::JFK..
MMMMJ
LUE Figure 9: Airport Area
Q Airport Area
US ONSPO City Limit Line N
1 - I �
MINUTES Attachment 2
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 1997-7:00 P.M.
LIBRARY COMMUNITY ROOM, 995 PALM STREET
-- SAN-LUIS-OBISPO,-CAL4F-ORNIA-
ROLL CALL: }
Council Members
Present: Council Members Kathy Smith, Dave Romero, Dodie Williams, Vice Mayor
Bill Roalman, and Mayor Allen Settle
City Staff
Present: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer; Jeff Jorgensen, City Attorney;
Bonnie Gawf, City Clerk; Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative
Officer; Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director, Bill Statler,
Finance Director; John Moss, Utilities Director; Mike McCluskey; Public
Works Director; Ron Neumann, Fire Chief; Jim Gardiner, Police Chief; Paul
LeSage, Parks and Recreation Director; Gary Henderson, Water Division
Manager; Dave:Hix, Wastewater Division Manager; Jane McVey, Economic
Development Manager Ron Whisenand, Development Review Manager,
Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager.
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
PC1. There were no public comments.
COUNCIL LIAISON REPORTS
CLR1. Council Member Williams said she had attend the last BIA board meeting, and she briefly
outlined the items discussed.
CLR2. Mayor Settle reported that he and Arnold Jonas had attended a meeting of the Pilot's
Association, and had assured them that the City has no intention of taking over airport
operations.
CLR3. Council Member Williams said she had attended the grand opening of the new facility for
the People's Self Help Housing Corporation.
CLR4, Council Member Smith.reported that she attended the opening of the new gift shop at the
HistoricaI'M us-du in.
BUSINESS ITEMS
1. AIRPORT AREA ANNEXATION (File No.441)
Council considered the Airport Area Specific Plan and Annexation.
CAO Dunn presented the staff report,explaining that tonight's action will be a follow up to the
adoption of the General Plan Land Use Element,which states that annexation by the City of the
Airport Area should occur before urban development occurs within the area. He explained that if
Council authorizes the study for the Specific Plan, it will be two to three years before City is in a
position to actually annex the property. He outlined the reasons that staff recommends
proceeding with the study.
Assistant CAO Hamman clarified where the boundaries are for the Margarita and Airport Areas
and that the proposed Specific Plan is for the airport Area only,while the EIR encompasses both
areas. He stated that the County will continue to manage airport operations, as the City has no
interest in operating or managing the airport itself. He outlined the costs and funding for the
proposed Specific Plan, and stated that the intent is to fully recover costs as development
occurs. He also detailed the recommended interim annexation program.
143
City Council Meeting Attachment 2Page 2
Tuesday, March 11, 1997 -7:00 p.m.
Mayor Settle asked for public comment.
Jack Penrod, Avila Beach resident and representative of Airport Area landowners, spoke in favor
of annexation and in support of staffs proposal, stating that it will stimulate the economy..
Carl Dudley, SLO business owner and resident, spoke in favor of the annexation,stating that his
business needs room to grow.
Donald Smith, 1111 Vista Lago,spoke in opposition to the proceeding with the study stating that
adequate water supplies would not be available.
At the request of Council, City Attorney Jorgensen explained that the Nacimiento water project
will most likely be funded through revenue bonds paid for by the purchase of water,with no legal
requirement for an election.
Bill Thoma, SLO resident&business owner, spoke in favor of proceeding with the Specific Plan
for annexation stating that the long range impact will be a benefit to the City..
Virginia Kennedy, SLO resident,spoke in favor of the annexation, stating that it is important to
plan for the development.
Pat Veesart.SLO resident, stated that tonight's action will commit the Council to annex the
Airport Area without knowing the costs of annexation and without securing additional water
supplies. He said it will lead to run away growth.
Douglas Pierce, 219 Albert Drive, spoke in support of proceeding expeditiously with the
annexation of the Airport Area,stating that it will benefit existing residents as well as the
property owners.
Christine Mulholland SLO resident, spoke in opposition to moving forward on the Specific Plan
J or the annexation because the City cannot provide services to the area, and the Unocal property
- is contaminated.
Jerry Dagna, 1845 Vicente,spoke in favor of proceeding with the Specific Plan and annexation,
but asked the Council to wait until after the May 21, 1997 joint City-County meeting before voting
on the issue.
Dennis Schmidt.Central Coast Engineering,asked for clarification regarding policies for
development of the Airport Area.
Diane rHull,SLO resident,spoke in favor of the annexation, but noted concerns regarding the
boundaries,and the proposed open space fee.
Assistant CAO Hampian clarified that boundaries of the proposed annexation area have not
changed and are based on existing General Plan policies.
Robert Gruen. Chairman of the Chamber of Commerce,SLO resident, spoke in favor of the
annexation and asked Council to proceed with the Specific Plan and the interim annexation
strategy.
Charley Senn, 2840 EI Cerrito,asked Council to exercise leadership by taking the risk and vision
to annex the Airport Area, but stated that they should either move forward on the issue or put it
aside. He encouraged Council to adopt a workable interim annexation plan and not become
involved in airport operations.
Community Develodment.Director Jonas clarified that City could not, nor would not take over
operation of the airport, but need to annex the airport as a land bridge to area businesses and
properties.
- I Paul Rvs,Airport Area resident at 657 Evans Road, spoke in favor of annexation as an issue of
control, not growth.
Penny Rappa, 3993 Hollyhock Way, spoke in favor of proceeding with the Specific Plan and the
annexation so the City can realize the benefits. _ P
Attachment 2
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday, March 11, 1997 -7:00 p.m.
Maggie Cox, SLO Association of Manufacturers and Distributors, spoke in favor of proceeding
with the Specific Plan and the annexation. She urged Council to approve the staff
recommendation. <
David Garth, President&CEO of the Chamber of Commerce, spoke about the risk of doing
nothing,stating that even if the City does not move forward on the annexation,the Unocal
property contamination will not go away,and the area will develop without the proper planning
and infrastructure.
David Watson, Planning Consultant, spoke in favor of the proceeding with the Speck Plan and
EIR,stating that it would be best to have the EIR for the Airport and Margarita Areas coincide,
and asked Council to proceed and include a copy of the draft specific plan for Margarita with the
Airport Area RFP.
Ken Schwartz,201 Buena Vista, spoke in favor of the staff recommendation, even though there
are risks involved. He gave a history of the plan to annex the area and outlined reasons the
annexation has not happened in the past.
Craig Anderson, spoke in favor expansion of boundaries, but stated that citizens should not
subsidize the costs,and that transportation impacts have not been fully addressed. He said the
owners should pay the full cost of the preparation of the Specific Plan.
Andrew Merriam, 4334 Wavertree, representative of Ernie Ball and Spicehunter, spoke in favor of
the Specific plan and of the interim annexation plan.
Mayor Settle closed the floor to public comment.
Mayor Settle called a recess at 9:50 p.m., and reconvened the meeting at 10:05 p.m.
Council agreed to amend the RFP to clarify that the alternative to evaluate the expansion of the
City's urban reserve line into the areas recently designated by the County for commercial or
industrial use outside the current urban reserve line should only analyze the area to better
implement City policies regarding the Airport Area.
After discussion, moved by Romero/Williams to 1) approve and issue a request for proposals
(RFP) for the Airport Area Specific Plan and E(R, and other related infrastructure planning;. 2)
approve a specific plan funding program, including the proposed conditions for participants and
----- consisting-of-an-initial-$330;000-contribution-by the-City-and-an-initial-$155;000-contribution-by
property owners, with all City costs to be recovered in the future as development takes place in
the airport area; and, 3) direct staff to implement the proposed Interim Airport Annexation
Strategy until the specific plan is adopted; motion carried (5-0).
Moved by Roalman to direct staff to implement the interim annexation plan, charging at the mid-
range of $22,000 per acre for improvements, and adding refund capabilities if actual costs were
less. The motion died for lack of a second.
Council Member Roalman asked that the original motion be amended to separate the interim plan
from the other issues,as he disagrees with charging the low range for interim annexation fees.
Moved by RomeroWilliams to approve and issue a request for proposal (RFP) for the Airport
Area Specific Plan and EIR, and other related infrastructure planning; 2) approve a specific plan
funding program, including the proposed conditions for participants and consisting of an initial
$330,000 contribution by the City and an initial $155,000 contribution by property owners,with all
City costs to be recovered in the future as development takes place in the airport area; motion
tamed (54).
Moved by Romero/Williams to direct staff to implement the proposed Interim Airport Annexation
Strategy until the specific plan is adopted; motion carried (44, Roalman opposed).
1
Attachment 3
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT ITEM#1
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Dire MEETING DATE: March 9, 2005
Prepared By: Michael Codron, Associ e PlannI
FILE NUMBER: Airport Area Specific Plan
PROJECT ADDRESS: Airport Area
SUBJECT: Review of the draft Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), a planning document that
would establish policies and standards for development,conservation, utilities and public
facilities financing for 1000.acres of land along the City's southern limits.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Adopt Findings for Significant Environmental Effects,Findings of Overriding Consideration,.
and a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan, consistent with
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans Final
EIR, as specified in Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the attached resolution.
2) ,Adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan, based on findings and including revisions as detailed
in Attachment 2.
3) Approve General Plan Map amendments, implementing the Airport Area Specific Plan, as
specified in Exhibit C of the recommended resolution (Attachment 4).
4) Introduce an ordinance to rezone properties within the existing City limits that are within the
Specific Plan area, and pre-zone properties within the Planning area to establish their zoning
upon annexation, per Exhibit D of the recommended resolution (Attachment 4).
BACKGROUND
Situation
The Airport Area encompasses about 1,000 acres of land located between two corridors of
incorporated land and development, which extend along Broad Street and South Higuera Street
(Attachment 1, Vicinity Map). It contains opportunities for protecting natural resources such as
wetlands and grasslands, providing sites for the types of businesses the City has identified as
desirable, and making the City's wastewater collection system more efficient. Until the last few
years, the County has had jurisdiction over nearly all of the Airport Area. The County has
designated much of it for commercial and industrial uses. Such uses have developed, and are
continuing to be developed, in the unincorporated area, with private on-site facilities for water
supply (including fire protection), wastewater, and storm drainage detention. The efficiency and
quality of services are typically less than if City services were used. This has constrained the use
of some Airport Area properties. Protection of natural features, such as creeks, and contributions
to the cost of public facilities have not been to City standards. Approval of the Specific Plan,
and ultimately annexation, would result in the natural resources coming under active City
management and a more efficient and simply process for participation in public facilities. (_ f(P
� Attachment 3
' Airport Area Specific Pla.._
Page 2
The City's General Plan says a specific plan should be adopted for the Airport Area. A specific
plan shows land uses and development standards in more detail than the General Plan,but in less
detail than actual construction plans. A specific plan also describes public facilities and the
means to pay for them. The General Plan calls for annexation of the entire Airport Area once the
AASP is adopted, and has allowed for certain individual annexations over the past several years.
Annexation makes land eligible for City services and subject to City land-use and development
rules. It is important to note that annexation and approval of the Specific Plan are separate
actions. Annexation will not be proposed until after the AASP is adopted.
Previous Review
Previous planning efforts for the Airport Area have involved both the City and the County. In
the late 70's and during the 80's, the City's General Plan recognized that one day the area would
be developed with industrial and airport related uses,but until then the land use should remain at
a low intensity. This was in order to prevent an unintentional evolution of land uses that would
be incompatible with a comprehensive plan established in the future. In the 1980's the County
spearheaded an effort to have a specific plan prepared for both the Airport and Margarita Areas.
County Service Area No. 22 (CSA 22) was created to assess property owners for the funds ,
needed to pay for the preparation of a specific plan.
A preliminary specific plan was completed in 1988. The preliminary plan identified
opportunities and constraints and recommended a distribution of land uses and a street network.
A preliminary analysis of service needs was included. By 1988 the City was underway with an
update to the General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements. The General Plan Land Use
Element update that was adopted in 1994 identified a land use distribution for the Airport Area,
taking into consideration the information and recommendations provided by the preliminary
specific plan. The Circulation Element update identified a street system that could serve the
proposed land uses.
The 1994 Land Use Element contained policy direction for the City to pursue completion of a
specific plan and annexation of the Airport Area by 1995. Staff worked with a committee of
property owners and County staff on options to complete the specific plan. Funding the
completion of the specific plan and the requisite environmental impact report was a stumbling
block. By 1996 the policy had not been accomplished. City staff presented the City Council
with a strategy for completing the specific plan that involved the City taking the lead in
organizing and paying for the completion of the plan and the EIR.
The Council direction was to prepare a "lean and mean" plan that implemented the Land Use
and Circulation Element direction and focused new effort on infrastructure planning. In 1997,
the City Council authorized a City-led effort, which has resulted in preparation of the current
draft specific plan and EIR. The process has taken_ longer than anticipated, mostly due to
redesign to reduce costs and the environmental impacts associated with proposed drainage
improvements. The Planning Commission reviewed a previous draft of the AASP in 2002. The
Commission discussed the plan but did not make any recommendations at that time. Subsequent
public hearings were delayed to allow staff to address property owner concerns regarding the
costs of the proposed public facilities, as well as the environmental impacts of the proposed
regional detention system. The Plan that is now before the Planning Commission has been
revised to address those issues, as well as a range of other issues that surfaced in the interim
period. Each of these revisions are evaluated in this report. The Plan has also been reformatted
so that it is more concise and user friendly.
Airport Area Specific Play._ Attachment 3
Page 3
EIR Certified
On October 12, 2004, the. City Council adopted a resolution to certify the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related.Facility Master Plans Final EIR. This action was
taken as part of the approval of the Margarita Area Specific Plan (MASP), which was also
reviewed by the Planning Commission. As a result, the environmental document should be
familiar to the Commission. The certification of the EIR was a major step towards the approval
of the Airport Area Specific Plan. Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the recommended resolution
include the required Environmental Findings and Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMP),
which are very similar to the Findings and MMP approved for the Margarita Area Specific Plan,
but have been modified for specific application to the Airport Area.
EVALUATION
Plan Overview—Land Use Summary
The major change to the Land Use Plan (AASP, Figure 4-1) was an increase in land designated
for Services and Manufacturing and a corresponding reduction in the area designated Business
Park. The change was the result of property owner requests and is supported by staff for two
critical reasons. The first reason is that the land taken out of the Business Park area (on both
sides of the Unocal collector.road) is located in an area that is somewhat limited in its
development potential because of airport safety considerations (discussed in more detail later in
this report). The limitations on non-residential density (people per acre) that apply to this area
would be a greater constraint for development in a business park than for typical service
commercial development. As a result, the change in land use designations along the Unocal
collector road will likely result in a greater floor area ratio for development of these sites, and
more effective use of land.
San Lust Obispo Asrpo"Area Specific Plan
LAND USE PROGRAM CHANGES
Land Area(Previous Draft) Revised Land Area
Land Use
Designation Acres % Acres
Open Space 298 .30% 328 31%
Business Park 171 17% 114 11%
Services and 283 28% 358 33%
Manufacturing
Government 242 24% 254 24%
Medium-
density 7 1% 7 1%
Residential
Total 1001 100% 1 1061 100%
1 - l�
Attachment 3
> Airport Area Specific P1aL
Page 4
The second critical reason for the change is that land within the City that is designated Services
and Manufacturing has been developing in some different ways than originally anticipated. The
City Council is considering rezoning major portions of land along the Broad Street corridor as
part of implementing the Housing Element, and new mixed-use provisions in the Zoning
Ordinance allow land designated for Services and Manufacturing to be-utilized for housing as
well as traditional services and manufacturing uses. In contrast,the land in the Airport Area that
is designated Services and Manufacturing cannot be used for housing and is likely to become an
important resource for development of more intense industrial and service uses. The following
table provides a summary of the changes to the land use program proposed in the Draft AASP.
Changes to the bottom line areas are primarily the result of new road alignments and more
accurate mapping with the City's Geographic Information System.
Circulation Fundamentals
The Circulation Plan for Airport Area (AASP, Figure 6-1) was developed together with the plan
for the Margarita Area so that proposed road alignments and the connections between the two
areas are coordinated. The two main connections between the Spec Plan areas are Santa Fe
Road and the Unocal collector road. Both of these alignments have changed since the previous
draft of the AASP, based on property owner input as well as the final alignment approved for
Prado Road.
Other road extensions proposed as part of the AASP include the extension of Buckley Road to
South Higuera Street, the connection of Suburban Road to the Unocal collector and Tank Farm
Road, and local street access through the Avila Ranch property, which would be implemented by
development in the County unless that property is annexed into the area as part of a future
Specific Plan amendment.
Changes are proposed to the Bike Circulation Plan (AASP, Figure 6-2) because of the proposed
modifications to the overall drainage strategy in the Plan. Part of the previous financing plan for
drainage include funds to provide for the development of bike paths along the overflow channels
that would have been created along the creek corridors. With the overflow channels eliminated
from the Plan, the timing of bike path development along the creek corridors is less certain and
will be dependent on the development of properties in this area or future grant funded, capital
improvement projects in areas where no development is proposed. In order to address this issue
and provide for bike path connectivity as soon as possible, at least Class II bike paths are
proposed along all of the roads within the Specific Plan area. Approximately 20% of the total
AirportArea Specific Plan fees (which includes Specific Plan costs and transportation facilities),
or$ 2 million, is programmed for Class I and Class II bike path improvements.
Drainage Provisions
As mentioned previously, one of the major changes to the Specific Plan since it was last
reviewed by the Planning Commission is the elimination of the proposed regional detention
strategy. This change was desirable because the cost of the system and the environmental
impacts were both considered significant. The strategy involved major modifications to creek
channels and the creation of overflow channels that would convey stormwater during major
storm events. Land acquisition for the proposal was an expensive proposition, especially in the
area along Buckley Road that was proposed to be a regional detention basin. The main reason
that the City was able to eliminate the proposed regional strategy was the development and
adoption of the Waterways Management Plan and the Drainage Design Manual. These two
( _ 19
Attachment 3
Airport Area Specific Pla__
Page 5
documents work together to insure water quality and flood management for all projects within
the City limits. These documents provide for water quality and flood control to such a degree
that no significant impacts have been identified with respect to these issues. -
The Waterways Management Plan requires that all new development design on-site drainage
facilities so that post-development run-off matches the flow rate and character of pre-
development runoff. This is often achieved through on-site detention with a metered outflow, so
that the rate of runoff from a development site can be controlled. The Waterways Management
Plan and Drainage Design Manual have now been in effect for over a year, and several
development projects approved by the City have been designed according to its requirements.
2004 Airport Land Use Plan Amendment
Major modifications to the Land Use chapter of the AASP were required when an amendment to
SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) was adopted in 2004. The previous draft
of the AASP was coordinated closely with the Airport Land Use Commission (ALUC) and
included a land use matrix with both City and Airport land use designations. The revised ALUP.
adopts a different method for airport compatibility planning. The ALUP amendment does not
change development potential significantly, but required major changes to the formatting of the
AASP. While most of those changes were incorporated into the Draft AASP, timing issues
required staff to include Section 4.5 of the AASP as an attachment to this report(Attachment 2).
Detailed Area Plan and Cluster Development Zone
The new ALUP achieves compatibility with airport operations primarily through the adoption of
safety standards such as non-residential density (people per acre). The ALUP also establishes
methods whereby greater levels of planning detail can provide density adjustments for urban.
areas. In the Airport Area, significant density adjustments are available if the ALUC approves a
detailed area plan. The AASP can serve as a detail area plan. Further density adjustments are
also available for the Airport Area because over 35% of the development area (excluding the
Airport property itself) will be designated as open space. On a separate track, the City is
pursuing the approval of an Airport Compatible Open Space (ACOS) plan, which also provides
for density adjustments. The ACOS concept simply identifies areas that are intended to be kept
open over the long term, in exchange for greater development potential in urban areas. Table 10
of the ALUP is attached to this report, which provides the schedule for density adjustments based
on Aviation Safety Area (see Attachment 3). Figure 4-5 of the draft AASP (see Attachment 2),
graphically represents the non-residential density potential in the Airport Area, as provided by
Table 10. The limits established by the ALUP are consistent with .the overall level of
development anticipated for the Airport Area, although in order to insure airport safety, areas
closer to the centerline of the runway would have less development potential than those areas on
the periphery.
Design Guidelines
The design guidelines found in Chapter 5 of the AASP include goals, guidelines and standards
for the physical development of the Airport Area. The effective content of the guidelines has not
changed from the previous draft of the Specific Plan, but the language, format and.organization
of the chapter has. The rewriting effort was intended to insure that goals clearly express the
desired end state, intended to provide overall direction for decision makers and property owners.
The guidelines are intended to provide methods for accomplishing the goals, which are flexible
L -�
- Attachment 3
Airport Area Specific PlL
Page 6
in the application and will be implemented more or less based on the context of each
development proposal. Standards are requirements that must be implemented, unless an
exception is approved by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). The design guidelines
were originally reviewed and supported by the ARC, as part of the review process for the
Community Design Guidelines, a document that controls community design city-wide.
Conservation and Open Space
The conservation and open space program remains mostly unchanged from the previous draft.
The land area designated open space has increased by approximately 30 acres because of more
accurate mapping and because the creek corridors are now designated open space, per recent
City policy.
One new policy that is noteworthy addresses the potential for remediation of contaminated lands
on the Unocal property. Policy 3.2.24 (RASP, pg 3-16) says that they may consider other uses
for land if remediation required by other agencies destroys habitat or other areas of biological
value. At this time, it is unclear what lands may be required to be remediated in the future by
agencies such as the Army Corps of Engineers, Department of Fish and Game, or the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. Any future proposals to change land use designations within the
Specific Plan area will require an amendment to the AASP and must be consistent with all of the
other conservation and open space policies, and policies for airport safety.
Environmental Review Findings
Findings to establish consistency between the certified EIR and the AASP are included as
Exhibit A of the recommended resolution (Attachment 4). Areas where mitigation measures are
required include Land Use and Aesthetics, Biological Resources, Traffic and Circulation, Air
Quality, Hazardous Materials and Cultural Resources. Cumulative impacts and growth inducing
impacts are also identified in the Final EIR. Three of the identified impacts are considered
significant and unavoidable and require Findings of Overriding Consideration. These impacts
include:
Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
Impact LU-6: Change in Views
Growth Inducement: Increased Growth and Secondary Growth-Related Impacts
Other than the three impacts identified above, all impacts will be mitigated to less than
significant levels, per the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan (MMP), included as Exhibit B of
Attachment 4. As a program EIR, the FEIR and the MMP will become vital documents and will
be referenced in all of the future initial environmental studies for development within the
Specific Plan area.
Revision Pages
Attachment 2 includes proposed revisions to the Draft AASP. Page 7-6 is the only page that is
revised that deals with an issue other than Airport Land Use Plan consistency. On page 7-6,
language in reference to an area-wide fee for the undergrounding utilities was deleted.
Undergrounding of utilities will occur along the Broad Street corridor, but not as part of a
Specific Plan fee.
Attachment 3
Airport Area Specific Plai.-
Page 7
CONCURRENCES
The revised Draft AASP has been reviewed by all City Departments and comments have been
incorporated into the text of the document. As part of the EIR process, State and regional
agencies reviewed the environmental effects of the project and provided comments on the
Specific Plan. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the AASP prior to its review by
the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Planning Commission can continue consideration of the Specific Plan if additional
information is needed or if more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal.
2. The Planning Commission can recommend additional changes to the Specific Plan.
ttached:
A nt 1: Vicinity Map
Attachm AASP Revision Pages
Attachment SLO County Airport Ian,Table 10
Attachment 4: Planning '" ssion Resolution with Exhibits
Provided for the Co d Available for the Public at the Community Development
Department,9 Street,o ugh the City's website, wwwslocity.org:
Airpo ea Specific Plan
rt Area and Margarita Area.Final EIR
Attachment 3
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MARCH 9, 2005
CALNG ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:.
The San L Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 on
Wednesday, M Bch 9,2005, in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Pal eet, San
Luis Obispo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Commrs. Aril a Miller, Orval Osbome, Mich Boswell, Alice Loh,
Carlyn Christians • Jim Aiken, and Chairperso ames Caruso
Absent: None
t .
Staff: Community Development ;'rector n Mandeville; Associate Planner
Michael Codron, Assistant omey Christine. Dietrick, Economic
Development Manager Shelly Nwyck, Deputy Community Development
Director Michael Draze, Na source Manager Neil Havlik, Utilities
Director John Moss, Pub ' orks ' irector Jay Walter, and Recording
Secretary Irene Pierce a
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGEN
The agenda was accepted resented.
APPROVAL OF TH UTES:
The Minutes o bruary 9, 2005, were accepted as presented, an a Minutes of
February 23 5 were accepted as amended.
PUBLI MMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
T were no co. =f th ublic
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
1. Airport Area. SP 116-98; Review of the draft Airport Area Specific Plan, a planning
document that would establish policies and standards for development,
conservation, utilities and public facilities financing for 1000 acres of land along the
City's southern limits; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
Community Development Director John Mandeville gave a brief description of the
project, along with some history on the development of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report and. recommended that
the Planning Commission make recommendations to the City Council as follows: 1)
adopt Findings for Significant Environmental Effects, Findings of Overriding
1"
Attachment 3
Planning Commission Minut_-
March 9, 2005
Page 2
Consideration, and a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the Airport Area Specific
Plan, consistent with the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans Final EIR; 2) Adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan, based on
findings and including revisions; 3) Approve General Plan Map amendments,
implementing the Airport Area Specific Plan; 4) Introduce an ordinance to rezone
properties within the existing City limits that are within the Specific Plan area, and pre-
zone properties within the Planning area to establish their zoning upon annexation.
Deputy Director Draze presented some recent public correspondence and offered a
brief explanation of the issues to the Commission.
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Bill Almas, 4596 Spanish Oaks Drive, Unocal representative, noted that Unocal is not
interested in annexing property south of Tank Farm Road. He felt the County is more
experienced in CEQA review, and that it makes more sense for the property to remain
in the County.
Andrew Merriam, 4334 Wavertree, and representative for two property owners,
discussed business park zoning superceding some of the already established zones,
but noted they like the overall interpretation.
Jeremy Freund, 4115 Broad Street Suite D-5, expressed concerns that the zoning for
land off of Santa Fe should remain similar to the current zoning in the County.
Klaasje Naime, SLO County Airport Manger, noted that the Airport and Unocal are the
two most significant property owners, and both have expressed their desire to not be
involved in the Airport Area Plan.
Charlie Senn, Broad Street, expressed a concern about the change in fees that would
occur with this annexation, and felt that property owners should have input. He
expressed that Tank Farm Bridge should match the width of Tank Farm Road, and
should be four lanes wide.
Scott Lathrop, La Vindeda Court; discussed the Santa Fe connecter and the Prado
Road to Tank Farm Road connection. He expressed concerns with the boundaries and
widths of the roads.
Matt Quaglino, SLO, presented a letter to the Commission and expressed concerns that
if the zoning is changed to Business Park, he would lose some tenants. He also
expressed a concern about increased water and sewer rates as well as an additional
City tax.
Bill Thoma, 3562 Empleo Street, SLO, expressed concerns with the annexation
involving his property and questioned where contractors offices would fit into to this new
Business Park zoning.
Planning Commission Minus. ' Attachment 3
March 9,2005
Page 3
Janet Potter, 4844 Caballeros Avenue, SLO, commented that she lives in the Rolling
Hills area outside the City limits and felt they have no representation for this proposed
annexation. She asked the Planning Commission to investigate the infrastructure
further before deciding on this annexation and expressed concerns with the increased
traffic on Broad Street and noise levels with this proposed annexation.
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street, SLO, expressed his opinion that this is not a
comprehensive plan and it is not consistent with CEQA. He expressed concerns with
the alignment of Los Osos Valley and Buckley Roads, and submitted a letter to the
Commission detailing his concerns.
Dale Witson, commented that he would like to see the City provide the infrastructure
before the area is developed. He noted he does not support the annexation.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
After discussion, the Commission requested that staff come back with additional
information on the land use designations that were requested; the issue of rights-of-way
and consistency with County and City's Specific Plan; discussion regarding Unocal and
Airport concerns about annexation, including what the implications will be for leaving
them out; review the matrix as to what the uses will be and prepare a chart to compare
alternative land use areas.
Commr. Aiken moved to continue this item to April 13, 2005. Seconded by Commr.
Loh.
AYES: Commrs. Aiken, Loh, Miller, Osborne, Boswell, Christianson, and Caruso
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 7: 0 vote.
ti "``fin
A. nda Forecast:
Michael Draz ve an agenda forecast of upco genda items.
3. Commission:
Y ..
Michael Draze updated the ission on the upcoming election.
Attachment 4
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT rrEM#2
FROM: Michael Draze, Deputy Director MEETING DATE: April 13, 2005
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
FILE NUMBER: Airport Area Specific Plan
PROJECT ADDRESS: Airport Area
SUBJECT: Review of the draft Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP), a planning document that
would establish policies and standards for development, conservation, utilities and public
facilities financing for 1000 acres of land along the City's southern limits.
SUMMARY RECOMMENDATION:
Recommend that the City Council take the following actions:
1) Adopt Findings for Significant Environmental Effects, Findings of Overriding Consideration,
and a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan, consistent with
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans Final
EIR, as specified in Exhibit A and Exhibit B of the attached resolution.
2) Adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan, based on findings and including revisions as detailed
in Attachment 5.
3) Approve General Plan Land Use Element Map amendments, implementing the Airport Area
Specific Plan, as specified in Exhibit C of the recommended resolution (Attachment 6).
4) Introduce an ordinance to rezone properties within the existing City limits that are within the
Specific Plan area, and pre-zone properties within the Planning area to establish their zoning
upon annexation, per Exhibit D of the recommended resolution (Attachment 6).
BACKGROUND
Situation
On March 9, 2005, the Planning Commission held its fust public hearing to consider the draft
Airport Area Specific Plan (See Draft Minutes, Attachment 2). The current draft of the AASP
addresses a variety of issues including the certification of the Final EIR, an amendment to the
Airport Land Use Plan, and property/business owner input. During the March 9`s meeting, the
Planning Commission heard a detailed staff presentation of the AASP and took public testimony
from several interested parties. The Planning Commission continued consideration of the
Specific Plan to April 13, 2005, and directed staff to report back on the following issues:
1) Evaluate changes to zoning that were requested during the public hearing.
2) City/County coordination of roadway development standards.
dlP
Attachment 4
Airport Area Specific Plan--
Page
lan-Page 2
3) Discuss Unocal and County Airport concerns about annexation and implications
of leaving them out of the Specific Plan.
4) Review of matrix of allowed uses and evaluate requests for changes made during
the public hearing and in written correspondence.
5) Provide a chart comparing land use designations across the various project
alternatives.
The remainder of this report addresses these items and also provides a more general analysis of
the issues raised during the March 9`s public hearing.
EVALUATION
Requested Changes to Zoning
During the public hearing two requests were made for a change to the zoning shown in the
AASP (Figure 4-4, Page 4-10.) Representing the property owners along Clarion Lane, the
Wallace Group requested that the zoning along this road be Service Commercial instead of
Manufacturing. The reason for this request is that the County recently rezoned the property
Service Commercial, and the property owners want to keep the zoning as close as possible to the
existing designation. City staff evaluated this request and supports the proposed change in the
draft specific plan. Overall, staff has tried to come as close as possible to County zoning in the
Airport Area to reduce the potential for creating non-conforming uses. Staff was simply
unaware of this recent change to the County's general plan and zoning. The proposed change
from Manufacturing to Service Commercial is considered minor and would have little impact on
the overall development program.
The other request for a zoning change came from Scott Lathrop. The request is to change the
proposed zoning for the 6.8 acre parcel on the future northeast comer of Tank Farm Road and
Santa Fe Road from Business Park to Service Commercial. Staff does not support this proposed
change because the amount of Business Park land has already been reduced since the previous
draft of the AASP. This particular property is suitable to Business Park because it is located in a
less restrictive Aviation Safety Area, where higher intensity uses associated with Business Parks
are more appropriate. In addition, land behind the corner lot is designated Business Park and the
zoning for land east of Santa Fe Road should be consistent.
Coordination of Roadway Improvements
During the March 9`s meeting, the Planning Commission heard testimony that the County was
imposing a different standard for roadway improvements than shown in the AASP for a portion
of Tank Farm Road. City staff spoke with County staff regarding this issue and the County does
support using the City's draft standards in annexation areas. In annexation areas, all projects that
require discretionary review by the County are referred to the City for comments. As part of that
process, the City would request that development of utilities and circulation infrastructure occur
consistent with our plans. While this works for projects where the County has discretion,
voluntary road improvements, or projects that don't require discretionary review, would be
entitled to use the current County standard for the roadway, which may differ from the City's (�
Attachment 4
Airport Area Specific Plat,
Page 3
plan. In these cases, County staff would promote (but couldn't require) the City standard
because it usually is in the property owner's best interest to build frontage improvements to their
ultimate plan design so that the improvements don't need to be corrected in the future.
Unocal and County Airport Annexation Concerns
Testimony from representatives of Unocal and the County Airport indicate opposition to
annexation of some or all of their land. In the case of Unocal, their local representative, Bill
Almas, has indicated that they would prefer to develop the southern portion of their property in
the County. The County's designation for this land is Recreation, which may be less restrictive
than the City's proposed designation of Conservation/Open Space, although because of Airport
Land Use Plan restrictions and site contamination the ultimate use of the property is likely to be
very low intensity. A golf course or equestrian facility are two possibilities that have been
mentioned in the past.
The County Airport Manager, Klassje Nairne, provided testimony indicating that the County is
not interested in annexation of the airport. The airport property is owned by the County, and Ms.
Nairne referred to a previous Board of Supervisors vote against annexation of airport property to
the City. In the case of the airport, the City Council has also agreed that the facility will not be
annexed in the early years of the Specific Plan implementation. This is recognized in proposed
revisions to language in Section 9.1 of the Specific Plan (see Attachment 5).
The most important thing for the Planning Commission to keep in mind with respect to this issue
is that the Specific Plan and annexation are two separate decisions. The Specific Plan boundaries
are dictated by the City's General Plan Land Use Map, which includes both the Airport and
southern Unocal property in the Airport Area. While property owners within the Specific Plan
area may choose not to be annexed, it would be inconsistent with the General Plan and
shortsighted not to include these areas within the Specific Plan.boundaries. These land owner's
will decide to annex into the City when it makes economic or political sense to do so. Planning
for annexation, however, is an endeavor that is in the best interest of the City so that the public
facilities are in place when and if the decision to annex is made.
In addition to the common sense issues discussed above, the inclusion of the Unocal property
within the Specific Plan is a critical component of the City's airport compatibility planning
efforts. The Airport Area can only qualify as a Cluster Development Zone if at least 35% of the
area within its boundaries is designated as open space (Airport Land Use Plan, or ALUP, see
Attachment 3). If the Unocal property is not included within the Specific Plan boundaries, then
the benefits of a Cluster Development Zone (increased development potential at the Airport
periphery) will not be available. Even if Unocal chooses not to be annexed immediately,
development of the land in the County will be low intensity, consistent with the Airport Land
Use Plan. As a result, the City should not forgo the important benefits of including the Unocal
property in the AASP.
Land Use Matrix-Review
Correspondence provided by Charles Senn, SIOR, includes requested revisions to Table 4.3, the
table of allowed uses (See correspondence in Attachment 4). The proposed changes fall into
three categories, (1) changes that reduce the level of discretionary review for uses that are
conditionally allowed in a given zone, (2) changes that eliminate discretionary review for
t - D �
Airport Area Speck Plan- '( _ Attachment 4
Page 4
conditionally allowed uses and (3) allowing uses in zones where they are currently not allowed.
The analysis of the proposed matrix has not changed the staff recommendation. In particular,
certain retail uses that are requested to be allowed in the BP zone seem counter to the intent of
the Business Park land.use designation.
Mr. Senn's letter indicates that his most recent Administrative Use Permit took 7 weeks to
process,plus the 10 day appeal period and time necessary for preparation of the application. It is
his belief that because of delays to otherwise acceptable projects it is impractical to require
Administrative Use Permits in so many instances. From the City's perspective, the
Administrative Use Permit serves two purposes. First, it serves to provide for public notification
of proposed new uses where there is the potential for compatibility conflicts arising from
potential noise, smells, traffic, hazardous materials, or other characteristics that may be
associated with a particular kind of business. Second, the process allows City staff in all
departments, including Public Works, Utilities, Fire and Building, to review proposals and advise
of code requirements or potential conflicts with existing standards before the use is established.
The matrix that is provided in Table 4.3 was carefully drafted by planning staff, in consideration
of the fact that development in the Airport Area does not pose the same compatibility problems
that exist in other parts of the City, where commercial development may be adjacent to a
neighborhood or where a larger variety of business types may be juxtaposed. As a result, the
matrix that is included in the Specific Plan is more permissive that the City's standard matrix
found in Table 9 of the Zoning Regulations. The matrix list is also based on uses found in the
County's zoning ordinance, the Margarita Area Specific Plan and the various Planned
Development ordinances within the City in an effort to reduce the number of nonconforming
uses created when the Specific Plan is approved and property is annexed. While the matrix may
not go as far as Mr. Senn has requested, it was developed in an effort to strike an appropriate
balance between permissiveness and the use of discretionary review. As a result, the staff
recommendation has not changed.
Chart Comparing EIR Alternatives
Proposed
ProjectAlternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative
Land Use Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent Acres Percent
Residential 7 1% 7 1% 7 1% 7 1%
Services 358 33% 337 52% 504 56% 347 30%
and Man.
Business 114 11% 51 8% 72 8% 326 28%
Park
Open 328 31% 257 39% 298 33% 290 24%
Space
Public 254 24% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0%
Agriculture 0 0% 0 0% 21 2% 202 17%
Total 1061 100% 652 100% 902 100% 1172 100%
Acreage
raqI
- . Attachment 4
Airport Area Specific Platy--
Page
laty Page 5
As requested by the Planning Commission the previous chart summarizes the areas dedicated to
the various land use designations in each EIR alternative. While the information may be helpful
for understanding the proposed project, the Commission should be aware that the EIR has
already been certified by the City Council. Within the EIR, the Airport Area Specific Plan, the
Margarita Area Specific Plan and the Facilities Master Plan are considered one project because
the circulation and utilities infrastructure plans within these areas must be closely coordinated.
The Council's certification of the EIR and.the approval of the Margarita Area Specific Plan
established certain parameters, such as the alignment of Prado Road, that should not be changed
at this time. The Commission does have the ability to direct staff to incorporate other aspects of
the EIR alternatives into the proposed project (including the boundaries of the Specific Plan),
however,no changes to the proposed project are recommended at this time.
Written Correspondence and Proposed Revisions
Staff appreciates the time and effort of interested parties who have provided written
correspondence (Attachment 4). Several changes are recommended to the Specific Plan as a
result of the information submitted. These changes are attached to this staff report, and titled
Revision Pages (Attachment 5). The proposed changes are discussed briefly below. Although
all correspondence was reviewed, a point by point analysis is not provided in this staff report.
Staff will be available during the April 13`" public hearing to discuss any additional items of the
correspondence that the Commission would like addressed.
Charles L. Senn, SIOR, Andrew G. Merriam, AICP, and SESLOC Federal Credit Union
Revisions were are made to the building intensity standards (Table 4.5) to match the General
Plan standards for each land use designation. They were previously lower in order to insure
consistency with the Airport Land Use Plan. The revised Airport Land Use Plan required some
changes to the draft AASP. A footnote to Table 4.5 is also proposed to insure that property
owners and business owners are aware that in some areas, airport safety restrictions will result in
more restrictive standards than provided in the table.
Table 4.8 has also been amended as requested to increase the maximum parking requirement to
1 parking space per 200 square feet of gross floor area, in accordance with requirements for
medical services.
County of SLO General Services
The AASP Circulation Plan, Figure 6-1, has been revised to show the proposed alignment for
Santa Fe Road. The realignment is proposed by the County as part of the Airport Master Plan
and is not a City project. Funding for the realignment will be provided entirely by the County
and Federal grant programs. Revised language is also proposed on page 9-1 to clarify that
annexation of the airport is not anticipated in the immediate future.
Unocal
Two changes are recommended to Chapter 3 based on Unocal's comments. First, Policy 3.2.7 is
clarified to indicate that if the Unocal property is not available for mitigation of wetland losses
then other suitable areas shall be utilized. The second change clarifies the intent of Policy
3.2.16.
l -
- Attache��ent 4
Airport Area Specific Plan
Page 6
Other Revisions
Attachment 5 includes other proposed revisions to the Draft AASP. On page 7-6, language in
reference to an area-wide fee for undergrounding utilities was deleted. Undergrounding of
utilities will occur along the Broad Street corridor, but not as part of a Specific Plan fee. The
remaining revision pages address Airport Land Use Plan consistency.
CONCURRENCES
The revised Draft AASP has been reviewed by all City Departments and comments have been
incorporated into the text of the document. As part of the EIR process, State and regional
agencies reviewed the environmental effects of the project and provided comments on the
Specific Plan. The Airport Land Use Commission will review the AASP prior to its review by
the City Council.
ALTERNATIVES
1. The Planning Commission can continue consideration of the Specific Plan if additional
information is needed or if more time is needed to fully evaluate the proposal.
2. The Planning Commission can recommend additional changes to the Specific Plan.
ched:
Attachment �qV-_i ty Map
Attachment 2: Draft uses,March 9, 2005
Attachment 3: Excerpts frWlhik.. Ian
Attachment 4: Public Conce
Attachment 5: evision Pages
Attachm ening Commission ResolutaExhibits
ovided for the Commission and Available for the Public at the Community Development
Department,990 Palm Street, or through the City's website,www.slocity.org:
Airport Area Specific Plan
Airport Area and Margarita Area Final EIR
' – 3A
Planning Commission Minut%.- Attachment 4
April 13, 2005
Page 2
approve a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact; and am e
Zoni from (C-T) Tourist-Commercial to (C-S-S) Service-Commerci pecial
Consider overlay zone.
PUBLIC COMME
There were no comments rom the publ', .
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
On motion by Commr. to approve t ff recommendation. Seconded b
Commr. Loh.
AYES: ommrs. Boswell, Caruso, Aiken, Miller, Loh, and Osborne
NO None
NT: Commr. Christianson
BSTAIN: None
2. Airport.Area. SP 116-98: Review of the draft Airport Area Specific Plan, a planning
document that would establish policies and standards for development,
conservation, utilities and public facilities financing for 1000 acres of land along the
City's southern limits; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Michael Codron)
(Continued from March 9, 2005)
Associate Planner Michael Codron presented the staff report recommending that the
Commission recommend that the City Council take the following actions: 1) Adopt
findings for Significant Environmental Effects, Finding of Overriding Consideration, and
a Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan, consistent with
the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans
Final EIR; 2) Adopt the Airport Area Specific Plan, based on findings; 3) Approve
General Plan Land Use Element Map amendments implementing the Airport Area
Specific Plan; and 4) Introduce an ordinance to rezone properties within the existing
City limits that are within the Specific Plan area, and pre-zone properties within the
planning area to establish their zoning upon annexation.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Michael Sullivan, 1127 Seaward Street asked for clarification of items on pages 3 and 5
of the staff report, and submitted written comments to the Commission.
Andrew Merriam, Cannon Associates, commented on the parking and land use matrix.
He requested changes to the matrix for several specific uses.
John Wallace, SLa property owner, asked for clarification of where architects and
engineers offices are allowed.
( -3D,
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minn._.'
April 13, 2005
Page 3
Walter Melton, representing Avila Ranch, clarified the property boundaries of the Avila
Ranch and asked the Commission to provide direction on how the City-would like to see
the property developed. He said he was interested in including housing in his
development proposal, but would follow the direction of either the City or County
regarding the final development plan.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
The main issues that were discussed included zoning adjustments requested by
property owners, changes to the matrix of allowed uses to reduce the level of
discretionary review where appropriate, parking lot size limits, proposed development
on the Avila Ranch and annexation of the Unocal property. The Planning Commission
made several revisions to the plan, which will be incorporated into a Planning
Commission Draft.
On. motion by Commr..Aiken to recommend approval of the staff recommendation with
changes to: the matrix of allowed uses to reduce the.level of discretionary review where
appropriate, parking lot size limits, and changes to specific policies in Chapter 3 and
Chapter 4. Seconded by Commr. Loh.
AYES: Commrs, Carter, .Miller, Boswell, Loh, and Aiken
NOES: Commr. Osborne
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 5 : 1 vote.
On motion by Commr. Aiken, Table_ 4.3 .was modified to reduce the level of
discretionary review for banks, light manufacturing and broadcast-studios. Seconded.bv
Commr. Loh.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Aiken, Miller, Loh, Carter, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
ABSTAIN: None
The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote.
On. motion by Commr._Carter-to .ask the City Council to reconsider the specific plan
impact fees if they significantly-exceed.-the .specific plan estimates. Seconded_ by
Commr. Aiken.
AYES: Commrs. Boswell, Aiken, Miller, Loh, Carter, and Osborne
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christianson
ABSTAIN: None
1 , 35
Attachment 4
Planning Commission Minut,
April 13, 2005
Page 4
The motion carried on a 6 : 0 vote.
Un
rta
7anrward
dron presented the staff report asking the Commission to review the rep "
it to the CityCouncil for approval.
MMENTS:
There we oto comments made from the public.
COMMISSIO' COMMENTS:
Discussion focu on residential growth management issues.
On motion by Comrm. Carter to acce t the report as writte forward it to the Citt
Council for aDproval.Thd to recommend that the Qy Councei` clude fundin -for a Land
Use Element u date in .2005-2007 bud et. Seconded VVCommr. Loh.
AYES: Commrs. Ca , Miller, Osborne, Bosw Loh, and Aiken
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Christian on
ABSTAIN: None
I
r
The motion carried on a 6 :0 vote.
The Commission also asked staff to ` the growth management issue on an agenda
for discussion within three months ti
9
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
,r
4. Staff:
A. Aaenda Forecast;
Michael Draze gave a genda forecast of upcoming a nda items and noted that staff
would look for the f' available agenda to include di ' ussion of the City's Growth
Management Progr
5. Commis n•
A. Elect s — Elect a PC Chair and Vice Chair for the corrin ar.
On motion by Commr. Aiken. to nominate Commissioner Bos I to serve as
Chaimerson. Seconded_bv Commr. Carter.
�1
Attachment 5
°¢ communrty bEVEtopment bepantmem
memomnaum
May 23, 2005
TO: Bill Robeson, ALUC Staff
Chris Macek, ALUC Staff
ALUC Commissioners
FROM: Mike Draze, Deputy Director, Long-Range Planning
Michael Codron, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: AASP Revisions
As requested by the Airport Land Use Commission, City staff will forward the
following changes to the City Council during their review of the AASP, which
will commence with a special meeting on June 14, 2005. No action on the
Specific Plan by the City Council is expected until later in the summer.
The ALUC should review the following list to insure that staff heard all of the
proposed changes correctly and that the revised language is satisfactory.
1. Page 3-16, Policy 3.2.24: Add sentence to end of policy, "Changes
proposed to the Specific Plan shall be referred to the Airport Land Use
Commission and shall be consistent with the Cluster Development Zone
requirements of the Airport Land Use Plan (see AASP Policy 4.5.1)."
2. Page 4-19, Note #5 to Table 4.3: Underlined text is added. "Allowed by
right in Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Areas S-1c and S-2 only, where
an employer provides on-site child care to 14 or fewer children for the exclusive
benefit of employees."
3. Page 4-15, Caretaker Quarters: Add note #7 to Table 4.3, Caretakers
Quarters shall have a maximum floor area of 1,000 s.f. and are not permitted in
Airport Land Use Plan Aviation Safety Areas S-1 a or the Runway Protection
Zone.
4. Page 3-12, Policy 3.2.5: Add criteria (6) to the end of the policy, "..., and (6)
will not create a significant attraction for large birds in consideration of airport
safety."
5. Page 4-19, Noise Sensitive Uses Listed in Table 4.3: Add note #8, as
follows: `These uses are identified in the San Luis Obispo County Regional
Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP) as `noise-sensitive,' specific sound attenuation
requirements may apply. Refer to the ALUP for more information." Table 4.3
will also be edited to add footnote #8 to all land uses listed as noise-sensitive in
the ALUP.
Attachment 5
AASP Revisions, Page 2
6. Page 4-21, Policy 4.4.6: Add the following sentence. "Notwithstanding the
height restrictions provided in Table 4.9, in no case are building heights
permitted to create an "obstruction to air navigation" as defined in the SLO
County Regional Airport Land Use Plan." Table 4.9 will also include this
statement as a footnote.
7. Page 4-24, Figure 4-5: The text box for aviation safety area S-1 b will be
modified to say 50 people/acre, instead of 50-75 people per acre. A footnote
will be added, as follows: "Properties located in aviation safety area S-1 b that
are over 1 nautical mile from the airport are permitted a maximum non-
residential density of up to 75 people/acre."
8. All maps will be redrawn with updated Airport property boundaries.
9. Page 5-28, Standard 5.11.1, typo: Replace Table 5.5 with correct reference
to Table 4.9.
10. Page 4-23, Policy 4.5.1: Add the underlined language. "Table 4-10 shows
that over 40% of the land-within the Specific Plan boundaries is designated as
open space. To provide for continued eligibility for a clustered development
zone, at least 35% of the land within the AASP must remain as open space.
This table does...."
11. Page 3-10, third paragraph under Aircraft Operations: Revise first
sentence of paragraph, as follows: "The Specific Plan is consistent with the
SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan, designating the majority of land in
the two most restrictive safety areas as Open Space."
12. Page 4-5, last sentence in left column, typo: Figure 4-4 ...
13. Page 4-5, second sentence in right column, typo: (Figure 4-�J ...
14. Page 4-13: Replace Program 4.3.9 with Policy 4.3.9.
15. Page 4-7, top of second column: Add underlined language. "Open Space
land at the site can therefore become a visual resource and can contribute to
airport safety, serving as an amenity for the area as a whole."
16. Page 4-7, last paragraph: Add underlined language. "In exchange for
development and selective new development at the Tank Farm Site, the
appearance of this visually prominent site can be improved and large areas can
be enhanced to become environmental, aesthetic and safety resources for the
whole Airport Area.
16. Page 4721, Table 4.5: Move note to title box of table and add underlined
language: "...are more restrictive than the standards provided below and may
reduce maximum potential FAR.
� �
Machment 5
AASP Revisions, Page 3
17. Page 4-23, first sentence of last paragraph in first column, typo: Airport ...
The City Council will review the AASP and the ALUC's proposed changes on
June 14, 2005, and again on July 26, 2005. If any of the proposed changes are
not accepted, or if additional changes are made to the document that are
relevant to the ALUP, the City will return to the ALUC in August for further
discussion.
i
City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO APPROVING THE AIPRORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN,
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP,AND ADOPTING
FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND MITIGATION
MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT INCLUDING FINDINGS OF
OVERRIDING CONSIDERATION
(APPLICATION NO.SP, GP/R, ER 116-98)
WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1)
requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and further
development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains general goals and
policies relating to growth and development in the Airport Area, which may be implemented in a
variety of ways, including the specific plan procedure as outlined by California State Law (State
Government Code 65450 et.seq.); and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo, with the participation of property owners, citizens,
public agencies, and other interested parties, has prepared a draft specific plan for the Airport Area
pursuant to the General Plan and the State Government Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, and again on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the recommendations of staff and consider the Specific Plan
map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the
Specific Plan for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 13; 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the Specific Plan with findings of significant environmental effects, mitigation
measures and findings of overriding considerations; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005,.the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and to consider the Specific Plan map,
text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the Specific
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that a specific plan be consistent
with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, as a result of its deliberations, the City Council has decided to adopt the
Airport Area Specific Plan.
� ,3g
Attachment 6
City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 2
Airport Area Specific Plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
the following:
SECTION 1. EIR Findings. The City Council hereby adopts findings of significant
environmental effects, including findings of overriding consideration, for the Final Program
Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans (September 2003), as listed in Exhibit "A", with the incorporation of the
mitigation measures and monitoring programs outlined in Exhibit `B", and based on the following
findings:
1. The Final Program EIR was prepared in compliance with the California Environmental
Quality Act(CEQA) and was considered by the City prior to any approvals of the project.
2. The Final EIR reflects the independent judgment of the City.
3. The Mitigation Monitoring Program has been reviewed and approved by the Planning
Commission and the City Council in conjunction with the recommendation for
certification of the Final Program EIR.
4. For each significant effect identified in the Final Program EIR under the categories of
Land Use and Aesthetics, Hydrology and Water Quality, Traffic and Circulation, Air
Quality, Noise, Hazardous Materials, Public Services, Cultural Resources and
Cumulative Impacts, the approved mitigation measures contained in the EIR will avoid or
substantially lessen the identified adverse environmental impacts of the project to a level
of insignificance and have been incorporated into the project.
5. There are three impacts identified in the EIR that, even after mitigation, are considered
significant and unavoidable: Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to
Urban Uses, Impact LU-6: Change in Views and, Growth Inducement: the project would
have a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact. The significant effects
identified in the Land Use/Aesthetics section of the EIR will not be fully mitigated to a
degree of insignificance with the incorporation of all of the identified mitigation measures
included in the Final Program EIR. Consequently, Council has adopted findings for the
statement of overriding considerations, included as Exhibit "A."
SECTION 2. Specific Plan Approval. Pursuant to Sections 65450 through 65457 of the
California Government Code and the City's General Plan, the City Council hereby approves the
Airport Area Specific Plan, subject to the following findings:
1. The specific plan is consistent with General Plan because it will direct all facets of future
development of the Airport Area, including the distribution of land uses, the location and
sizing of infrastructure, site planning, architectural guidelines, phasing, and the method of
financing public improvements. The Specific Plan will provide for the type of growth
and development envisioned by the General Plan for the Airport Area.
2. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable
City ordinances are appropriately and adequately covered.
t '
_ Attachment 6
City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 3
Airport Area Specific Plan
3. The types and intensity of land uses are designed to be consistent with the SLO County
Regional Airport Land Use Plan to ensure compatibility with airport operations.
SECTION 3. General Plan Amendment.The City General Plan, including the Land Use
Element Map and Circulation Element shall be amended to reflect the adopted boundaries, streets
and land uses in the adopted Specific Plan, as shown in "Exhibit C."
On motion of , seconded by , and on
the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of , 2005.
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jonath well, City Attorney
LAAASRaasp_res[council].doc
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
SECTION 3. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
The program EIR was prepared in compliance with CEQA and State CEQA Guidelines.
As such, the EIR contains analysis, at a program level, of the basic issues that will be used in
conjunction with subsequent tiered environmental documents for specific projects related to the
Airport Area Specific Plan, the Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the related facilities master
plans. Once the Airport Area Specific Plan,. Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the related
facilities master plans are adopted by the City, the basic policy issues will not need to be
revisited by subsequent(second-tier) documents.
The initial study and Notice of Preparation of the Draft EIR were circulated to
appropriate public agencies, organizations, and interested groups and individuals for a 30-day
comment period that ran from May 16, 2000, to June 16, 2000. The draft EIR was released for
an 80-day public and agency review period from February.15 through May 8, 2002. A public
hearing on the draft EIR was held on May 8, 2002, at the joint Planning Commission/City
Council hearing rooms in the City. .A final EIR, which provided responses to the written and
verbal comments received during the review of the draft EIR and included revisions to the draft
EIR, was prepared and made available to the public and agencies on September 19, 2003. Since
.September 19, 2003, additional comments were provided in .writing and through public
testimony; responses to these additional comments since publication of the final EIR were
prepared and made part of the administrative record.
SECTION 4. FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS AND
MITIGATION MEASURES OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Introduction
This section presents the project's significant environmental impacts and feasible mitigation
measures. Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations
[CCR]) and Section 21081 of the Public Resources Code require a lead agency to make findings
for each significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant
impact,the lead agency must find that:
e replacing changes or alterations have been incorporated into the project to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects identified in the EIR;
■ such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and should be adopted by that agency; or
m specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible.
Fardings of Fact and Statemew of Overriding Considerations _ -- City of San Luis Obispo
for dte Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pk a and 6 October 2004
Related Fadlides Master Plans
r � l
-j Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Each of these findings must be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record.
This section identifies the following environmental impacts associated with implementation of
the proposed project, as identified in the program E1R
■ impacts that can be fully avoided or reduced to a less-than-significant level through
the incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project; and
■ impacts that can be reduced, but not to a less-than-significant level, through the
incorporation of feasible mitigation measures into the project, and which therefore,
remain significant and unavoidable.
The impacts identified in this section are considered in the same sequence in which they appear
in the draft EIR. Where adoption of feasible mitigation measures is not effective in avoiding an
impact or reducing it to a less-than-significant level, the feasibility of adopting alternatives to the
proposed project is,considered in Section 5 of this document.
Land Use and Aesthetics
Impact LU-2: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with County General Plan Policy
As discussed under Policy Consistency; the proposed project, which has been developed
in.conformance with the City General Plan, is in conflict with county policy regarding the land
use designation in the Avila Ranch area immediately south of the planning area.
City growth management policies establish the URL as the final edge for urban
development" (Policy 1.1) as a means of protecting agricultural and scenic rural lands. The
County's designation of the Avila Ranch, which is outside of the URL, for industrial uses is not
consistent with this concept. While this inconsistency already exists between the City and
County General Plans, and is not a direct result of the proposed project, the proposed project's
failure to address the inconsistency represents a significant impact because it allows a condition
that is not in conformance with its policies to protect agriculture and open space lands to persist.
The proposal is consistent with the City's policies regarding land uses within the URL.
The land outside the URL is under County land use jurisdiction and is subject to County plans
and ordinances. The inconsistency between the City's URL policies,which call for areas outside
the URL to remain open, and County general plan designations, which provide for commercial
and light industrial development in some areas adjoining the URL, is a pre-existing, baseline
condition.
In summary, the proposed project requires mitigation to address inconsistencies with
county plans and policies concerning the Airport area, which represent a significant impact. No
mitigation is required for the Margarita area. Changes to County general plan designations are
the responsibility of the County and are outside the City's authority. Mitigation calls for the
County to reassess its approach to the areas adjoining the proposed specific plan. Reconciliation
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Arca Specific PI=and 7 October 2004
Retard Facilities Master Plmis
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
of these existing policy differences may not be possible. Nonetheless, the effort to reach
reconciliation would mitigate the impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the Airport area
impact to a less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure LU-2.1: Resolve Discrepancy regarding Disposition of Lands
Immediately South of Project Area
The County shall work with the City to resolve the discrepancy regarding the disposition
of lands immediately south of the project area. The County must consider whether: (1)
the current land use designation for the Avila Ranch property is desired; (2) because the
property has an urban designation, it should ultimately be annexed to the City; or, (3) the
property should be included in the Airport Area project and be subject to Specific Plan
development standards and guidelines. These questions should be answered within two
years of adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Finding: Mitigation is the Responsibility of Other Agency. The City finds that the mitigation
measure is the responsibility of other agencies and that the County of San Luis Obispo can and
should implement this mitigation measure. If it is decided that annexation by the City of these
properties should occur in the future, Program 3.3.17 of the Airport Area Specific Plan requires
projects that expand the Urban Reserve Line to secure open space or agricultural land adjoining,
but outside, the new Urban Reserve Line location. The land secured must be large enough to
effectively discourage additional urban development beyond the Urban Reserve Line.
Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
The 1993 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Update EIR addressed the fact that
annexation and development of the area in accordance with the City General Plan designations
would result in the loss of agricultural resources. That loss was identified as a significant and
irreversible adverse impact that could not be mitigated. Policies were incorporated into the Land
Use Element to help compensate for productivity lost as a result of the conversion of agricultural
lands within the urban reserve. Specifically, City policy requires direct dedication of open space
.areas,or payment of an in-lieu fee,for annexed land.
The primary target of this exaction is to protect open space and agricultural lands outside,
but especially those contiguous to, the City's URL. The concept is to create a permanent open
space buffer/greenbelt around the city that prevents continued expansion of the urban area onto
valuable agricultural and open space resources. For certain locations, the general plan calls for
the open space protection area to be equal in size to the developed area or to be four times the
size of the developed area. The ratio for the Margarita area follows from the land use
designations (approximately 40% open space, excluding parks). The General Plan does not set a
specific ratio for the Airport Area. The in-lieu fee that has been set for the so-called interim
annexations probably can achieve a ratio of 1:1 on average.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overndmg Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Sperifu Plans and $ October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 6
Exhibit .A
Based on a review of mapping of the State's Department of Conservation farmland
categories, the majority of the proposed project area (347.2 hectares [858 acres], or 61%)
consists of lands with little or no agricultural value (i.e.; designated by the state for
Urban/Built-up or Other). Table 3A-2 shows the acreage breakdown for the project area by
category. The project area has relatively limited amounts of Prime Farmland (26.3 hectares [65
acres], or 5%) and Farmland of Local Importance (16.1 hectares [40 acres], or 3%), and no lands
designated for Farmlands of Statewide Importance or Unique Farmland. Farmland of Local
Potential and Grazing Land, two categories with lower agricultural value, compose a larger
percentage of thearea(21% and 11%,respectively). Although past development and current use
result in relatively low farmland classifications under the California Department of Conservation
categories,the underlying soils types have the characteristics of prime soil, according to the U.S.
Natural Resources Conservation Service, for most of the gently sloping part of the Margarita
area and for nearly all the Airport area, excluding the Unocal property impacted by soil
contamination due to the 1926 explosion and subsequent fire.
The Specific Plans show.urban use for approximately 12.1 hectares (30 acres) of prime .
farmland actively cultivated north of Tank Farm Road. There are also cultivated lands just west
of the middle of the Margarita Area. The proposed project is consistent with the City General.
Plan, so, as anticipated in the 1993 LUE EMR, annexation and development of the area will
adversely impact agricultural resources. Altogether, the proposed project will result in the loss
of approximately 14.1 hectares (35 acres) of Prime Farmland (in the northwest comer of the
Airport area), and 109.2 hectares (270 acres) of Farmland of Local Potential (primarily in the
Margarita area and along Broad Street). Most agricultural lands that will be lost to development
have been used primarily for grazing. The Airport Area Specific Plan's designation for Open
Space in the central portion of the Airport area will protect areas of Prime Farmland and
Farmlands of Local Importance that are actively cultivated. No areas under Williamson Act
contracts are affected by the proposed project.
While the loss of prime agricultural land is limited, the conversion of any lands
containing prime agricultural soils associated with the proposed project is considered a
signif wnt and unavoidable impact.
Mitigation
While the loss of prime agricultural soils to urban uses is irreversible and cannot be
mitigated, the following mitigation is recommended to help compensate for the loss of
agricultural productivity. The intent of the mitigation is to enhance the opportunities for
continued agriculture in the unincorporated areas outside the City's URL.
Mitigation Measure LU-5.1: Dedicate Open Space Land or Pay In-Lieu Fees to
Secure Open Space Easements on Agricultural Land outside the URL at Ratio of No
Less than 1A
Findings of Fact and Stw_m of Overriding Considerations City of San lits Obispo .
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pimis and 9 Oerober2004
Related Facilities Master Plmis
-� Attachment 6
Exhibit A
As a condition of annexation and development within the Airport and Margarita Areas,
developers shall be required to dedicate open space land or pay in-lieu fees to secure
open space easements on agricultural land outside the URL at a ratio of no less than 1:1.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. However, the impact would not be reduced
to a less-than-significant level. A statement of overriding consideration for this impact is made in
Section 6.
Impact LU-6: Change in Views
The proposed project will result in the change of character of the Plan areas from a
generally semi-rural setting to an urban developed setting. The issue of aesthetic impacts was
reviewed during the adoption of the General Plan. The conclusion was reached within Section
9.0 of the General Plan EIR that urbanization would irreversibly change the visual character of
the south end of the city from that of a low-density semi-rural area to a more intensely
developed, suburban area. While substantial design standards are contained in the Airport Area
Specific Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, and the City General Plan (including the
preservation of open space, hills, and development design standards), these do not change this
fundamental conclusion of the General Plan EIR. No feasible mitigation exists to eliminate the
impact associated with the conversion of a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape. The
impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation
No mitigation measures are feasible.
Funding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City fmds that no feasible mitigation is
available and that this impact is significant and unavoidable. A stateneent of overriding
consideration for this impact is made in Section 6.
Impact LU-7: Potential Increase in Daytime/Nighttime Light and Glare
The development of the Airport and Margarita areas for urban uses will result in an
increase in daytime/nighttime light and glare within the area. These increases will be the result
of new lighting at commercial, business park, and residential uses, as well as at new park
facilities. Development of these sites would increase the amount of light and glare associated
with development of urban uses, such as additional parking lots, building lights, and streetlights.
While the types of lighting and their specific locations are not specified at this point,
development proposed under this alternative would increase the amount of light into adjacent
areas, including airport lands. The potential increase in light and glare is considered to be a
significant impact.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding Coniiderations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and1 O October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plmu
LK
� _ L
`1 Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure LU-7.1: Incorporate Lighting Design Standards into Margarita
and Airport Area Specific Plans
The City shall,incorporate lighting design standards into the Margarita and Airport Area
Specific Plans. The standards shall contain specific measures to limit the amount of light
trespass associated with development within the project area. Specific measures shall
include the use of shielding and/or directional lighting methods to ensure that spillover
light does not exceed 0.5-footcandles at adjacent property lines.'
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the. Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport. Area Specific Plan this
impact is addressed in the Design Guidelines for lighting. Goal 5.20, which is implemented by
guidelines and standards, is intended to accomplish "a low level of ambient lighting that protects
the rural ambience,while being consistent with public safety needs."
Hydrology and Water Quality
The program BIR previously reported in error that a significant unavoidable impact would result
from constructing a dam within a watercourse in Perfumo Canyon. However, the water reservoir
to be constructed would be a tank for storage purposes only in an upland area, not an
impoundment of water along a natural streamway. Therefore, no significant impacts on
Hydrology and Water Quality are associated with the proposed project.
Biological Resources
Impact BIO-1: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Annual Grassland
The Margarita and Airport Areas contain 119.48 hectares (295.24 acres) of annual
grassland. Implementation of this portion of the project would result in the loss or temporary
disturbance of annual grassland.. Annual grassland is common locally and regionally, therefore,
the loss of annual grassland is typically considered less than significant. However, large portions
of the project area, including areas identified for facilities master plan improvements, have not
been surveyed, and sensitive resources like seasonal wetlands and drainages, patches of valley
needlegrass grassland, and populations of special-status species may be found interspersed in the
annual grassland. Therefore,this impact is considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideradons - City ofSan Itis Obispo
for dte Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan and 11 October 2004
Related Facilides Master Plan
Attachlnant 6
- Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. Applications for subdivisions and
development in grassland areas must include the result of the following surveys and
studies:
® surveys and mapping of special-status plants identified in Table 3C-4 of the program
EIR during the appropriate identification periods;
■ surveys and mapping of special-status wildlife identified in Table 3C-5 of the
program EIR during the appropriate seasons;
■ mapping and quantification of valley needlegrass grassland inclusions;
■ delineation and quantification of waters of the United States, including wetlands,
using the Corps' 1987 wetland delineation manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987);
■ identification of special-status species and species of local concern as identified in
the (forthcoming) Conservation Element; and
■ mapping and quantification of habitat loss.
For areas of annual grassland that are determined to contain no special-status species,
inclusions of valley needlegrass grassland, or seasonal wetland, no further mitigation is
required. If sensitive resources are identified, please refer to the mitigation measures
below to avoid, minimize, or compensate for significant impacts on these resources. This
is not intended to limit other measures that the City may take regarding non-listed
species.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport Area Specific Plan
significant grassland areas are designated as open space, following Figure 3-1, Open Space
Resources. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection.for on-site resources and the above survey
requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that
may include these resources.
Impact BIO-2: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Valley Needlegrass Grassland
Valley needlegrass grassland is found within annual grassland and ruderal areas of the
Airport and Margarita Areas. Patches of valley needlegrass grassland have been identified on
the Unocal property of the Airport Area. There may be additional patches within the annual
grassland matrix of unsurveyed portions of the Airport and Margarita Areas and Facilities Master
Plan service areas. Valley needlegrass grassland has suffered extensive losses statewide and is
considered a sensitive natural community by DFG. The elimination or substantial degradation of
this community is considered a significant impact:
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideradow City of San Isis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specif fic Plans and October 2004
Related Facilities Master Raw 12
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BIO-2.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Valley Needlegrass
Grassland. After areas of valley needlegrass grassland are mapped and quantified
(Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1), the following steps should be implemented in order of
preference:.
s Avoid stands of valley needlegrass grassland whenever possible; this may be
achieved by setting aside areas that contain significant stands of valley needlegrass
grassland as ecological buffers or nature preserves.
s inimize impacts on valley needlegrass grassland in areas that cannot be avoided
completely; this may be achieved by placing orange construction barrier fencing or
stakes and flags around the perimeter of needlegrass grassland stands and by
restricting the operation of heavy equipment and other construction-related activities
to the outside of these exclusion zones.
■ Compensate for unavoidable losses of valley needlegrass grassland with replacement
plantings at an alternative mitigation site. The project proponent should develop a
mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with DFG that specifies replacement
ratios, success criteria, monitoring and reporting needs, and remediation measures.
Replacement plantings should be placed adjacent to existing preserved stands to
encourage natural regeneration, ensure future preservation, and create enhanced
habitat values.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. In the Airport Area Specific Plan
significant grassland areas are designated as open space, following Figure 3-1, Open Space
Resources. Policy 3.2.19 .requires protection for on-site resources and the above survey
requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as development is proposed in areas that
may include these resources.
Impact BIO-5: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Open-Water Habitat-
The
abitatThe Airport Area contains approximately 0.28 hectare (0.69 acre) of open-water habitat.
There is open-water habitat on the Unocal property in the Airport Area and in limited areas in the
Margarita Area and Facilities Master Plan areas. Open-water habitat may qualify as other waters
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Nam;and13 Oaaber2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
I �Liq
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
of the United States subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. The
potential loss of open-water habitat is considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6.1. Avoid and Minimize impacts on Wetland Habitat.
This mitigation measure is described below.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan
includes many policies regarding the protection of wetland resources, including a requirement
for 50-foot setbacks(Program 3.3.3), and most significant areas-are designated as open space.
Impact BI0-6: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Freshwater Marsh
The Airport Area contains approximately 6.78 hectares (16.76 acres) and the Margarita
Area contains approximately 0.64 hectares (1:59 acres) of freshwater marsh. Freshwater marsh
is considered a sensitive natural community by DFG and is also considered a wetland subject to
Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Extensive stands of freshwater
marsh have been documented on the Unocal property. Additional stands also occur along
drainage ditches throughout the project area, including the Facilities Master Plan areas, as well as
in low-lying landscape positions throughout the area. Loss or temporary disturbance of
freshwater marsh is considered a significant impact.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BI0-6.1. Avoid and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat. To.
avoid and minimize impacts to freshwater marsh and other wetland habitats, the project
proponent will do all of the following:
■ obtain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a delineation of waters of the
United States, including wetlands, at the project site;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considemdons - City of San Lis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 14 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Pkmu (�
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
■ obtain verification of the delineation from the Corps;
■ avoid identified waters of the United States and wetlands during project design to the
extent possible and establish a buffer zone around jurisdictional features to be
preserved;
■ obtain a permit from the Corps for any unavoidable fill of wetlands or other waters
of the United.States; and
■ develop and implement a mitigation and monitoring plan in coordination with the
agencies to compensate for losses and to ensure no net loss of wetland habitat
functions and values.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and.has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan
includes many policies regarding the protection of wetland resources, including a requirement
for 50-foot setbacks (Program 3.3.3), and most significant areas are designated as open space.
Impact B10-7: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Seasonal Wetlands
The Airport area contains approximately 20.12 hectares (49.72 acres) and the Margarita
area contains 3.76 hectares (9.30 acres) of existing and potential seasonal wetlands. Seasonal
wetlands have been documented throughout the Unocal property in the Airport area and are
likely present throughout unsiuveyed portions .of the planning area, including the facilities
master plan service areas. Seasonal wetlands are considered sensitive natural communities by
DFG and qualify as wetlands subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA.
Impacts on seasonal wetlands are considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to.a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BIO-6.1. Avoid .and Minimize Impacts on Wetland Habitat.
This mitigation measure is described above.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Chapter 3 of the Airport Area Specific Plan
includes many policies regarding the protection of wetland resources, including a.requirement
for 50-foot setbacks(Program 3.3.3), and most significant areas are designated as open space.
Findings of Fact and Smtemrnt of Overriding Considerations City of San lois Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and15 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plots r
l ^ �
} Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Impact BIO-8: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Riparian Woodland and Scrub
The Airport area contains approximately 8.39 hectares (20.72 acres) of riparian woodland
and scrub. Riparian woodland and scrub are found on the Unocal property, along the East
Branch of Acacia Creek, and in other localized occurrences along unmapped drainage ditches or
low-lying areas throughout the planning area and facilities master plan service areas.
Additionally, the Margarita area contains 0.27 hectare (0.66 acre) of riparian woodland and
scrub. Riparian woodland and scrub are considered sensitive natural communities by DFG and
are likewise protected by the City General Plan and proposed Specific Plans' policies. The
riparian woodland and scrub may also qualify as wetlands subject to Corps jurisdiction under
Section 404 of the CWA. Impacts on riparian woodland and scrub are considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-8.1. Avoid Temporary Disturbance to Riparian.
Woodland and Scrub by Complying with DFG and City General Plan Guidelines
and Spec Plan requirements for Setbacks Regarding Riparian Corridors. The
project proponent will do all of the following:
■ retain a qualified biologist to identify and map riparian woodland and scrub in the
project area;
■ establish a buffer zone around the edge of the riparian habitat at a distance to be
determined in cooperation with DFG and the City by installing orange construction
fencing or poles and flags; and
■ restrict construction activities to the outside of the fenced buffer zone.
Finding: NGtigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. The Airport Area Specific Plan requires
management programs when development is proposed along creeks (Program 3.3.1). 35-foot
creek setbacks are required for major creeks. A 50-wetland setback is established,which will be
implemented through subdivision and development approvals and the design of pubic facilities
(Program 3.3.3).
Impact BIO-9: Loss or Temporary Disturbance of Agricultural Fields and Congdon's
Tarplant
The Airport area contains approximately 39.52 hectares (97.66 acres) and the Margarita
area contains approximately 2.97 hectares (7.33 acres) of agricultural fields. Agricultural fields
are locally and regionally common. The loss or temporary disturbance of agricultural fields is
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City'of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 16 October 2004
Related Fadlides Master Plats
Attachrcent 6
Exhibit A
generally considered less than significant from a biological standpoint. However; Congdon's
Tarplant, a special-status plant species, has been observed in fallow agricultural fields in the
planning area. Therefore, impacts on agricultural fields and Congdon's Tarplant are considered
significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-1.1. . Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BIO-9.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Plant
Species. To avoid or minimize impacts on special-status plant species, the project
proponent will do all of the following:
s Whenever possible, set aside as nature preserve areas ]mown to support large
populations of special-status plants.
■ Ensure that a qualified botanist conducts surveys for special-status plant species in all
portions of the planning area at the appropriate time when the plants are clearly
identifiable. The botanist should document and map encountered populations.
• Avoid or minimize impacts on special-status plant populations to the extent possible.
o Compensate for the unavoidable loss or disturbance of special-status plant species.
Compensation shall be implemented under a mitigation plan developed in
conjunction with DFG and USFWS. The requirements for a mitigation plan will
depend on the species affected by the project and the extent of impacts on the
populations. Mitigation shall be implemented onsite whenever possible. Possible
mitigation locations (but not required locations) for Congdon's Tarplant include
those areas of the Unocal site set aside as Open Space.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as,
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Impact BIO-11: Impacts on Special-Status Plant Species
Several occurrences of special-status plant species have been reported in the Margarita
and Airport areas and the facilities master plan service areas. Populations of rayless ragwort and
San Luis Obispo mariposa lily occur in the South Hills, which are part of the Margarita area.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Sat!itis Obispo
for rhe Airport Area and Margartra Area Specific Punts and 17 October 2004
Rdaed Facilities Master Pians
Attar
Exhibit A
These occurrences are located in areas to be designated as Open Space; therefore, no impact on
these populations is expected.
Many occurrences of Congdon's Tarplant have recently been documented in the
Margarita and Airport areas. Although most populations occur in wetland conditions in a
grassland matrix, several populations have also been documented in disturbed areas, including
fallow fields. Impacts on special-status plant species are considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive.
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above.
Mitigation Measure BI0-9.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Special-Status Plant
Species. This mitigation measure is described above.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Impact BIO-12: Impacts on Non-Listed Special-Status Wildlife Species
Several occurrences of special-status species have been reported in the Margarita and
Airport Areas. Many more special-status species have the potential for occurrence in these areas
(Table 3C-5). Impacts on special-status wildlife species are considered significant.
Mitigation .Measure BI0-1.1. Conduct Surveys for Wetland Resources, Sensitive
Natural Communities, and Special-Status Species. This mitigation measure is
described above. .
Mitigation Measure BIO-12.1. Avoid or Minimize Impacts on Non-Listed, Special
Status Wildlife Species. To avoid or mi
inimize mpacts on non-listed, special-status
wildlife species (Table 3C-5 of the program EIR), the project proponent will do all of the
following:
Ensure that a qualified biologist conducts surveys for non-listed special-status wildlife
species in all portions of the planning area at the appropriate time for each species. The
biologist should document and map encountered individuals.
■ Avoid or minirnize impacts on non-listed special-status wildlife populations and
individuals to the extent possible.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Spedfic Plans and 18 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
T -�'3
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
■ Ensure that a qualified biologist conducts protocol-level surveys for burrowing owls
and, if presence is confirmed, develops a mitigation plan following DFG guidelines.
■ Surveys would be conducted at suitable breeding habitat for nesting tricolored
blackbirds before construction begins. Surveys would be conducted 2-3 times during the
nesting season (April 1-July 15). If nesting tricolored blackbirds are found, the project
proponent shall avoid impacts on the species by one of two methods: avoiding
construction within 500 feet of an active nesting colony during the nesting season or
constructing the interceptor during the nonbreeding season (July 15-March 31). Barrier
fencing would be used to establish buffer zones around the active colonies. Removal of
suitable breeding habitat should also be minimized through the project design. If nesting
habitat is unoccupied,construction in the area could occur at any time; however, removal
of suitable breeding habitat should be minimized.
■ Compensate for the unavoidable loss or disturbance of non-listed special-status
wildlife species. Compensation shall be implemented under a mitigation plan developed
in conjunction with DFG and USFWS. .The requirements for a mitigation plan will
depend on the species affected by the project and the extent of impacts on the .
populations. Mitigation shall be implemented onsite whenever possible.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Impact BIO-13: Potential Direct Mortality or Disturbance of California Red-Legged Frogs
California red-legged frogs have been observed in the creeks in the San Luis Obispo area,
including Acacia Creek,the perennial stream on the eastern and southern edge of the Tank Farm.
Implementing construction activities or projects in the Airport area, including the facilities
master plans could require removal of riparian or marsh vegetation or disturbance of stream
habitat along the South Fork of Acacia Creek or ponds and marshes in the area. This could cause
direct mortality of red-legged frogs or removal of their habitat. This potential impact on the
California red-legged frog is considered significant because the Airport area, and to a lesser
extent the Margarita area, are within the range of the species, suitable habitat is present, and the
species has been recorded in the vicinity.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-13.1. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss of
California Red-Legged Frogs.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and l9 October 2009
Related Facilities Master Plans
L
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
® Prior to the initial site investigation and subsequent ground disturbing activities, a
qualified biologist will instruct all project personnel in worker awareness training,
including recognition of California red-legged frogs and their habitat.
■ A qualified biologist will conduct pre-construction surveys within the project area no
earlier than 2 days before ground-disturbing activities.
■ No activities shall occur after October 15 or the onset of the rainy season, whichever
occurs first, until May 1 except for during periods greater than 72 hours without
precipitation. Activities can only resume after site inspection by a qualified biologist.
The rainy season is defined as: a frontal system that results in depositing 0.25 inches
or more of precipitation in one event.
■ Vehicles to and from the project site will be confined to existing roadways to
minimize disturbance of habitat.
■ Prior to movement of a backhoe in the project area, a qualified biologist will make
sure the route is clear of California red-legged frogs.
s If a California red-legged frog is encountered during excavations, or any project
activities, activities will cease until the frog is removed and relocated by an USFWS-
approved biologist. Any incidental take will be reported to the USFWS immediately
by telephone at(916) 414-6600.
® If suitable wetland habitat is disturbed or removed, the project proponent will restore
the suitable habitat back to its original value by covering bare areas with mulch and
revegetating all cleared areas with wetland species that are currently found in the
project area.
Finding: Mitigation. Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements. will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that.may include these resources.
Impact BIO-14: Potential Direct Mortality of or Indirect Impacts on Vernal Pool Fairy
Shrimp and California Tiger.Salamanders
Implementing the specific plans could result in the loss of, or disturbance to, vernal pool
fairy shrimp and California tiger salamanders (if they occur in the planning area) if there are
vernal pools or other suitable seasonal wetlands within 250 feet of project activities. Direct or
indirect impacts on vernal pool fairy shrimp and tiger salamanders are considered significant
because the species are listed under the federal ESA and a candidate for federal listing,
respectively.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Consideration - City of San Lair Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 20 October2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 6 ,
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a
less-than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-14.1. Compensate for Direct and Indirect Impacts on
Vernal Pool and Seasonal Wetland Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and California 11ger
Salamander Habitat. If vernal pool fairy shrimp or tiger salamander habitat is present
and cannot be avoided, the project proponent will compensate for direct and indirect
effects on the habitat. The project proponent will conduct an onsite visit with USFWS
and DFG to determine whether potential vernal pools or seasonal wetlands in the Airport
and Margarita areas are suitable fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat. If there is no
suitable fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat, no additional mitigation is needed. If
there is suitable habitat, the project proponent can assume that it is occupied and mitigate
the loss of habitat, or can retain a qualified biologist to conduct USFWS protocol-level
surveys and determine presence or absence. These surveys typically require two seasons
of surveys during the winter-wet season; therefore, most project proponents assume
presence and mitigate the loss of fairy shrimp and tiger salamander habitat. This
compensation will be achieved by implementing the following measures, as described in
the programmatic agreement between USFWS and the Corps:
■ Create suitable fairy shrimp habitat (i.e., vernal pools or other suitable seasonal
wetlands) at a 1:1 ratio or other ratio approved by the USFWS. The habitat must be
created at a location approved by USFWS.
■ Preserve suitable fairy shrimp habitat at a 2:1 ratio or other ratio approved by the
USFWS. The habitat must be preserved at a location approved by USFWS.
■ .Before construction starts, the project proponent will obtain authorization from
USFWS to take listed fairy shrimp species that would be affected by the project A
biological opinion under the federal FSA may be needed from USFWS before
construction begins. This is not intended to limit mitigation should USFWS and the
Corps require a different approach.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy.3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Impact BIO-16: Potential Disturbance of Least Bell's.Vireos
The least Bell's vireo may breed in dense riparian vegetation in the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plan areas, including the facilities master plan areas. This bird is a rare
breeding species in San Luis Obispo County. Because the least Bell's vireo habitat may be'
reduced, this impact is considered significant
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considcmrions City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Arca and Margarita Arca Specific'Platu and 21 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plass
_ Attachinent 6
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BI0-16.1. Conduct Protocol-Level Surveys for beast Bell's
Vireo. If the species or appropriate habitat is present, then the project proponent will
implement Mitigation Measure BIO-16.2.
Mitigation Measure BI0-16.2. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss of Least
Bell's Vireo. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DFG and possibly
conduct a site visit with these agencies to develop measures to avoid and minimize
potential impacts on this species along the stream in the Airport and Margarita areas. If
potential impacts on least Bell's vireos can be avoided, no additional mitigation is
needed. If potential impacts on the least Bell's vireo cannot be avoided, the project
proponent will implement Mitigation Measure BIO-16.3.
Mitigation Measure BIO-163. Develop and Implement a Least Bell's Vireo
Mitigation Plan. If potential impacts on the least Bell's vireo cannot be avoided along
the creeks in the Airport area in the planning area, the project proponent will prepare and
implement a mitigation plan and obtain the appropriate federal ESA permits, if necessary.
The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DIG to determine whether
additional mitigation is needed, and USFWS will assist the project proponent in
determining whether incidental take authorization under the federal ESA is needed. The
plan will need to include measures that would avoid and minimize impacts on the least
Bell's vireo and additional habitat creation, enhancement, and management in the
planning area.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-
site resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Impact BIO-17: Potential Direct Mortality of or Indirect Impacts on Southwestern Pond
Turtle
The southwestern pond turtle is known to occur in the tributaries of San Luis Obispo
Creek, and it has been observed in riparian vegetation on the Tank Farm site (Entrix 1996).
Pond turtles could occur in ponds in the Airport area;they could also nest in the grasslands there,
especially at the Tank Farm. Implementing construction activities or projects in the Airport area
could require removal or disturbance of riparian habitats, ponds, or grasslands, but a substantial
amount of habitat would not be disturbed. This could cause short-term impacts on pond turtles
in the Airport area. Depending on the year and the season,eliminating the reach of Orcutt Creek,
modifying Acacia Creek (including mitigation enhancements for loss at Orcutt Creek), and
developing the sports fields and Prado Road extension could have adverse impacts on pond
turtles. Therefore, these potential impacts on the southwestern pond turtle are considered
significant
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overruling Cmaidemcons City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 22 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans n
r^� l
- Attachment 6
- Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BI0-17.1. Avoid Potential Direct Mortality and Loss. of
Southwestern Pond Turtle. The project proponent will consult with USFWS and DFG
and possibly conduct a site visit with these agencies to develop measures to avoid and
minimize potential impacts on this species along the stream and wetlands (including
ponds) in the Airport and Margarita areas. If potential impacts on the southwestern pond
turtle can be avoided, no additional mitigation is needed. If potential impacts on the
southwestern pond turtle cannot be avoided, the project proponent will implement
Mitigation Measure BI0-17.2.
Mitigation Measure BIO-17.2. Develop and Implement a Southwestern.Pond Turtle
Mitigation Plan. If potential impacts on the southwestern pond turtle cannot be avoided
along the creeks in the Airport area and marsh and other wetlands in the planning area,
the project proponent will prepare and implement a mitigation plan and obtain the,
appropriate federal ESA permits, if necessary. The project proponent will consult with
USFWS and DFG to determine whether additional mitigation is needed, and USFWS and
the Corps will assist the project proponent in determining whether incidental take
authorization under the federal ESA is needed. The plan will need to include measures
that would avoid and minimise impacts on the southwestern pond turtle and additional
habitat creation,enhancement, and management in the planning area.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Policy 3.2.19 requires protection for on-site
resources and the above survey requirements will be applied on a case-by-case basis, as
development is proposed in areas that may include these resources.
Traffic and Circulation
Impact T-1: Secondary Impacts of Road Improvements
The improvements necessary to achieve vehicular flow at the intersections listed above
could cause secondary impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists. To avoid significant pedestrian and
bicycle impacts, development projects in the Airport and Margarita Specific Plan areas shall
include pedestrian and bicycle facilities in the design of the intersection and roadway
improvements. Pedestrian facilities shall include sidewalks along both sides of all newly
constructed streets and reconstructed streets, crosswalks at new intersections and reconstructed
intersections, and pedestrian signals at all new and reconstructed signalized intersections.
Bicycle facilities shall include Class H bike lanes on all new and reconstructed streets per the San
Luis Obispo Bicycle Transportation Plan and the Specific Plans. Bike lanes shall be included in
the widening and extension of the following streets.
■ South Higuera Street(Tank Farm to Buckley)
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerndons. City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 23 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plams
� -fig
_ - Attachment 6
Exhibit A
■ Broad Street(Buckley to Tank Farm Road)
■ Prado Road(Broad Street to US 101 interchange)
■ Santa Fe Road (Buckley to Prado road extension)
The road improvements in the Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans will result in
substantial widening of roadways and intersection approaches to accommodate vehicle traffic
and maintain LOS D or better. Widening. of streets and intersections can result in secondary
significant impacts on pedestrians and bicyclists by increasing crossing distance and introducing
conflicts at intersections with multiple turning lanes unless designed properly.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a Less-than-
significant level.
Mitigation Measure T-1.1:Implement Design Features.The following design features
should be implemented:
■ On approaches to intersections where exclusive right-turn lanes are recommended
and Class Il bikeways are proposed, the design of the intersection shall provide bike
lanes (1.2 meters in width) for through travel along the left edge of the right-turn
lane.
■ At intersection approaches where pedestrian crossing distance exceeds six travel
lanes (22 meters),the intersection design shall include an Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA) compliant median refuge island (raised concrete) with pushbutton to
activate the pedestrian signal. The minimum width of the median refuge shall be 1.2
meters if integral with a raised median along the entire length of the street, or 1.8
meters wide by 6 meters long if an isolated median refuge. Exceptions for this
measure include locations where existing right-of-way constraints make it infeasible
to widen the street for the refuge.
■ All signalized intersections shall be designed with pedestrian signal heads and
pushbutton activation.
■ Intersections with exclusive right-turn lanes shall be designed to reduce the speed of
right-turning vehicles and reduce the pedestrian crossing distance. The curb return
radius should be 15 meters or less. Raised pedestrian refuges (porkchop islands) may
be installed between exclusive right-turn lanes and through lanes on streets with .
crossings that exceed 22 meters, but the approach angle of the right tum shall be
designed to minimize turning speed. .
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Las Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific.Plans and October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans q
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure T-1.2: Install New Signalized Intersection for Aero Drive and
Broad Street. To mitigate significant effects on this intersection, a new signalized
intersection shall be installed on Broad Street south of Aero Drive, as identified in the
Airport Master Plan.
FIndingt Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted.
Air Quality
Impact AIR-1: Short-Term Construction Emissions
Buildout under the proposed project would involve the grading and construction of
residential, commercial, industrial, and recreational structures throughout the project in the
Airport Area, Margarita Area, and facilities master plan service areas. All phases of site
preparation and building construction would produce construction emissions. The most
emissions would be generated during the initial phases of site preparation when large areas of
soil would be disturbed and many large construction vehicles would be in operation. .Emissions
occurring during this phase would consist primarily of particulates generated by soil disturbance
and combustion emissions generated by construction vehicles. The rate of particulate generation
is dependent upon soil moisture and silt content, wind speed, and relative activity level.
The combustion emissions generated by construction vehicles and equipment may
degrade local air quality and cause exceedances of the state nitrogen dioxide standard. In
addition, emissions of ozone precursors (NO,, and ROG) would exacerbate existing high ozone
levels in the County. The magnitude of combustion emissions is highly. variable among
construction sites because of the variability in the number of construction vehicles operating
simultaneously.
While the total acreage to be developed under buildout of the proposed project could be
estimated, the phasing of individual development projects is not known. Consequently, the
impact of construction emissions on regional or local air quality cannot be quantified with any
accuracy. The construction emissions of each specific development project must be evaluated
individually and cumulatively to determine the magnitude of impacts to regional and local air
quality. This impact is considered significant
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce the impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1.1. Implement Construction-Related Combustion .
Emissions Mitigation. NO, emissions will be the controlling factor in determining the
application of control strategies for construction-related, combustion-related emissions.
Any project requiring grading of>1,950 cubic yards/day or>50,000 cubic yards within a
Findings of Fact mrd Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lair Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 25 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plain
c —CfD
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
3-month period will need to apply Best Available Control Technology for construction
equipment combustion controls. Projects requiring >125,000 cubic yards of grading in a
3-month period will need to apply CBACT plus offsets and/or other mitigation.
Examples of CBACT can be found in the San Luis Obispo APCD CEQA Air Quality
Handbook. If impacts are still significant after application of CBACT, the following
additional measures shall be implemented as necessary:
■ use Caterpillar pre-chamber diesel engines (or equivalent), properly maintained and
operated to reduce emissions of NO,,;
■ use electrically.powered equipment where feasible;
■ maintain equipment in tune per manufacturer's specifications, except as otherwise
required above;
■ install catalytic converters on gasoline-powered equipment;
a substitute gasoline-powered equipment for diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible;
■ implement activity management techniques as described below; and
® use compressed natural gas or propane-powered portable equipment (e.g.,
compressors, generators, etc.) onsite instead of diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible.
Mitigation Measure AIR-11. Implement Construction-Related Festive Dust
(PM10) Mitigation Any project with a grading area greater than 1.6 hectares (4.0 acres)
of continuously worked area will exceed the 2.5 ton PM 10 quarterly threshold and will
require the following mitigation measures where applicable. Proper implementation of
these measures shall be assumed to achieve a 50% reduction in fugitive dust emissions.
The use of soil binders on completed cut-and-fill areas has the potential to reduce fugitive
dust emissions by 80%.
■ Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible.
■ Use water trucks or sprinkler systems in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust
from leaving the site; increased watering frequency would be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 miles per hour(mph); reclaimed(nonpotable) water should be
used whenever possible.
■ Spray all dirt stockpile areas daily as needed.
■ Implement permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project
revegetation and landscape plans as soon as possible following completion of any
soil-disturbing activities.
Findings of Fact and Statemmt of Overriding Considerations- City of Sart Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 26 October 2004
Related FadGtles Master Plans
Attacht-nent 6
Exhibit A
■ Sow exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates occurring 1
month after initial grading with a quickly germinating native grass seed and water
until vegetation is established.
m Stabilize all disturbed soil areas that are not subject to revegetation using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the
APCD.
■ Complete paving of all roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. that are to be paved as
soon as possible; lay building pads as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or
soil binders are used.
■ Limit vehicle speeds for all construction vehicles to a maximum of 15 mph on any
unpaved surface at the construction site.
■ Cover all trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials or maintain at least 2
feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer)
in accordance with CVC Section 23114; this measure has the potential to reduce
PM10 emissions by 7-14%.
■ Install wheel washers where vehicles enter and exit unpaved roads onto streets, or
wash off trucks and equipment leaving the site; this measure has the potential to
reduce PM10 emissions by 40-70%.
■ Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent
paved roads; water sweepers.with reclaimed water should be used where feasible.;
this measure has the potential to reduce PM10 emissions by 25-60%.
All PM10 mitigation measures required should be shown on grading and building plans.
In addition, the contractor or builder should designate a person or persons to monitor the
dust control program and to order increased watering, as necessary, 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 APCD prior to land use clearance for map recordation and land use clearance for
finish grading of the structure.
Mitigation Measure AIR-1.3: Implement Construction-Related Activity
Management Techniques
■ Develop a comprehensive construction activity management plan designed to
e the amount of large construction equipment operating during any given
time period.
■ Schedule construction truck trips during non-peak hours to reduce peak hour
emissions.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 27 October 2004
Related Fadlities Master PZ=s
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
■ Limit the length of the construction work-day period, if necessary.
e Phase construction activities,.if appropriate.
Minding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation.is feasible and has been adopted. The above mitigation measures will be implemented
through project specific mitigation measures and conditions of approval depending on the size of
the project and per the recommendations of the Air Pollution Control District.
Impact AIR-2: Long-Term Operation Emissions
Long-term air quality impacts would result primarily from ongoing emissions generated
by the operation of motor vehicles and by natural gas combustion and electricity consumption.
The land uses proposed in the project would generate new vehicle trips in the air basin. Vehicle
emissions were estimated using the ARB's URBEMIS7G model. The increase in vehicle
emissions associated with buildout of the project for each land use is presented in Table 3E-4-in
the program EIR under transportation emissions. Development of the land uses in the project
would increase the demand for electricity and natural gas for space and water heating.
Electricity consumption would generate emissions from fuel combustion at powerplants. Natural
gas combustion would also generate emissions directly. Emissions were estimated using
URBEMIS7G and are listed in Table 3E-4 of the program.EIR under area sources.
Consistency with the District's CAP. As indicated in the APCD CEQA.Air Quality
Handbook, a consistency analysis is required in the environmental review for projects that
involve a proposed project. The consistency analysis must evaluate the following questions:
1. Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those
used in the most recent CAP for the same area?
2. Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate
of population growth for the same area?
3. Have all applicable land use and transportation control measures from the CAP been
included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible?
Provided that the answer to all three of these questions is yes, the project is to be considered
consistent with the CAP. If the answer to any one of the questions is no, then the emissions
reductions projected in the CAP may not be achieved, which could delay or preclude attainment
of the state ozone standard. This would be considered inconsistent with the CAP. The following
paragraphs evaluate the proposed project based on the questions presented above.
1. Are the population projections used in the plan or project equal to or less than those
used in the most recent CAP for the same area?
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations -- - City of San Ltis Obispo
for rhe Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pkm and 28 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plats r^ a
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
The CAP includes population figures for incorporated and unincorporated areas of the
County for 1990, as well as population projections up to year 2010. The CAP
projects that the population of the San Luis Obispo area will be 49,228 in the year
2010. The proposed project uses the population projections in the San Luis Obispo
General Plan and, according to the most recent plan, the population projection for the
year 2010 is also 49,228. As such, the proposed project would be consistent with the
population projections in the CAP:
2. Is the rate of increase in vehicle trips and miles traveled less than or equal to the rate
of population growth for the same area? Due mainly to the additional employment
generated in the area (more than anticipated by the 1994 Land Use and Circulation
Elements update), VMT is expected to increase faster than population in the area.
Over the anticipated buildout period for the area, a gradual shift to vehicles with
lower emissions is expected to at least partially offset air quality impacts of increased
VMT. However; rapid commercial and industrial development in the early years
could exceed this compensating reduction.
3. Have all applicable land use.and transportation control measures from the CAP been
included in the plan or project to the maximum extent feasible?
Under the San Luis Obispo Area Plan, the goals for land use were to plan compact
communities, provide for mixed land use, and balance jobs and housing. The
proposed project incorporated these goals from the Area Plan, which was also
identified in the CAP aim to reduce the number of VMT by local residents. For
example, the Margarita Area Specific.Plan would allow the development of a wide
variety of land uses including Residential, Park, Neighborhood Commercial, Business.
Parks, and Elementary School. These land uses would provide residents with
convenient access to employment, basic shopping, recreation, and education through
both the locations of land uses and the design of circulation features.
Based on these considerations, the proposed project would be consistent with the CAP
and is not expected to further delay the attainment of state and federal air quality standards
within the County. Therefore,this impact is considered to be less than significant.
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure AIR-2.1. Implement Growth-Phasing Schedule. The City will
implement a growth-phasing schedule for the Airport area, to assure that nonresidential
development in the urban area does not exceed the pace of residential development.
FSnding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted Policy 1.4 of the Land Use Element says
that the gap between housing supply and demand (due to more jobs and college enrollment)
should not increase. The City Council reviews both residential and commercial development
growth rates as part of the Annual Report on the General Plan. Policy 1.11.4 of the Land Use
Element says that each year the City Council will evaluate the actual increase in nonresidential
Findings of Fact mrd Swemenr of Overriding Cansidenz ions City of San Las Obispo .
for the Airport Arca and Margarita Area Specific Plans and ,L9 October2004
Related Fad4des Master Pl=
f — ( 1
Hrtachlnent 6
Exhibit A
floor area and shall consider establishing limits if the rate for any five year period exceeds five
percent. If this General Plan policy is implemented through a new ordinance, then commercial
floor area can be allocated, or phased, in the Airport Area, similar to the way residential
dwellings are allocated to expansion areas such as the Margarita Area and Orcutt Area.
Noise
No significant impacts associated with Noise were identified in the program EIR for the
proposed project:
Hazardous Materials
Impact HAZ-1: Potential Construction-Related Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Construction-related activities associated with specific projects in the Airport and
Margarita Areas.and development of roadway/utility infrastructure associated with the facility
master plans would involve the use of materials that could contaminate nearby soils and water
resources in the project area (e.g., petroleum-based fuels and oils, solvents, cement).
Additionally, construction workers and other people could be exposed to dust or emissions
containing these materials. Construction workers could also be exposed to organic pesticides,
herbicides, and other hazardous materials during groundbreaking activities.
Groundwater may also.occur near the surface along buried infrastructure alignments. .
Trenches or tunnels may encounter groundwater, which may require dewatering for pipe
placement. Contaminated water encountered during construction-related activities may also
require special handling and disposal procedures.
While known and potential hazardous materials/waste sites have been identified in the
Airport area, the potential also exists to expose construction workers to previously undiscovered
hazardous materials/waste. sites during development of the. Margarita area. Because
construction-related activities could substantially increase the use of hazardous materials and
increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the project area, this impact is considered
significant.
Mitigation
implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-sign,ficant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. Implement a Construction-Related Hazardous
Materials Management Plan. Before beginning construction activities, a project
proponent will submit a hazardous materials management plan for construction activities
that involve hazardous materials. The plan will discuss proper handling and disposal of
materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum products, concrete, and sanitary
waste. The plan will also outline a specific protocol to identify health risks associated
Findings of Fact and Statemem of OverridMg Considerations - - City of Sar kris Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pais and 30 October 2004
Related Fadlidres Maser Plans
Attachrnent 6
Exhibit A
with the presence.of chemical compounds in the soil and/or groundwater and identify
specific protective measures to be followed by the workers entering the work area. If the
presence of hazardous materials is suspected or encountered during construction-related
activities, the project proponent will implement Mitigation Measure HA2r1.2.
Mitigation Measure . HAZ-1.2. Conduct Phase I. and Possibly Phase II
Environmental Site Assessments to Determine Soil or Groundwater Contamination.
The project proponent will complete a Phase I environmental site assessment for each
proposed public facility (e.g., streets and buried infrastructure). If Phase I site
assessments indicate a potential for soil and/or groundwater contamination within or
adjacent to the road or utility alignments, a Phase II site assessment will be completed.
The following Phase H environmental site assessments will be prepared specific to soil
and/or groundwater contamination.
■ Soil Contamination. For. soil contamination, the Phase II site assessment will
include soil sampling and analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If soil
contamination is exposed during construction, the San Luis Obispo Fire Department
(SLOFD) will be notified and a workplan to characterize and possibly remove
contaminated soil will be prepared, submitted, and approved.
■ Groundwater Contamination. For groundwater contamination, the Phase 11
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated by
potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the
SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to
dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB before activities.
FSnding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation is feasible and has been adopted. Areas within the AASP identified as being the most
contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also implemented
through development review requirements and compliancewith Fire Department and RWQCB
requirements.
Impact HAZ-2:. Potential Operations-Related Exposure to Hazardous Materials
Implementation of the proposed project would include the development of manufacturing
and business park land uses in the Airport Area and the development of business park land uses
in the Margarita Area. Operations at the sites could involve the delivery, use, manufacture, and
storage of various chemicals necessary to perform manufacturing and business park activities.
Operations-related activities within both the Airport and Margarita Areas could substantially
increase the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials
in the project area Development of the specific roadway and utility infrastructure improvements
outlined in the facility master plans would not generate a substantial amount of operations-
related hazardous materials. Because operations-related activities could substantially increase
Findings of Fact and Smtement of Overriding Consideiniions City of San Iris Obispo
for du Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Emu and 31 October 2004
Refaced FadUdes Master Plwu
�t
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
the use of hazardous materials and increase the risk of exposure to hazardous materials in the
project area, this impact is considered significant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-2.1. Implement an Operations-Related Hazardous
Materials Management Plan. The project proponent will ensure that a hazardous
materials management plan for operations-related activities is established and addresses
the delivery, use, manufacture, and storage of various chemicals. The plan will identify
the proper handling and disposal of materials used or produced onsite, such as petroleum
products, concrete, and sanitary waste. In addition, the SLOFD will conduct routine fire
and life-safety inspections to determine compliance with applicable health and safety
codes..
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City fords that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted Areas within the AASP identified as being
the most contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also
implemented through development review requirements and compliance with Fire Department .
and RWQCB requirements.
Impact HAZ-3: Short-Term Surface Water Quality Degradation from Accidental Release
.of Hazardous Materials during Construction-Related Activities
Construction-related activities associated with specific projects in, the. Airport and
Margarita Areas and development of roadway/utility infrastructure associated with the facility
master plans would require the installation of much buried.infrastructure to support development.
The proposed buried infrastructure may cross several drainages, and construction-related
activities would involve the use of hazardous materials (e.g., oils, grease, lubricants) that could
accidentally be released into local waterways.
Water quality impacts would largely be determined by the duration and seasonality of
construction-related activities. Specific areas of concern in the Airport area include San Luis
Obispo Creek, Orcutt Creek, and Davenport Creek. Areas of concern in the Margarita Area
include Acacia Creek. Although construction-related activities occurring during the dry season
would have less potential to flush hazardous materials into a stream or drainage, low summer
flows are less able to dilute hazardous materials entering the water column. Because
construction-related activities.would substantially increase the use of hazardous materials and
increase the risk of accidental release of hazardous materials into project-area drainages, this
impact is considered significant.
Fbrdings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Geis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 32 October 2004
Related Fadhiles Master Plans
-, Attache nent 6
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.1. Implement a Construction-Related Hazardous
Materials Management Plan. This mitigation measure is described above.
Finding: .Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Areas within the AASP identified as being
the most contaminated are designated as open space. This mitigation measure is also
implemented through development review requirements and compliance with Fire Department
and RWQCB requirements.
Public Services and Utilities
No significant impacts associated with public services or utilities were identified in the program
EIR for the proposed project.
Cultural Resources
Impact CR-1: Potential Damage to or Destruction of Known and/or Unknown Cultural
Resources
Different types of cultural resources throughout the planning areas could be affected by
activities proposed within the Airport and Margarita Areas and the related facility master plan
areas. For example, archaeological sites are susceptible to damage during excavation.
Generally, the scientific value of archaeological sites is in the information that can be extracted
about past lifestyles. Any activity that moves, removes, or destroys aspects of a site will
compromise that information. The historic built environment and historic landscape are also
quite susceptible to impacts associated with activities proposed underthe specific plans. For
example, any activity that destroys or alters the physical makeup of structures or the setting in
which they exist, including, but not limited to, the construction of new structures, will
compromise the integrity of these resources.
Previous cultural resource field surveys have identified a wooden barn in the Airport Area
and a cluster of four stone mortars in the Margarita Area Although.individual projects have not
been proposed,resources associated with these findings may be adversely affected by individual
projects. Impacts on these cultural resources could result from ground disturbance associated
with infrastructure development and construction of new structures, roads, and underground
utilities.
Implementation of the proposed project would entail. reuse of the area for residential,
service and manufacturing, commercial, office, public, open space, recreational, infrastructure,
and underground utilities. Ground disturbance associated with infrastructure development and
Fazdings of Fad and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lass Obispo
for rhe Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plmu and 33 October2004
Related Facilities MatterPlmu �J
( — L 0
Attachment 6
--J Exhibit A
construction of new structures, access roads, and underground utilities could have an impact on
known or unknown cultural resources;therefore,this impact is considered sign,ficant.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure CR-1.1. Protect Known and/or Unknown Cultural Resources.
The City will ensure that the project proponent implements the following measures before
and during development of specific.projects proposed under the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans and the related facility master plans. Specific measures
include the following:
■ Conduct Surveys of Unsurveyed Areas. Before implementing project activities,
pedestrian surveys will be conducted to locate and record cultural resources.
■. Evaluate Resources within the Project Areas. Resources in the planning areas that
cannot be avoided will be evaluated. Additional research and test excavations, where
appropriate, will be undertaken-to determine whether the resource(s) meets CEQA or
NRNP significance criteria. Impacts on significant resources that cannot be avoided
will.be mitigated in consultation with the lead agency for the project. Possible
mitigation measures include:
- a data recovery program consisting of archaeological excavation to retrieve the
important data from archaeological sites;
development and implementation of public interpretation plans for both prehistoric
and historic sites;
preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, or reconstruction of historic structures
according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for Treatment of Historic
Properties;
construction of new structures in a manner consistent with the historic character of
the region; and
treatment of historic.landscapes according to the Secretary of Interior Standards for
Treatment of Historic Landscapes.
If the project involves a federal agency, and is therefore subject to a Memorandum of
Agreement, the inventory, evaluation, and treatment processes will be coordinated with
that federal agency to ensure that the work conducted will also comply with Section 106
of the NHPA.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovem&ng Considerations - - City of San Ills Obispo'
for the Abporr Area and Margarita Area specific Plans and 34 October2004
Related Facilities Master Plans r
� - AttachinPnt 6
Exhibit A
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The. City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. Implementation of the mitigation measure
will occur as part of the development review process, guided by the policies and objectives of.the
City's Historical Resource Preservation Program Guidelines.
Cumulative Impacts
Because of the program-level nature of the project, cumulative impacts are considered in
each of the sections of Chapter 3 of the program EIR (and the project's significant impacts are
discussed above for each resource topic listed). The project directly implements policies and
plans adopted by the City,including the City General Plan. This EIR analysis uses the projection
approach to cumulative impact analysis, supplemented by the policies contained in the proposed
Airport Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan. The projection approach to
cumulative impact analysis involves considering the project effects in light of the effects
summarized in an adopted general plan or related planning document that is designed to evaluate
regional or areawide conditions" (State CEQA Guidelines, Section 1513O[b][1][B].) The
analysis is based on the assumption that the cumulative impacts analysis of the general plan EIR
provides an appropriate and adequate base for analysis of future development and cumulative
impacts associated with the proposed project. In certain instances,the Airport Area Specific Plan
and Margarita Area Specific Plan propose changes to what is currently identified in the adopted
general plan. Where there are conflicts between the adopted general plan and the proposed
specific plans,policies are proposed in the form of mitigation to reduce cumulative impacts.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. Except for the two impacts
listed below, the City finds that the mitigation measures proposed above are feasible and have
been adopted to reduce the cumulative impacts. This document will become a working part of
the development review process to insure implementation of the required mitigation measures.
Finding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City fords that no feasible mitigation is
available for the following cumulative impacts and that these cumulative impacts are significant
and unavoidable:
Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban_Uses
Impact LU-6: Change in Views
A statement of overriding consideration for these impacts is made in Section 6.
Growth Inducement
Impact: Increased Growth and Additional Secondary Growth-Related Impacts
The project will result in the potential future development of the Airport and Margarita
areas for residential, commercial, industrial, park, and open space uses. This includes the use of,
approximately 357.9 hectares (884.4 acres) for urban uses, including development of
Findings of Fara and Simement of Overriding Considerations City of Sm Lais Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area specific Plans and35 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
approximately 868 residential units for approximately 2,015 people. However, the project
directly implements policies and plans adopted by the City,including the City General Plan. The
growth-inducement analysis is based on the assumption that the growth-inducing impacts
analysis of the City General Plan EIR provides an appropriate and adequate base for analysis of
future development and growth-inducing impacts associated with the proposed project.
landscape. The impact is considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation
Implementation of the adopted policies in the City's general plan and mitigation measures
in the General Plan EIR (aimed at reducing the secondary effects of growth), combined with
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in Chapter 3 of the program EIR and the
policies contained in the Airport Area Specific Plan and Margarita Area Specific Plan will
reduce the secondary effects of growth associated with the proposed adoption of these specific
plans and related facilities master plans. However, these impacts would not be reduced to less-
than-significant levels. The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing
impact. Short of denying the project,there is no feasible mitigation.
Finding: No Feasible Mitigation is Available. The City finds that no feasible mitigation is
available and that this impact is significant and unavoidable. A statement of overriding
consideration for this impact is made in.Section 6..
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San lair Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 36 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plan
_ Attachment 6
Exhibit A
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Introduction
As identified in Section 4 of this document, the proposed project will cause the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur:
■ Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses in the Airport
and Margarita areas and the Storm Drain MasterPlan area.
■ Impact LU-6`. Change in Views from a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape in
the Airport and Margarita areas.
Growth Inducement: The project.would have a significant and unavoidable growth-
inducing impact.
Because the proposed project will cause significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to
occur as identified above, the City must consider the feasibility of any environmentally superior
alternatives to the project, as proposed. The City must evaluate whether one or more of these
alternatives could substantially lessen or avoid the unavoidable significant environmental effects.
As such, the environmentally superiority and feasibility of each alternative to the project is
considered in this section. Specifically, this section evaluates the effectiveness of these .
alternatives in reducing the significant and unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Description of the Alternatives
The program EIR for the project evaluates the following four alternatives to the project.
Alternative 1
Under Alternative 1, the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved
northerly. The airport is excluded from the Plan area. Additionally,land to the south and west of
the airport is excluded from the plan area. The total Airport Plan area is reduced by 140.3
hectares (346.6 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution of land
uses within the plan area is modified as shown in Table S-1 and Figure 2-4 of the program EIR
and outlined below. The boundaries of the Margarita Area Specific Plan remain largely
unchanged. However, the land uses within the plan area are modified as shown in Table 5-2 of
the program EIR and shown below:
■ designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium-Density
Residential, 136.1 hectares (336.4 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 20.8
hectares (51.4 acres)of Business Park, and 103.8 hectares (256.6 acres) of Recreation
and Open Space for a total Airport Area of 263.8 hectares (652.0) acres;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - City of San Iris Obispo
for dw Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 37 October 2OO4
Related Facilities Master Plans
Hlzacninent 6 j
Exhibit A
n designation of the Margarita Area for 71.1 hectares (175.6 acres)of Open Space, 10.9
hectares (26.9 acres) of parks, 40.4 hectares (99.8 acres) of Residential, 0.60 hectare
(1:5 acres) of Neighborhood Commercial,0.40 hectare (1.0 acre)of Special Use, 17.5
hectares (43.2 acres) of Business Park, and 27.7 hectares (68.4 acres) of Streets for a
total Margarita Area of 168.6 hectares (416.4 acres);
■ extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road;
m extension of Prado Road to.Broad Street;
■ construction of a roadway connection between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado
Road; and
■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
Alternative 2
Under Alternative 2 the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved
slightly south at the Airport to correspond to County Land Use designation boundaries. The
airport is excluded from the Plan area. The total Airport Plan area is reduced by 39.0 hectares
(963 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution of land uses
within the plan area is modified as shown in Table 5-3 and Figure 2-5 of the program EIR and
summarized below. No change is made to the land uses or boundaries of the Margarita Area
Specific Plan.
■ designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium-Density
Residential, 204.0 hectares (504.2 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 29.3
hectares (72.4 acres)of Business Park, 120.3 hectares (297:3 acres) of Recreation and
Open Space, and 8.4 hectares (20.8 acres) for Agriculture and Open Space for a total
Airport Area of 365.1 hectares(902.3 acres);
■ designation of the Margarita Area for 680 hectares(169.0 acres)of Open Space, 22.6
hectares (55.7 acres) of parks, 30.3 hectares (74.9 acres) of Residential, 0.9 hectare
(2.1 acres)of Neighborhood Commercial,0.40 hectare(1.0 acre)of Special Use, 27.9
hectares (68.8 acres)of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres)of Streets for a total
Margarita Area of 169.4 hectares (418.5 acres);
o extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road;
■ extension of Prado Road(in the Margarita area)to Broad Street;
■ extension of Prado Road to Tank Farm Road; and
■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - - :.. -City 4S=Lis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 38 Ocrober 2004
Related Faculties Master Plmu
1 - �3
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Alternative 3
Under Alternative 3, the southerly boundary of the Airport Area Specific Plan is moved
south along the length of the southerly boundary to correspond to County Land Use designation
boundaries. The airport is excluded from the Plan area. The total Airport Plan area is increased
by 70.5 hectares (174.1 acres). In addition to changes in the plan area boundary, the distribution
of land uses within the plan area is modified as shown in Table 5-4 and Figure 2-6 of the
program EIR and summarized below. No change is made to the land uses or boundaries of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan.
■ designation of the Airport Area for 3.1 hectares (7.6 acres) of Medium-Density
Residential, 140:5 hectares (347.2 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 132.0
hectares (326.1 acres) of Business Park, 117.6 hectares (290.6 acres) of Recreation
and Open Space, and 81.4 hectares (201.2 acres) for Agriculture and Open Space for
a total Airport Area of 474.6 hectares (1,172.7 acres);
E designation of the Margarita Area for 68.4 hectares (169.0 acres) of Open Space, 22.6
hectares (55.7 acres) of parks, 30.3 hectares (74.9 acres) of Residential, 0.9 hectare
(2.1 acres)of Neighborhood Commercial,0.40 hectare (1.0 acre) of Special Use,27.9 .
hectares (68.8 acres)of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres) of Streets for a total
Margarita Area of 169.4 hectares (418.5 acres);
■ extension of Prado Road to Madonna Road;
® extension of Prado Road(in the Margarita area)to Broad Street;
0 construction of a roadwayconnection between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado
Road;
® extension of Los Osos Valley Road from South Higuera Street to Broad Street; and
■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuem Street.
Alternative 4: No-Project
As required by CEQA, this EIR evaluates the environmental consequences of not
proceeding with the. project. Under this alternative, no specific plans or facility plans are
adopted for the Airport and Margarita Areas. The City General Plan would not allow urban
development within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans. As such,
no further subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas.
The No-Project Alternative would not accomplish the City's fundamental goal of implementing
the General Plan. The City evaluated the concept of not developing the Airport and Margarita
- Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Cmuidermions City of San Ibis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pim and 39 October 2004
Related FaeiGfies Master Plans
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Areas for urban uses during the General Plan and General Plan EIR processes and consideration
of no further development is considered to be adequately addressed within these documents.
Effectiveness of Alternatives in Avoiding Project Impacts
This section evaluates the effectiveness of the alternatives in reducing the significant and
unavoidable impacts of the proposed project.
Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
Although Alternative 1 would result in fewer total acres of land converted, none of the
reduced acreage is prime farmland. Therefore, the impact would remain significant. and
unavoidable under Alternative 1.
Alternatives 2, 3, and the No-Project Alternative would avoid the conversion of prime
farmland. Therefore, under Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, the significant unavoidable impact of
conversion of prime farmland could be avoided. However, Alternatives 2 and 3 are not
consistent with the City's current urban reserve and greenbelt and Alternative 3 is not consistent
with current water, wastewater, and stormwater collection and distribution plans. Furthermore,
Alternative 4 would not comply with the City or.County general plans.
Impact LU-6: Change in Views
Alternatives 1, 2, and 3 would result in the same significant unavoidable changes in
views from a semi-rural landscape to an urban landscape in the Airport and Margarita areas as
the proposedproject;development would still occur under,these alternatives as under the project.
Under the No-Project Alternative, the General Plan would not allow urban development
within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans. As such, no further
subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas.
Implementation of this alternative would, therefore, eliminate this significant unavoidable
impact However,Alternative 4 would not comply with the City or County general plans.
Impact: Increased Growth and Additional Secondary Growth-Related Impacts
With the exception of the No-Project Alternative, the alternatives to the project would
result in essentially the same significant unavoidable growth inducement impacts associated with
the proposed project. Under the No-Project Alternative,the General Plan would not allow urban
development within the Airport and Margarita Areas until adoption of specific plans. As such,
no further subdivision or urban development would be expected within the specific plan areas.
Implementation of this alternative would, therefore, eliminate this significant unavoidable
impact However, Alternative 4 would,not comply with the City or County general plans.
• Findings of Fact and Statement of Overndmg Considerations City of San Lau Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plan and 40 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plan
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
Environmentally Superior Alternative and Feasibility of Project Alternatives
As described above, Altematives 2, 3, and 4 (No-Project Alternative) would avoid the
significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the proposed project and
Alternative4 would avoid all three significant unavoidable impacts caused by the project. As
such,this section determines whether Alternatives, 2, 3,or 4 are environmentally superior to the
proposed project, and if so,whether they are feasible.
Finding: The Proposed Project is Environmentally Superior to Alternative 2
Alternative 2 would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact
of the proposed project but would not substantially lessen the other environmental impacts of the
project. Moreover, this alternative would result in additional significant and unavoidable
impacts associated with expansion beyond its current urban reserve,would not maintain an open
space greenbelt around the City, and would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Prado
Road/South Higuera Street intersection. Therefore, this alternative is not environmentally
superior to the project and the City need not make a feasibility determination of the alternative.
Finding: The Proposed Project is Environmentally Superior to Alternative 3
Similar to Alternative 2, Alternative 3 would avoid the significant unavoidable prime
farmland conversion impact of the proposed project. However, as described above for
Alternative 2, this alternative would result in additional significant and unavoidable impacts
associated with expansion beyond its current urban reserve, would not maintain anopen space
greenbelt around the City, and would result in unacceptable levels of service at the Prado
Road/South Higuera Street intersection, the Tank.Farm Road/Broad Street intersection, and the
Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 northbound ramps. Therefore, this alternative is not
environmentally superior to the project and the City need not make a feasibility determination of
the alternative.
Finding: Infeasible to Adopt No-Project Alternative(Alternative 4)
The No-Project Alternative is the only alternative that could avoid all of the significant
unavoidable impacts of the project and would not introduce new significant and unavoidable
impacts. However, the No-Project Alternative does not comply with the designated land uses for
the project area of either the City of County. The No-Project Alternative would not accomplish
the City's fundamental goal of implementing the .General Plan. Moreover, the No-Project
Alternative fails to meet the City's basic objectives for the project, and thus is infeasible as a
means in of satisfying those objectives. The City, therefore, finds this alternative to be infeasible
to implement.
Fin&ngs of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for rhe Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 41 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plan + ,n
-� Attachment 6
' Exhibit A
SECTION 6. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
Introduction
The program EIR for the project identifies the following significant and unavoidable impacts of
the project:
■ Impact LU-5; Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
■ Impact.LU-6: Change in Views
■ Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth-
inducing impact.
For projects which would result in significant environmental impacts that cannot be avoided,
CEQA requires that the lead agency balance.the benefits of these projects against the
unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the projects. If the benefits
of these projects outweigh the unavoidable impacts, those impacts may be considered acceptable
(CEQA Guidelines Section 15093[a]). CEQA requires that,before adopting such projects,the
public agency adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations setting forth the reasons why the
agency finds that the benefits of the project outweigh the significant environmental effects
caused by the project This statement is provided below.
Required.Findings
The City has incorporated all feasible mitigation measures into the project. Although
these measures will significantly lessen the unavoidable impacts listed above,the measures will
not fully avoid these impacts.
The City has also examined a reasonable range of alternatives to the project. Based on
this assessment, the City has determined that none of these alternatives is environmentally
superior or more feasible than the project
Alternative 1 would result in essentially the same impacts as the project. Alternatives 2
and 3 would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the project.
However, Alternatives 2 and 3 would result in additional significant and unavoidable impacts on
land use and traffic that can be avoided by implementing the project. Alternative 4 (No-Project
Alternative)would avoid many of the significant impacts of the project,but is not considered
feasible.
In preparing this statement of Overriding Considerations,the City has balanced the
benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks. For the reasons
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pt=and 42 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Plans
I
Attachment 6
Exhibit A
.specified below,the City finds that the following considerations outweigh the proposed project's
unavoidable environmental risks:
■ Provision of new jobs: The project would create_ new construction related and
permanent jobs in the project area. Approximately 2.8 million square feet of
commercial floor area could be developed in the Airport Area over the 34 years
expected to be the build-out horizon for the project. This would result in new jobs
targeted to include the kinds of higher paying jobs that are needed to support a
household within the City.
■ Open Space and Natural Resource protection: Implementation of the project
would result in the creation of open space protection, conservation, and restoration
policies and the designation of 494 acres of open space and recreation in the project
area. The land use designation,together with the policies,will ensure that areas in the
vicinity of the City are reserved for future residents' recreational use and aesthetic
benefits. Significant protections for natural resources, including special status plant
and animal species, are incorporated into the project to reduce potentially significant
impacts to less than significant levels. Some of these protections would only be
possible through the controlled implementation of the project.
Provision of adequate public facilities for the region: The master facilities plans
for the project will ensure that there are no shortfalls for water supply and distribution
facilities, stormdrain, and wastewater facilities.
■ Implementation of the General Plan: The project implements_a major portion of
the General Plan by allowing for the annexation of the Airport Area. The annexation
will allow the City to pursue its existing policies for the area such as greenbelt
protection, transit service, business park development, the creation of high quality
public and private facilities to support the on-going service of the Airport to the
region, and growth management.
Accordingly, the City finds that the project's adverse, unavoidable environmental impacts are
outweighed by these considerable benefits.
Dated: ,2005
Dave Romero
Mayor,City of San Luis Obispo
Findings of Fact and Swentem of Overriding Considerations City of San lids Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Spenf c Plata and 43 October 2004
Related Facilities Master Platy
� - fig
_ Attachment 6
r bsR - 0rm
< c coo 70_A .0 .o o �'„ C CD o o coo C x
A
c a co O 0 O y ° a o w n .O, d o' w m CD
o D y ° y ° a o ° D ( °- w ° n o = n' E a � - c oo
rn p' 00 O w O w 00 m C -: y V0 w C w A 7 y S 7 (D S m -� f0
"O w d n O y ^ W = ._ G Cw^p N °" A S (D K C. cc 0 =�, Al
a =. n .. po CD m I x o = d
3 n I g E a N W v� iD n c"o on. (� eo 0 o m C c c o.n� cSD .. �D v
a c f D w �D w eVeci - '^o ^i .- C" coo o. e ft a`� r c o s
..O w •a p.;'D y oy CD 0
w =' y 7' -wj �'! .S+ n y b -yj-S ( CD y 7 0 V] w .�.. yv. "-h '� �A7
C1 ° .i o00 =.ao m � M CL w I � C a y O y � DrD � o 0
,nw„ n °, y �' O c°o N p y r a'ro ! CD Ntoo, Cna C) roo CDD �e 'C ;? n d y 7
v o c 7 CD w ^3 O CD CD
= 0 tvM o CD d y Co CD
00 O < Z) (fin w �•A m CD N d.^ 0 7 " o T p £..O w O c3o X
f w o w 61
a r d CD
0 y � 7a m � w � m "0 T� a r' `<-•°°
CD T .. a ,. Cl. s w y a CD ❑ co
O N y y O ( o io coD n M d ' o �' F, s e F CD s C m
CD CD.o o iA a � ( Win ., o O o w m
7 v
CD o m O
ao CDa 0.
w " ^oa -•, o X70. oCD � oawCDD °e
a CD CD7 y M coo .° wvo y o - C' w o O 7 (_� ? o
• CDD 0�0, '-n po'poo. C ^ m O^ w CCD C7 ' CD CCD CD A C-D v " `<_ C •7'
fw/� CD CD
F '�_ O �' 'Qy j fA .+ ->� R SCD .�qy
O 00 CD a7 ^ CD
�' .`3 C. o w 3 ' S N 'D w CD d w C C. 7 CD
CD rA CD W
E2. O.0. CD `R• CD y 00 C o O �. w �cro < 7 C.
cn w a o c e<e -n ° cvD a °' _ o i
Attach,nent 6
.v °�, x
0. ■ ■ ■ Q n H o c ■ ■ w' 3
O O\ O N v' £ n D'• SCD °= Q
r —n O
co ,-0 x n s io (� UQ a- w cco a < w+ : c m
Coo to o ? ° w -we p a T < < ., 0 m ° Cao w
•°•n,9 a = -, c �; R y =. C ?• o. CO CD c �; a o y -°n w •aar cSc ^. o CD '
SW0 < M aoCD 2m `" CD oD a o < o a0. eo <CD CD El o p;
CD CL 0 0
CD CD w
a ! a° D ' ° • � — Co c ° m c o - Qvwc ^000
00 a a Co ID w orn w y " ❑ CD o°c
vw c o C� a = " �
•z "• 0
-�
eNe I y a •, w °: ii N y ? w o v �e tSo w c m T m
isoy ° 7 CD CD -. � � n c 00 o � Dy o
S w w y a = n w = o w o a ° o 0 < c
w m v CL y $ tiooCD
m c a S m
ao sc y y ?o° `� m .ws. El 9 o -*I ° `-° CD
s o c 0 n CD ° ° cSo w c o y CD �a C S o Q.
CD 2; E
w oo' < a d cso �< vw o c CD CD CD ° y
mco
y io �• ccon S CD G ED T ? Bees `< ^. �_ p,
s m i � opo, = o _c. to o =. cL c ='� CD ° a CD ° y
w CT o v o = 7.' CD tCD ° n
m tCD �. ee w .a O^ �; c o
CD.+ -, cc Cro co aCD ^ < , �t ara < w a p -
o °
CL rA
0 CL w CD
CD w to o Q ? v v o d a s a ti -n •� Up
s c o
a < o 0 0 0 o m o to m n o t-° ao' w co m o
o S w o o w o �° cc w o D CSD o
i• c n m f c o coo 00 _� o
a w i o -• a y w o 0 0 0 , m a 3 c
"C3 =II. _ .w dq ? o m w w .n.. .0 v. �' n' j 7 0 ^.. y J
'00 CD
CCD O S d tie << vwi C
o m CD C) o o; c a � ti � 0' n ..
tic y y c»o to '+ CD o ti
o °= o
ro ro I 'o ro � o c
0 3. 1 ~oo
0
o rCD o co 0
0 0 °o
I
I
o � fig ;
f 2
cc
i 3
ao
o ,
"m � '
° cam ' 0 moo.
j =
y'•e j y'� j
1
pro 2 0 o� �. o C g 2 0
Itz
CD 7' ' w 0. 0' 6.00 L�'C .Cn•. bo CD y N fG
00 I o _. a' ° co I to
CD 0
10
CD
o Lri
Attach.hlent 6
B C7 F. A n to m
�. "" _ ° ❑ x
o o oa co o caoc°o F 0 o o °
rD o < O
t. ° o CD a C ^. N S 0 `O " K S a C n . w ^ w x CD
n CD N cr
CD
neo = y vC ° � -+ a� cD F � �� ° C = na0. ^
°' ^ m. c'CD C .0.. "• 00 �. °' ° CmD. O y CO 'a �.• �. ° c=D G n
cD w° •°cD o o ao y o B B c. B: g O a F
° m' y
o a•o CD ° , _a CD
in ° ft .. C w o S o a c
c c d y C@ o o m y a �' c0.^D CD n ° `D OQ
n a
y °
CD C-D
00 O C CaD �• •C7 •-n „� y CD :' fOi
_• O .y'. h 7 A}' Zv Ll O A• S M O A> > A� OL7 C _
y O CL
CD S ^,� d O CD ^. L:.
A
CD
C " C 0 „� O 000 n 00 �� m m O y y O m C1 -n .+ O
S n CD CD C y O CD fD �. "J' y O cr C^ "i S
d CD n '� �' .M.. m O C1 0. O ° m ° -C, °' CD C
a n y cD m n o .,
° - � i CD co ° � s B nE. m o o
p < V1 O N 'C O CC+D �• CD E. N O (p CD ^
n =CD -0 = ( ° o c c n
b
° •,
o cco o o
rQ
o co m CFD 7 c°D
5 s C. _ o Co
CD CDCD 0 CL
a o •. n ° aQ w o y o CD
o sy
CD o c ° fl,
CD CPD
CDD .e CDD
qQ
_ 7 S C CD
S
T CD 00'
CD N O N
o ro o c
o CD o CD c
o , o 0 CD o
CD CD
rz 3
o `CD o
oC,CD CDo
CD
3 �
oQ
0
� c -- v[id � ^' � Da o
__.l<
w 0.OQ M m G.QQ p7 '•�
w• p CD �. H p CD �.
m 7' m
OD
< < CA
0_
Attachment 6
a w co, o 0
A ►� . w 0 s y Co' C7 ° a c
N H O O O
S nw N m G "*� G. ? CA O m CD O
Co m ° co s o < n c < g s a =CD
° w o o CD = ° c Co
2 CCD �, LUQ ana=a cr� `° ° m ^o 0 v < c r=noCD
-a
0 = S � E- sc, y Ccon• S w ° > � O ^oocu Cs `° ° o. m
Co CL Cc H f . ,n •b w 4. O. w v ^ .e m s = Co C
o < :., y cc a O c -n cc = CD to
G. CD O '� n CD = "O w O ?' n w O 't O CL
0. -n a .o cc o 3. ° CD rA nN CD
CD CD S' o cr . w
CD n w 00 bo 0° n CD CD co cNo CD c' °= .a 3• _ ry— o b -,C
o
o Fr .�^. p o 2 o cru k c w CD 0 . 2 Cron * cso cD �•
aw °c io sa �_ o c = a �' � ,CDov3 o'D c o <Ne � w � c3o a
csoo � o � ° 2cco ' ? oo_ 'a � aa � c coo3 "" y+ � °a = � a
.. ° > = o y co _ Co 0
3 C S O -� .O+ a C OQ.
_ '.t ° yi O ^ 7 ° �' w 'O w N S f^D O. .�' O
CD w
CD nO O
CD
cac ° caro �^ a� � `D c`o P' °s' t
CD
3 f .00. .�• ...CD dw O n 00< O d y o n pq' O 0 a
sic c :; °, o CD f3' a aCD N CD c CD c ° � a
y w ° n ^ 7 7 w
Q 7 .» 7' C d• CO .w+ 3 ?;, O' £ y
CD "• fD CD w S UQ O. ^. < c w 7 i A �' ^' : w ¢• i •O
(<D b0 CT y O 2 = S ^ = N y CD 00 OQ �' �. "= ,D 7 C w c
a c <•� �' n o ^o c �• � w � � � T o•,00 f fD
a. o b y Cn Co
od = cu' o = a = n oCo ❑
CD CFQ w CD
wy sw S3 %< o 3. _ b = n y o
occc � °° O � noo pO 'v°E. n � CCDD o = 0yyy0 CD
CD
aoa
cDca � ° y n C1 M y �+ y a o'
0
^o
0 C
o c
occ a
o C, 0 5'
•o ro b 3
c < tc
c 3
Cr
tro
yoyOQ n � 0
o.
w �
o0
w a ao
2 N' 'o 3
c �
Co' o a Co 00
ca
A _ CD
0
Attachment 8
m
w a
F, = y U) G� , W w ^ CCD m .0 c sc CD rl
^ r ' sy -. 0 f. o ' W
O Cj p C C CD o' ? S C C n w C O C o' CD ^• CD p ,
OC
CD
S cn cn CD C N' N �. CD <• ° OQ �i O p < w
SmCCDD v y o o B CDN n n � =R ow, n 5' fDa �' C. CL N CD a
Cp C 0< �- .0 C• C 00 y' �. (� S 0. `� O O 'L7 �• COD Cw^D CD
'fl CD (D C. O O n N .t C ° 3• .p+ N_ ^ w n (D
D CD — a w °a Cc' a C m ,' - ry°(p H = w o o°_o m' .�. c CCD f �. y ^ n
w 0 CD N i � .+ S O 7 N' C'� p� O 0? OQ N• = = (D .0 c n 7
^. 7' S (S CD O n B OQ :+ .0 ,� Fi N N �• O — 7 O .+
R 3 w w c F QQ �' -* CD o .: n n n & CD d ' c CaD
c _
N fl w
w y w o°_Q n CD. co �" CD c" o' w 44 < A I °: > > < a
O CS vi' CD .^N' y 0 � O Cpi ?�. C. CCDCD OQpr S O "• .N+ ^ w d F. p' d
_ CD
o o c
0 C `•3G ^ N w (D N O N �.�G O CCDD Ct
T d y N
CD 3 - -� w �• 0 OQ ID :. S O
ry4. .w. fOi S On O S CD O N. CD CD O CCD G='O W i+ OQ•^o y v
w O p 0 C CDF O 7 N n 0 O d ^• CD
0 c S O
� � o � n a w � _ o N w .0 CD CL o ° e = = y. acD. Q.
dQ CO
R Cl. CPD
£ < < 7C N c bo w n CD << a CD , .. 0. �^ = N — n S
CD ? C, CD o �• rb m . AOi CD M. 7 3 3 0 .0=•. O CSD N (�D n
c
Cr CD _ CD
CD oQ
NC3 n 00 CSp m n wO = ° = " CD °� C<D n 7 C CD S =' o
0 O 0 .y 0 C N 0 O ^ <.ti 0 0 "+i CD CD O
n CD �,. (D t1 O S C N O a' o
N off ^ CD 0. yf Oy ° n o ao
S OQ b 0 CD
0 y fS d4 0 a< �' CD 0' S c .•t C a- n. 0
CSO
ca. C '' < N w `< dw 0. y CD
'•t ° 0 0 0 — CDO w 0 y 0 S S F O G N. 7 N OQ
CD w 0 S � w tiQ a CD T (PD -;' C�'D °° C" CD n -- ^. Cf Di
c y S o v T o w ee S o
w cm
CD CD eb x
CL
S ^ n 7 N
� ro Cn n7
o c
c �. c
"OroI � 3
C)CD
^ 3
° o
� y1z; Cro o
y• 'm �c � L7I >
CA�
w i
Q
7 ' RQ
i
�/Q L
Ln0
�J
43
Attachi•nent 6
o ^o ^o °' o .o p o. c ry m CCTD CCPD m
0 CD
co o ■ ■ ■ 0co 0m �. � CDmo � °CDc
NI CD a�' 0 CD CD
i.+ ! so Co CCC S � g n cr a `< r C w C=D .SCD
co G7 o -on y R cu S o o w. . ' = a x
< I w O I ci �+ CD
coo [CD' C/T�J C c� n s v cso '0 s coo eb a vw
(aD CT O C n CD 0. 0 S O O S ?ww CD m fSD �'9 O ,9 a
o � a `tea R Q � 'O o `� so .o y ° �' CD C0
A b n7 o S 0 ^3 c 0. CD ooa m vo, w ? m o o
O w w o n0 ^ N fD ,w_„ �-- p. CD z O .w^.. .* a w R b ^n L7 i?D n
w G ti CD
w �' w ^',.y (D �e CD O ,D CD fD N o `'� "0 .� 3*
Oa � w`? v o l ?: n c co � o � = i9 CD m
TR � i Cw. ob cso fDn, m� ' ►17 n
T ! c O s c o w ., o' o
C CD O O S CD ^ 'C jw s S CD n •(m " w _. O 't G
CD =CD =
S = c ( w `o - ;; 3 C'D y o o ov ao --. via
V1 m N• G ?nOQ
'fl �' ,D �. R CD ? F 7 .0 COD 'S 7 ^p ? O
^n � CD v CD o _ c a N n O w v CD m d
n n SCD y ° .d ii :: < o Co CD °= n W n^-. ani o v°, m
'fl CD n v n
D p, oo '' c n ^°o CD w p < n B y -ft f w FDD' ° :^ CD" 7 "
nC = eD `; T = w N Ln CD 3ID ,CD CL CD „�� � M c c w °'' cu o = a 3
co �° w w ° w �'' yCD = o waw a CDD m m
n o f b7 a Cmn o £ o o T o c 0 Doo o a = ri n o
sa- o' o Co w B sCDO
_. w SO m
CD 7 S W O S.c CD .. S m a C
,< CD o cw �D w ” aC.DCD», w =; � o . cTvCiS' =� �
07 i rD I, CD n ° b ., F=- o 0 o C o o CD C:6
c °
4 ! N C O n C 'o CA =+ CD n• n < C 0 00 °=
cD CD c w- YCl CD
c C � 0. o- o c<D .� °• c F CD 3 �CD . 'o' �n3 w o
N n ❑
cDo y i w s < o m CD m�O o r d n n. m
a o CD o CC<D s u B �°. w ao( CL a s
O N O ? 0 CD
O CD 7 CD 0
B �n = N
o CSD
o c
o �o 0 0 ! o o c 7
o CD o CD 1 o CD a
7 a 7 ^. i 7 0 CD 'p
CD CD CD CfQ
I
i
I.
O O O C' O O `� A
7 .n•. 7 .n+ CD .�..
ICD �
� 7
I �
i
riCC Ooua OC" nC0 a
o n IFC, l � y. �' "n o
y O = f7 j o ° En' O
Cn_ - LO).
C3 I o ac
aDPQ to aaa tz aD� w
in p CD H 'pO 2 7 p O
r2N ^. Cl CL ! ^. CT afD m
fD CD Cn
7 7 y (IQ 7 Cro CD
Cs
O_
I I CA
I ��
Attachr-cPnt E
0 0 ! ••
FC7 ° 5 CJ _Y SCC F 3 _a " c� 2: 3
0 c ., I ofy. o o .. 3 w m
= 0. 0 � `-°+ o = 0 a � G w o 00. :r -• ^. � � G �' � y � no'
I m a o o � ba cD oc p
=r rD
O w G = cu i+ c cc �. ;s ►� w o cSo °: p: a. 'vrD
CD n CD
B CD s c°^o a F o N ° n S �"r w 2. j o w 9 w I ° y' y � 3 �
° ceti o bUQ CD
Q.
�' m o 3 D' fo O - = na w < c o ^ ° 0 ° ° o ( 3 �'
CD R. �. CDCDcD w ° - d w O. ° CD
m w woo CD Q
$ aCD Q
'o n - Fr
i n m °. m o ? a CD wx �, £ °�w s m bG
^ �y g y
7 �_ 7 `O CD C w (D G : w Vl S G '�: P7 y C. Q C CILI. C. y+ [� O
�n O CD n m F S C c S� y 3 w < CD
CD f7 CD ,. O _ CD w
mo °ate ^�
ft � � flyCD 0 rQf '°^' o fo CM CD CD
m
S n w S CL
CD CD mm CD
CD 7 B _ iD o -- .* ? n o f o ID 5 O o o ti
O N .O-. - S .C.. N O r. �. ,0.,.•OQ vCDi O 3i N w C V] '.7.'Lf „ ,-, O Y C
`9o, s� E - .0 , � >n CL :r 0 s o 0 w w o i m l °) c 0 �
5' � > >•iro'o -. CDD o zs CD �' CD n c-- m o a y. `,D�-D �D LI)
� a � o
f g' ^
Fr . 0 uo w n S c ..d < F w c d < e
`° CD
=R = :o = °=. ac F o n � w to o sm � o ° � a ^ o o by . ° w ao
o
CD ccD ^C ° y A N a0.
° w O. :' �_ CD po u C�1 ° CD
.- a 3 w
`D c CD 1 c o B o 'i7 c rA o
g ac � � 7 F w w o Q °= CD
C) Y ,ccD. < C ( ccDUQ w n
a w o = o o
CD w o m c' CDD
co E a c 3 c w o , o a o - _ a _. w
aCD n om =. � w U ao ao owo m y.o `° �' ° m y CD
CL CD m Eg 7 CD co
v' c o a n A ,cDc D n a F CD
R = a CD cRD S v° a
yr w CD S C eD F n w o ° v CDa
c w "fl O o' as o C oo �p CD CD CD CL n CD
'' S , co = w • m
m c °' [� corn o � �o �`�' y b 'o CD y , m ? ° H ° £ Iz
c� co Fr CD
- c�'o m C9 m 5 �D aIQ CD
co W� 0 CD 0 0
o °'
MCD
y Q y O N C
Cn ^11
ti
O C
OA, Oma.
O n O N O
O
O ^ ^ O R N U.
7 7 7
b
O O O O O
N CD CD CD
00
0rnc: 0r a0 a
n
ti�n � cn � cn
3 7 7 0a
I
:0 n.as w 0 a on py cm a(IQ w n .3
y C O .+ h p O .. H p 0
Z EC O
. ci ^: C n. 'm ^: c iD C. 7 CD
H om
: �
y y (' 0 H
l< l< v
O
I.
Cn
' r�
AttachlneritCD x
6
zr
CD
S EL( N ! ■ ■ ■ ■ "� r y
CD cr
CD
B � oo' N a°o so � o � c ° c d < Y c 0
o oc CSD °' � c oa' o CSD S� C ° — co °: Cl R o
^. aero eeDDSo e o y '" Ci7 -°nso ^' � CSD ^. c�D o .��.. ro
' a
v1 ^ t7 C1Q' 3 N' m A. S w N N , CD d A N .. m
eD
CCD 00 O 7 n' :. p CSD y N CD pSj O. y A
To N y .. N vN S ?: Co N :: jvZyCDb CSD .y'. o
To o. a oil
CD y oOQQ 0 o' ° iD Ow "' < C1 ° A mCD mw c
h N oCD
= F a S o 00 w CD r .. CD CD O a
No y ' s s 5' � . N w CD - CD CD. f S 7c ° o N
m o =° eo CD r N CL cn as—D :. m i ° CD a S CD y
r p` CD w_. _ n CD a CCrD °n CD F eD a' ^ CD
CD
? i 4. f^0 GQ SD r~i, G (NOD rC_n CQD F• W. Q.. CND '"• -Wi CD f O
d. $ N O\CD eD CD CD z C fD O N OQ
CD uo' C ! o CD "O CO o CD Cro CD
UQ o y oCD CD
CD ° = o c w ° - s CD o. y a CD sy a �. � �
O F'. A l SND N =. N y CD
7' QQ
eD .+ N < O. " CD N O— CD OQ S ? (CD
ti Q a ! 3 3 M.o = CD CD S�' w C c c° a ? o C m
iCfCO a Q =° vOi w' cu (� w °' ?� Cl. 0
o , (JQ CD
O N N .. 7 ^? qQ
CD C O f N' CD > >
m ''fl a- ° w' 4. , x. a a CD m CD f
y .07COD ° O' t7' O' .N-.. O °,-Q. S °• ° O -°n N
m
`= CSD °_ 3 CCD c CD
° CD b° 0 CD G. CJQ (D
O. _
N eeo ' co rOi, OQ y r N '3 S OQ'
° n N oCD
n ? ° y x -eCD
CD
CSD ca
° w "fir O. �• f CSD
S s a 'w T N
CD c S CD
Cao c�D v ? o N0 c
i7
a a Cy 0 c. � .9 CD• � 'c
^• CD CD
N H
.+ C 'O a. 7'a
n CD
OQ
n C) Orn Y
w_ o (7 =c - cop
.q .� 'a N �• = O
N C
i =
S f N < N CD C nm CD
g ro s f o r C
CD C s 0 CD 1 y• C CD p Cn 0 CCD ^p+ y O 3
CO � � C a � � CD
° N m' = °
cD
•CCS 000 Obi n O OD
CSD s °
Attachment 6
ay "• a s C.D. O � c x
w
y F ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ Y °c p- — o
G c'
ti c M _ C1 c g m Oo Q
7 N 7 fD �' F p w C O 7 rOii H -moi fD p•"p O ti H
=rL1 fD d fD �. (D O �' O ,� "' G v ►y
° w n ° b ° c ° w F p CD '°o m = = CD COD o
cci G Cro A c-nc y co c w y• °' " cc = �° a ° C � 0 F f m
n 3 ^o cD CD =. m cc =. ^ rr
4. F N QQ• • O w ^. co
CD .CD O C m 4. Pt• O.'C rn 6' CSD R i
n y UQ G cj' C p C y
c F = n a c' q b co oCD , g o C1
w ON rfD p �e d CD ° 4. , CCD �- n° 0-Co n 3
rA c v < m F c o w fD tz �° - ^ cp _ m
ani � 12,I n m 0 0 � a cc � � c•+ w C1 c c ° 0 � CD
c o " r. co w M ' -M CD c cc v w r' a ° e ? o a
n .n. Q_.O .+ O y O C p (D .0 y• TCDD O A C 'C = ^ fD O
pCDi OCDO O ^OCu ^p • d �. y• c �• o riQ
• 'V CDO U a- cD
O O = C� m =•.° CD ,a O m o °' O. ? '°",..�'' V S O .O. G m
p- A (D S �• O ^ '"+ N O 'fl co N ° o A
< c3y w e y CD 0' "1 ti co O c' n b o mCD 0 0 CD CDa C1
c
Er
n °CD Fo co CD � o cO °wa D
o � co o a M
du e ?a (D CD rr CD s =°• ao oA C n -6 aCD eQ
CD
CA -0
CSD y ^ a' rn DO p
0 CD .. fD O < _. SCl7
cb w ° i3 0 CD �' c ,
= 0".C p �j' O S O.' CSD CD• ^: �O-. O IQ o 0 oCD
=r .0'� = C'D .0 O .0 y "D CqQ
.,
CD co rL c f �. CD o°
� � .CDS, o = c 3 ::L a x x oo 3 ? o 0
C. Cu C QO CD G. CD CDCD
^ y_
p y g p .o, ^ O
UQ ° pr o o a = 5
rx
o v o
o c
o � o CD � a
o c CD o
cD CD to
0 0 CD
o
Oa
p 0 aoS2 aC
oor_ o vgC
n'J n7 DO
y v C y m w
7 � 7
OQ fd
H m Q CD
7 0 CID
O
,1w
V,
Attach,Hent 6
m
x
■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ S
Q
aLn 0 ° 5 oocin � r � GC1 aw (,I F3a � � o FFc � 7o y
w p R F w p < 3 p p a w " a' 9 o F CD II w CD fD cD a � 0 ,
.a mow,, ..-. �°+, N C.'O n O. ..� -Y S CD p.O �
po lD '< -� . F A pa y
0•, ^ S F A^ ,;.� F CD
CD y p CD N CD C w .fl �— w CD S ° p: F ,C•, �.
.� O S fD ^ < S Cp y p C L3. y - O C. ^. O O n ,p, 'S oq p Q
w p .ti -n p c p �' ? o D < p — CD y p o_. c _ p
CD CD _ ^t y (p
< CD .. C0 a < p n CD p ft
n ^
p CDp+ ^ °C O? ci3- o o " Op W- S
OX
n ° aoaC)0. 2.
n.
N
°, G• G C. P`CD d N w = 'G w OCQ �; C CD w CD n >1 ,f? A. CSD G_
y .e a p p �. O p w ° m F S y b y CD 5' CD a
CD CD o w w o C cD o n
S pA CCD SCD
w y 7 F,•, C �' y �' ^ D O ?� '� CD
CD CD a Vn �.. ? w w y '� .0 to w y S
CD CD ny CCD
3 y 2 C. C. p w C. C.'C y y. H 2.
3• n.
F 5 > o `< n 0 n Oa p ,�� CD � o o y y
OQ CD (D 0Cn ° F < > > o fl CD
p p O0 n: Z w - p C ^ O "O oS po =;
y Cl. 7 ^ FD. CD
CD y •�
0 CD CD
0 CD
CA A CD w w y O =CD
CL ro CD
C C Q. v D
Cw^p p7' CRD < y w kCD
W CD CD O CD S. < p:. N 3 ^ £ ^ C9
yam' ca 3 Q.
CD °cam CDw �• �� ° °ey
S GQ
w y o B c; o w w
CD
C. CQ.
'O O O w O y O '0 p „t
V. CR
e 0_ CSD o �'• v' as S CD CD
�° Co c o c
o -, m d a
"C3 CrQ CD CL ° i CSD �. s = o' a a. o o c
• y n ^ ° oo Oo
CD
o c
c
as
� 3
CD
►'a
CD
0
ov
o
o °
" o
o'
ao
�-3
� m
6'
oa MCD
1
C)
O
'Jw
` V
Attachment 6
■ ■ ° N ■ s s ■ wCD
C a
y n o o .r a C1 3 :" b r Co m o d �'•' (D ° c ° -c^, o. e C,c � y ° � � o � as ., ' w El R. � o o' er •■ o ° c� 3 � C
0 CD CD CD
oaq
ca -CD c o V = n oCD y
y y CD e w °o C i
Attachinerit 6
oos x
■ ■ ■ m co a ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ d
c w C1 c w C1 C' c CD w C7 c C1 n w ^+ (Z
S o s g -t - CD .1w w c y w R c w m o CD o _ ,oa
w —�° n'� � � is ^ o Fr E: =" ion 5 0 CD
CD O � 3 °e CD
CD
-C 3' CD `C w co a `C w C
C O. w+ .� o ""' C. < R• n Z O. C o Z " w f o Z C x CD
Z; CD r+ w = b0 N+ w -_. C ~+ O. ►+ 3 Z C ~ . n
CD o CICDG S N -O 7� w N o CL N O' N y' 7• N O O
CD y m R "j co :E -] CD v n. ^ 00' �1 O a• O, N CD c f11 A O CD O
A r- CL C ? O O N d y 7. -w•n G 3' w C CD 1 7 w 7 C.
O 0. fJQ CD
w z .o F S , R -', S °o c 3' m m n S y 3• F C?o y` o o-
CD S3' w 3CQ 0C� '' `° o o a c a u `D s .CD � 0 �'O y � � n N.
CD n A Ai CD W CCDD ct p CSD O O C' N n O n C n' O Q: O ry K O CD
cxi is o° o CD o co e 3 cr
C. c CD c <— CD C) < `< n ro o `�
OrQ CD CD a 3 a o [i7 Q . 5' c w' " CL cu ° 'O O oc c °c x
w w CD C CD G 3 CD Er .. w O fD O w O O .. CD
CD � �' �' � 3 owl ow n o :: = �CD o: o `" UQ 00
3 CD o n a a S n O o g � ° n w c ro o n o y � o � CD
�CD rjQ n < o � Vin; o--C) � y � � X �' a� 03 2 = gQ5' g
3n. 3 w �= wn SCD CD � -d � 3' m e0.CL i
f=^D d O CCD CG w (moo' ° �• O• h S-O + CD
' _. H w
5
a
E. o ocovo
' °
CD
rn CD w 0 o cr
? = CwD f �e m CD a
CD FD*
qQ (D O CD CD �' w 7 OqQ < +r^n n �' CD CCD c CD
.. f10• CSD CD G
o c CD SCD ,w, w a n y o _c
n CD CD < o
w coo n o o n d ° p �e y. o m' v CD c
CD CD T s w 5co
CL
CL S c _ o o CD
n 0 CD EL
r CD y n.
O C
c o
'n a
CD �'
ao
3
CD
0
C)
o �
C o
5'
ao
'0
o Cp
oa CD
J
N
O
f -9D
Attachment 6
■ y y o
d yO, n O y7 r-_ O dNay ?3ow N•• ■ ■ ■ c x° aC — =ryS mo
°CD o
CD � -o 0CD -n " O •0y Q^'
,._ .+ .0 .� � O
eL CD O '7 •N• (ID S'� '�' H .0•. m 3 d m G C
23
CD At CD
C S rOn A. d O C. C ! 7 G� 0 d y w y'000, f9 CDD w (T9 3
y CD Z. ..aCD .C. 0'
_ CD C• £ c o cci o y e3e a 2 �' o y Z .�. z o 0
oPe � w � � � � Fyoa _ wCD F. � o � � g °. � oC) o' ' i
G� o' a y . ao m o w
p = v F � � oer°'n ' = yc8' �.00. , o � " � mow ? C :^ ° o
7n _, o CD _ 3 n a e A CD o0 o n Cn y o
°• �' C.. CD o ^' ,Q chi CSD o o e y < CD 0 0 w S O S ^, _.
M
S m ..
CD a CD 7 CD 0 O y CDD O ro - rC. CD S CD a S v' �. v' CD O
o 0. 0 CD c a v w m a c F o o c .v ^ - F CD c r+ cr v b a
o 0 - o ° co yr ^oma C � a CD o owo r� UQ
CD 'cf°p
CD d A� 'S7 'b CD y O CD O 0 7 O y' 7 < CD " O y y.
a�< 2 Esc n = � � � � e o •, n o CD � = -, m
O C =. O 0 7 v 7 ^_'. C 0 O CaD C S p .' n CL w "n - 0
� .0.. 0 d O CD a m 4400 7 F0,Q N 7 f] C. O., vOi � 7 O• S f^D
C9 °'0. m =_ y 3 m� M , o a o m n CD CD 0. �' m ,.o o.
0 �0. 0 La CD m to i o G Uo C CSD R1 CL 0 o �' ° v " y
d QQ 0 „7•• CCD O = r.� W �. CD S .0.. d O �. m CSD 0 0 0 CD CSD
C) oco .s e �• a m � o°o o m M. ° sw nCD
a
CD CD CSD -'<i' xCD w d d O <. C R. CD p' CD
oSS oy b
CO O 2Py0O d� wo - oy
CD
n _
_ 0 CD00N � DGi • � C=D' . GC01wSI > d CD + R CD
° ? m cD O
❑ . o s y n ,
F
yce
^° o oo ow a,o y w
O OcD
y y c o o n a m CD0. = S CD y ° < F N =i =�
..r N W O '6 S '� y CD. S m ^ <=r CD _S
o 8 > > �' _• F = cCDD o_ •o cSD am ' m o F " 'o' eo'�'
° 3? � .Oc. c B ., <, ° �, � •0 o Dyna asc y g o
c• CD CDO �e = 3 _ Cw j gmo CD rLOc CD
eb
-y M 2.00 &'i CD (D 0 to
ro ro o c
7 .n. 7 .n.. CD 7
co O 00
7 7
•oro � ro 'v
d 3
0CD 8
CD
0
I O0
i
ori , o � nID zoj a
� n cD
CD
to rC. •'1 O p ^'
to m tzco
�•
7 7 b0
riQ CD
Ca'i rs.oo W I � c Ctl �
<' _ � 01 <• yo 3
< Ca
0
i
1 I�
Attachment 6
° z ° _ m a x
■ ®o ? N ■
f w
c c <
CD
,. •' ic.•. .. QO y °
W y rL oo 7 n�
O 0. CD
CD y aC1 UQ y a y" 47
°'•O ° ° 2CD : a( FD' S2. CD eD CD
CID a,
0.
CD
loo CD -t
5 f J ; ° aCD -Z3 n CDF CD w co .. ° m r n ❑ < A cD n
CDD ° o o a " = �, wb ° BoCD 0
CD CD 0
.'<` c=Do
`2 "° < y A N ID fD < CD "C� N °w Ln CD C W cL 7
d O "O .� f�9 ° ,"„ p n y 'c.. O n Sw O. y. £• .1 F"' G: w... fD 3' m
° Oy < O `o CDD = N C .�.'o ° p, y c. (D CD �'fl t-' N = o a
5.
CL S
° m �7 cD f. S £ ° cc v 'o a CD ° P, y d o d co o a
c �. f b • CD o CD > � � c"D 00 w' CD � m I n o 0 0 � O' o c
p' C Q p ACD • O A 0 -1 '° fa9 S A O. �' y °' d. C Al CC CD SD y. ?» CDD .
° c m DD - ° c SC" c o nB 5' o
c w
o uo �c. c Y c 'A y c C v O C, T w ?. i ?= ° 6 w oro ° c�
o w coD co .1 n b7 CD _ .y •p z7 a CD a " N A q cc y vc p• •o
w p a c') C:6 ° C ,D a0 m �. C7o o aaaa jo ° = m' � = f
r O " w .w•. R w to R. p CD :t F w £ N d O
0 O S w aCD
, _ CD'ra ' o c3 = o o' � c _ -• c y y o lam " o = ? FD '
CD CD
O O =• n w• 4. — C .w•. > CD '7 2 7 n Fr• i d.o .+ x y > rn
cD 3 o. o ao c
•y-,�.OC 0 � (D 7 -� (D (D y CD y tD G S A G.'y' w n f � CD .••y O w �
CD _ �
CL y w 9 y w F"D s = eD IOC ° �
y C y c CD c w � oo
M ^ C =
o x �_ c
CD CD o c ° H i p F th o y o a
o < fIQ
o y CD
° o n CDD CD a owo 3 • C f -C,
w^ f• csD G a w m `e `� c ^n OR
. a w CD 02
>1 w CD CDc�D m
CD CD
Er w a a p -: < o v
0 F, cD a =. — c cv O - oa cD
w w o .n. ° .+ CL o p c
CL
n ro ro ro 0 n
CD a
o o �
CD o n 0
CD cD o0
3 3
I _
•a ro ' •° ` ro B
o CD
Oo
O' _ D• C 00 p
C4
w _.
7 7 i 07
i
i
y w tz
i
O C CD 'O < CD 'C .
o p. -n < CD O y i
y il ° fD 'O
2 °° m co o CD n 00 m
y
O d co
A
O
( Ia)-
Kttact meat 6
m
' x
oc' z
M CD
P Q
O :+
`•"' = 0 "O N —1
.+
�0�0 � O, w SO "O"� 0cr
CD CD p 2 z� n 2 x < i
D o m < a , " =. =. °. p
o' t
c' y0 0 0 M
m m , o CD _ate _= CD
s �
CL _ � CD hoc N a
aB r) o N CD =
M.
CD CD 0
2
cc w o n n CD
CD -fts o
G N -e
n 0
o 0. n m 2� w
A n Z
ca Z. r., o
n N N 3
aF Er CD Zom `-R R °
ct n n
F. nc� co 0 0 00
W n N rn n
C/1 N
O O 2
G r .n-r
3
,. ^
CD o ?
& f 0 ° ° T
i fo N ct O
X S O M. C M.
n > O n
n' CD
N .�
O C
N 7'
00
� 3
'o
3
0
av
00 0
CD
o _
� o
3
00
"j
�• 01
Oq
CD
D
J
Ul
0
M
J
G7
� -�i3
o
cn
0. o
In
<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<<<<<
<<<<<<< ORT
C:
<<<<<<<<<<
r <<<<<<<<< <<<<<<< < < < <<< m
JESPERSON < €<E< <<<<<<<<< << <n
<<<<<<<<<•c<< Z
h.
PO
,E•E�q <<<<i<;<�<<
ESPERANZA t :�
:.�
E
s :ti= i 't(`JL E•i• i" E "moi
N
IN
:•ei ii <<<< i is '
Ogg 1:
< < < < < < Y•i: < < < <
DAVENPORTCREE <g`}`ff`�`�` ;�; "° , `•3 ''� :<< e <<`
<<<<<<< < < <<
.............
° a
rn
<<<<<<<<<<
<<<< AN
<<<<
< <
CL
ra
9
wm Oft a HH�'__t C
i cn v p m co
(D m _0 c
n " o
So9jHG CD y o CD CD, m
CD
1 to ai y CL
o m
m
SD CD
CL
° 13) 3
<< m
n
t
c
tea,
pl�_!.dL:::1(1F:f11
<-� -
p VACHELL
HORT
-
iL
a
c - ,
c UNOCA:
•
ESPERANZA ;
a � _
eL
SA ITR F£ l r
r m
' �......._..- it'
J N > >. 0 o o D 2 (� D C
CLCD Ku-
_.... a
.. .
CD co SD w H
c c m D
aCDi
> > b m D
00'7 m n � 3 m
0 CC C3
O O w 0 O M p O
CD
a CL
n Z O
CD
m
Attachment 7
ORDINANCE NO. (2005 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO AMENDING THE ZONING MAP TO REFLECT THE ZONING
APPROVED AS PART OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN FOR
THOSE PROPERTIES PRESENTLY WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS AND
ESTABLISHING PREZONING TO APPLY UPON ANNEXATION OF
OTHER PROPERTIES WITHIN THE SPECIFIC PLAN AREA
(APPLICATION NO.SP, GP/R, 116-98)
WHEREAS, the City General Plan (Land Use Element Policies LU 2.3 and LU 2.3.1)
requires the preparation of a specific plan for the Airport Area prior to annexation and further
development, and sets specific requirements for information to be included in the Plan; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo General Plan contains general goals and
policies relating to growth and development in the Airport Area, which may be implemented in a
variety of ways, including the specific plan procedure as outlined by California State Law (State
Government Code 65450 et.seq.); and
WHEREAS,the City of San Luis Obispo, with the participation of property owners, citizens,
public agencies, and other interested parties, has prepared a draft specific plan for the Airport Area
pursuant to the General Plan and the State Government Code; and
WHEREAS, on March 9, 2005, and again on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission
held a public hearing to consider the recommendations of staff and consider the Specific Plan
map, text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the
Specific Plan for the purpose of making a recommendation to the City Council; and
WHEREAS, on April 13, 2005, the Planning Commission recommended that the City
Council adopt the Specific Plan with findings of significant environmental effects, mitigation
measures and findings of overriding considerations; and
WHEREAS, on June 14, 2005, the City Council held a public hearing to consider the
recommendations of the Planning Commission and staff, and to consider the Specific Plan map,
text and necessary changes to the General Plan Map and Zoning Map to implement the Specific
Plan; and
WHEREAS, the California Government Code requires that a specific plan be consistent
with the City's General Plan; and
WHEREAS, as a result of its deliberations; the City Council has decided to adopt the
Airport Area Specific Plan and an ordinance is required to implement the zoning identified in the
Specific Plan.
Attachment 7
Ordinance No. (2005 Series) Page 2
Airport Area Specific Plan
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo,
the following:
SECTION 1. Zoning Map Amendment and Pre-zoning. The City Zoning Map is
hereby amended to reflect the appropriate zoning for those properties within the Specific Plan
area that are already annexed into the City, as shown in "Exhibit A." For those properties
currently outside of the City limits, the Council hereby pre-zones those properties as shown in
Exhibit`B," so that the zoning becomes effective upon annexation.
SECTION 2. Summary. A summary of this ordinance, approved by the City Attorney,
together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least
five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in
this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final
passage.
INTRODUCED on the day of , 2005, AND FINALLY
ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the day of
2005, on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor David F. Romero
ATTEST:
Audrey Hooper, City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
Jo Lowell, City Attorney
LAAASR=sp_ord[counci1].doc
` Air
AUMT
I
t
Fmk
mansriri_� '
�rirrrrrri�r.�e� p E
ri.usarlls�� d lo
rasr, W `�-•�'' `�
r�u��isi a �$
nit
rrarir � �r -
r�irllrrr��Y.—
ori nw .+'"y��/ r 'p •
1Ti rOrr•f�ali/
�rir/s�l9� r
rtY:llafl• � ®
at1P��®��IN6� � •
arfar.>s��. ,dLH.`/
�risJnrrrrr�r� ► 0 ill, .�
Lj
S/pit/ill-•• �••�
ar/fi•Yarrrrl�r/
�•��
il�C!//ANO% • • ••
/I1�VaIJr"
/II1/arrrr/ • w CL
/ u
STI/ CL CD
u
i • •
1� RL sn • o
it0 a 0
• ••
Aftachment 7
. -
<
O
HORT
a
JESPERSON <
< <
•jyii,iia; <<<<<<< <<
ESPERANZA - `t - `+� - ■ G7 ITI
- !.` ■ `<
cr
:i.`
W < <
...e.:::.:. <<�< Dig<; ;S �■ (D Q
0 7
DAVENPORT CREE - <<< s-`•' 3
�< 0
PIL
ro
or
< < < H
•gib;•:,";' � �9
y�0 m c O m X -u C
�Fy z Cr m o a w C.
Sp9iNG Di m T W 3 m co y
0 ° aM
m
rn
3 CL
^ n0 0
�
en 0) fn (n l m
0 v
c
�: =1►I��illl u��j i
z- all
■b.,,.c
11!_uam
i�
Won
_cw/Vl
!_
on no ImanwANWAR
p....
MOORE
_truriAAWIVii►ter
_■■nrjwJ/—J/ '. • V ILII S/
ILA
�� `��,% •:a� � a�� i�
�i�►�.yn=1111P. i•
IX
m000000nlll�-1
CL
1`1 lli`! 0 H, 0 a 1 ran
�i�/4i
z CL
'I/ .CSC ��/ •�i� ��� CL o
13) CD
c CD
�.
' • �� ����I/ll//III�qI/�',i
1 .1 11 1
I ,,V%!!7111!11 :li:' �aapS",'•
IMP
%NONEmoo
OWN '0
0 0100.
0 ,11
�
\
� .i..eee.
,ecce: .,,::�•••O+�
I /-9 no, %\
�O/� ♦cceece♦ ....
��/i..�i�i�iee�i�i�i�
Oi•�•i Bei�•�•i�•�•ii �•_ _`'�
gym. /�/ieiiii•�// •�e�ei = =_ __-i
�
� .�iiieDi�.�o •c�1
eeececccci icc•I\ ��{eeeeeeee••eeeeo•�
' iiia / •ieiieieiieiii+• ''
7eeeeeeee.
1100
Nil
1♦`` ••••�iiiiii.�`�� ���ii
Iigf/nry//n`-c •
/kllll •
Attachment 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO URBAN RESERVE AREA
Land Use Categories LEGEND
REWSW 9/28/03
0 Agriculture
f� 0 Rural Lands
Recreation
/ Residential Rural
Residential Suburban
CHUA14SH + Residential Single Family
PEAK _
PEAKK
81S1AResidential Multi Family
22 Q Office/Professional
zt
2 0 Commercial Retail
cautorwa ateuniBr
��°`""�`
sere u0 Commercial Service
0 Industrial
FOOTHILL BLVD. 9 Public Facility
\
HWY.707
\9� 0 Open Space
211 \yO
/ S.LO.C.L \
\ 27CERRO
\
SAN LUIS OBISPO
33t CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
34
m9O
yo
kA
TERRACE HILL
-SOUTH ST.
!OS \ S.LQ C.L.
�OOSOS \
'flO OR LITT RD. -.
Ppp.
Ha &La CL \
M
OMIAo PRADO USL
RD.
Z
ai TANK FA WAO. N n
0' wABAN RD. .
NILL
9\ }
SIM Lu1800kp0
County AJ*r1
BUCKLEY RD. --
JJ I I
5
14
Attachment 10
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN
Rural Land Use Categories
Revised 5/27/99
t -
I I
A LEGEND
- _ 0 Agriculture
Rural Lands
I
, I I
Recreation
, t 0 Residential Rural
t '
I '
Residential Suburban
( Residential Single Family
Residential Multi Family
1i Office/Professional
� I, ho j. .••e►�' w�� ° 0 Commercial Retell
t fir • ~�. Q Commercial Service
r
Industrial
1i .`'•if
Public Facility
-- - -i 1 _ 4-° _ - I- � --- ------------- --- - ' � Open Space
I .; ■ i , I
AN
,
I
� �' - \\rOlpL1 • - � • � 1
----- -- - r San Luis Obispo +-----I , ------ -
Urban Reserve Area ; -
P° , \;
Y ,
•'
O
>■
I
06 \
f
Los Ranchos/Edna
Village Reserve Area ;
r
,
I
I
I
I - M3
�����������������►i►►►i�� ,���ii►� council m Em oizan chum
DATE: June 13, 2005
TO: CITY COUNCIL READING FILE
VIA: Ken Hampian, CAO
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Director
BY: Michael Draze, Deputy Director of Community Developmer�
SUBJECT: FISCAL INFORMATION FOR JUNE 14 AGENDA ITEM PHI
Councilperson Mulholland requested information on the fiscal impacts and benefits of annexing
properties within the Airport Area Specific Plan. We have provided her with copies of the
February 1994 San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis prepared by Angus
McDonald & Associates, and the June 1998 Airport Area Annexation Fiscal Impact Analysis
report prepared by the City's Department of Finance. These reports are also available in the
Council Reading File and can be copied for individual Council Members at your request. As you
may recall, in 1994 the Airport Area included what is now the Margarita Area Specific Plan and
the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Staff will be presenting the Airport Area Specific Plan in at least two separate meetings, June
14`s, and July 26`s. Public Facilities Financing and Plan Implementation will be presented at the
July 26`s meeting when Bill Statler will discuss the fiscal issues related to the specific plan and
any subsequent annexation of the area into the City. The Council, however, may find the two
fiscal analysis reports useful for either of the meetings.
LASpecific PlanAAASMCMem Redfile&14-05Aoc
Chem Redjle6-14-05
J I ,
SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA
FISCAL IMPACT.ANALYSIS
(City Council Workshop Edition)
A Report Prepared For
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
By
Angus McDonald & Associates
Berkeley, California
February ZZ, 1994
1 I
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal hnp#ct Analysis
TABLE OF CON'T'ENTS
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
A. Purpose of the Airport.Area Fiscal Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
B. Summary of Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1. Short-Term Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2. Mid-Term Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
C- Conclusions and Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1. The Fiscal Implications for the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Impact Monitoring and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
INext Steps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
II. FUTURE LAND USES IN THE AIRPORT AREA 9
A. The Status Quo — With and Without Annexation . . . . . . . . . . 9
B. Growth and Development After Annexation . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . 9
III. FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : . : . . . 12
A. Public Services Delivery and Cost.. . . . . . . . . . . . 12
1. The Concept and the Commitment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
2. Estimate of Annual Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
B. Revenues to the City . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
1. Sources of Revenue . . • . . . . . . 18.
2. Assumed Tax-Sharing Agreement With San Luis Obispo
County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
C. The Fiscal Impact on the City of San Luis Obispo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1. Short-Term Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . a . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
2. Mid-Term Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . e . . . . . . . 19
D. Impact Monitoring and Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1. Sources of Vulnerability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . 21
2. Responses to Adverse Fiscal Impacts . . . . . . 22
IV. NEXT STEPS IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
A. Significance of the Fiscal Impact Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
B. Considerations Other Than Fiscal Impact . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
1. Land Use Controls In The Airport Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2. Required Commitment of City Staff . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . 27
3. The Implications of Development-Related Financing . . . . . . . . 27
APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS 29
A. General . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
City Council Workshop Edition -- — - _ Page i
. wno
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Irmal Impact Analysis
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
1. Continuity Of Legal And Institutional Constraints . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. Cost And Revenue Inflation 29
3. Time Period For Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
B. General Fund Revenues 29
1. Property Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
2. Real Property Transfer Tax (Documentary Transfer Tax) . . . . . 34
3. Transient Occupancy Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
4.- Sales Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
5. Utility Users Tax and Franchise Fees . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
6. Business Tax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
7. Vehicle Code Fines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
8. Other Fines and Forfeitures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
9. Motor Vehicle License Fees 38
10. Use Of Money And Property . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
C. Fuel Tax Revenues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
1. Highway Users Taxes - Tax Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2. §2105. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 39
3. §2106. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
-- - — 4. §2107. . . . . . . . . . . . : : . . . : .-: . . . . . . .- . . 41
5. §21075. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
D. Ongoing Expenditures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Figure I-1 THE SAN LUIS OBISPO AIRPORT AREA. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure I-2 SHORT-TERM FISCAL IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure I-3 MID-TERM FISCAL IMPACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Table II-1 GROWTH ASSUMPTIONS FOR THE FISCAL IMPACT ANALYSIS . . . . 11
Table III-1 SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE ESTIMATING RELATIONSHIPS . . . . . 15
Table 111-2 ESTIMATE OF CITY EXPENDITURES ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table III-3 ESTIMATE OF CITY REVENUES AND UND BALANCES 20
Figure 1114 SENSTITVTTY TO AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT . . . . 24
Figure III-5 SENSTITVTTY TO DIVERSION OF PROPERTY TAX . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table A-1 .ANNUAL DEVELOPMENT FORECAST . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Table A-2 MARKET VALUE AND TURNOVER RATE ASSUMPTIONS . . . . . . . . . 32
Table A-3 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SALES TAX RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Table A4 DERIVATION OF UTILITY USERS TAX AND FRANCHISE FEES
FROM HOUSEHOLDS . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Table A-5 DERIVATION OF UTILITY USERS TAX AND FRANCHISE FEES . . . . 37
Table A-6 EXPENDITURE MULTIPLIERS . . ... . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Page ii City Council Workshop Edition
30M0
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
I. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY
The planning area referred to as the San Luis Obispo Airport Area is the area between the
existing southern city limit of the City of San Luis Obispo and the San Luis Obispo County
Airport. This area is shown in Figure I-1. Efforts to plan for urban development of this
area have been going on for many years. Recently, on April 25, 1993, the San Luis Obispo
County Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo)considered a request by the property
owners in County Service Area (CSA) 22 for an expansion of the CSA's powers to allow the
CSA to provide urban level water services to a majority of the Airport Area. LAFCo
deferred a decision for two months in order to allow time for the City and CSA property
owners to meet and clarify the City's intentions regarding eventual annexation to the City
and provision of City services to the area. At the June 17th LAFCo meeting,the City stated
its intent to annex the Airport Area. LAFCo then deferred a decision on the CSA's request
for an expansion of powers until March of 1994 to allow the Qty and the Airport Area
property owners to make"substantial progress" toward.annexation. Since then, the City has
taken several steps toward annexing the Airport Area. This report presents conclusions
about one factor that the City will consider when deciding whether or not to annex. The
-
report-examines whether taxes-and'other revenues-generated in-the Airport-Area after
annexation would be sufficient to support the expenditures that the City would incur to
provide public services on an annual basis.
A. Purpose of the Airport Area Fiscal Analysis
In the present report, the term "fiscal analysis" or "fiscal impact analysis" deals with the
question of whether annual revenues from the Airport Area would support the increases in
annual expenditures to provide police protection, fire protection, parks and recreation,
general government, and other City services that would be incurred after annexation took
place. The comparison of annual revenues and annual expenditures is the sole subject of
the present report, Consideration of significant other issues will be deferred until after the
City Council has had the opportunity to review the results of the fiscal analysis. Important
areas of concern that are deferred to the future include:
■ The level of land use control guidelines and other growth management techniques that
would be appropriate in the Airport Area, if annexation takes place.
■ The cost to provide facilities necessary to deliver public services (including water supply,
sewer collection and treatment, roads and highways, park lands, etc.), and the manner
in which these facilities will be financed.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 1
xia.o
\ � I
/
-iii///////iIN
MN
- R4
■� - m __
i 1
San Loris Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Irnpact Analysis
■ The overall and total environmental,community and social impacts on the City of San
Luis Obispo, if annexation takes place.
The exclusive concentration in the present report on fiscal analysis is a matter of
Administrative convenience. It does not imply that fiscal considerations are the first or most
important reason to make a decision about whether to annex the Airport Area. Rather, the
sequence of steps in the analysis merely recognizes the fact that if the annexation does not
appear to be fiscally beneficial,then there would be a burden of proof on the supporters of
annexation to demonstrate that the additional steps in the analysis were worthy of the time
and expense that would be incurred.
B. Summary of Fiscal Impacts
The exact time at which growth and development could take place in the Airport Area
(assuming a policy decision that growth would be supported) depends on the time at which
additional water supply will be available to the City of San Luis Obispo. Alternative sources
of water are currently being evaluated,but the availability of alternatives suggests that it is
reasonable to assume that a source of water can be available,at acceptable cost, to support
- growth and development in the AirportArea. -
A period of time may pass between the time the Airport Area is annexed and the time that
water becomes available and the tax base begins to grow. A significant question to the City
of.San Luis Obispo is whether, during this time period,the Airport Area would be a net loss
to the tax base. To deal with this question, a decision was made to consider two time
periods. ,
■ A time after which annexation takes place (and the City becomes responsible to provide
public services) but before there is any significant increase in the tax base, beyond
development projects that are now fully committed to take place.
■ A time period after a source of water becomes available, when a reasonable and
foreseeable amount of residential and commercial growth takes place.
1. Short-Term Fiscal Impact
Revenues, expenditures and the net fiscal balance were estimated for a situation wherein
annexation takes place but growth and development are limited to those projects for which
commitments have already been made. This fiscal situation is summarized in Figure I-2.
There is a.significant surplus of revenues over expenditures.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 3
wxo
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal hnp;i#Analysis ,
2. Mid-Term Fiscal Impact
A fiscal impact analysis was completed for the period that begins after a reasonably-priced
source of water becomes available to serve the Airport Area. This fiscal impact analysis was
made for the first five years after water becomes available and for Years 10 and 15. The
results are summarized inTigure I-3. The revenues associated with growth exceed the City's
cast to provide service.
C. Conclusions and Recommendations
The present section of the report distinguishes carefully between conclusions and
recommendations. The consulting team is quite prepared to express conclusions and
opinions as to the fiscal implications of a decision to annex the Airport Area. The
consultants recognize that there is a wide range of public policy issues— some of which are
particularly sensitive in San Luis Obispo — that transcend fiscal considerations. The
consultant team does present "It Then" recommendations to assure that a fiscal balance is
maintained,if the City Council decides to support annexation.
1. The Fiscal Implications for the City
Figures 1-2 and 1-3 show a comfortable fiscal surplus under both the "status quo after
annexation"assumption and,in the longer term,as growth and development take place. The
consultant team asserts that these results are reliable and that there can be a high level of
confidence that the decision to annex the Airport Area will not place a burden on the
existing City tax base.
Three important qualifiers are relevant to this conclusion.
Controlling Cost Per Persons Served. The City Administrative Officer (CAO) and the
City's management team projects the delivery of City services at a fixed cost per person
served (measured in real dollar terms, net of cost inflation) that did not increase, as
development took place. Further,costs for the senior management functions are projected
to grow at a lower rate than direct service delivery cost(in terms of cost per persons served)
than has been the current experience.
Recovery of Service Costs. The fiscal impact evaluation is based on the assumption that the
City of San Luis Obispo will use fees, charges and assessments to recover the full cost of all
services that provide a direct and particular service or benefit to an individual or business.
Examples include water and sewer services,cost of building inspections, etc. Such costs are
in contrast to services (e.g., police and fire protection) that provide a general benefit to the
entire City. The person who.must call on these services is not expected to pay the direct
cost for the service provided
Page 4 City Council Workshop Edition
sono
r
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Figure 1-2 SHORT-TERM FISCAL IMPACT
Thousands of Dollars
800
600 .... ......................... .......................
400 .... ........ ..........
. .. 200 .. .....................
0
Revenues Expenditures Net Revenues
Source:Angus McDonald dt Associates
Note:
1) This exhibit shows the annual revenues,expenditures and surplus after annexation,
but with no new development in the Airport Area.
City CouncH Workshop Edition Page S
34M0
i
111 d' I 1'
6
:❖:❖:❖:�.❖:❖:❖:❖::�.•: :❖:❖:❖:•:❖:❖:❖::❖:❖:
................... ................... ...................
X1.1,.❖.❖.❖.1.•.1.•.1.1.1.❖. .1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1;.1. .1.1.1.1.1.•.1.1.❖.1.•.�..1.•.1.•.
:.................. ................... ...................
.................1 ........./../•..1• ..................
................... ................... ...................
................... ................... ...................
.................. .................. ..................
1•....••..1.•.1•.•. .1..•..•..•1.•1.11. x..•.1.•...1....1.•
I�I i0•i00000.00�00•�•Oii'Oi Oiii•Oii1•ii•JOOJOOOOi P.O•i'Odi00•�•JOibO•Ji•Ji
•.1•.1.1...•.....♦ •..•1.•......1.1.1 •.1••1.11•...•...r
x.....•.....111.111 ......1.111•..•.••• •1.1.•.•1•....•.•1.
•...1..1.1111.11.• 11..•...•1..•...•• ..1.....1....•.111
•..1••.•.•••1..1.1. .11.•....1.....1... ..•1..••..•.1.11..1
..11.•1•.••1.••.•1 1.11.1....••.11..1 ♦1.111.1.1..•.11.♦
....11...1..1...•. ...1......•....11•• x•..11..1...1.1...♦
.......11•..1....♦ ♦...1.1.111111.111 1.1.•.••.1.•...11•
11•••1.•.••1...•11• ......•••.••.•11.•• ..•111.•.1•..••••.•
•••1.1••..1..•.•1• .11..•1..••..••.•• ..1.•1..•..1.111.1
1•..•1...1•.•..11.. .....1.1.1..•1.••1• •.1.11••1.1111.1•.•
••.1•••11••11•.1.. •11••1.1.••••••1•• •1.1111•...1••..•1
la 1111.••11•••.•/1.•. .1.1•.1111.11.1••1• .11.....1......1..•
1
♦.1.11..1.1 1..1..1•1 1..1 1.1.•. •1 1 1..1.1 1.1.1.1 1 1.1•..1•.•• 1
••1 1 1 1• •...1.•..1.1..1111
•..•. • • •11•.111••..11.•1.•
•1.11......1••1.1.
.
..1.1•.1 1 1 1.•••1...••1••1..1• •. .•.11....111.1•.•1•..1.••.•11.•1..•
••..1.1.1.1..•1•.1. •11.•. 0
•.11••...111...•1• ••11.1.•11.•...1•• ...1/•11.•11•.1.11
1...1•.111•.1••1... ••.•11.1.1.111.1.•• .•••.1••1.1•.•.1•.♦
.....111•.1111.... ..1..1.11♦•11.1.•♦ ♦.1.11•.111/1•..1•
•.•111•.1.1.1.111•. x..1....1..11..•1•• •..•1..11..•..11..•
•11.11...11•..1•.♦ •1.•.11.1.1•..•..• .1.•....1•.1.11111
•1..••1.1•..•..11•. •11•..1.1..••.....• .••1.1•••1.•••1.1.•
Oii ii.ii•�•O�•ii•�•�•i•�1�•i i.•�•�•O�•i••i•••*•+•*O i•+•0•O4 .•+❖.•i 1•••i 1•+•04•••1 1❖#•*i
11.••••1.1111.11.• ♦.•11.1.1 1.1••1.1 1 .
1.1 1•.•••• ♦..1 1 1•1.1•.1••••1 1..1 1.1•.111....
� „ 111.111....11•.•1.. •.11.•11 x •.
♦..•1.•1...••..1.. 1•.111.1.1.1..•1.1 •1.1..•1.1.11•.1•.
••11.1.1.......•.1 ••1.•.•11.•.1.•1•.• •..1..•.•.....••..•
••:O�•i:••ii.•Oi:•4•ii O4 Oi•Oi O�•i.•�•i•:1:i•O�::O ••ii•J.1�•••�O•�•••�•i•DO�•O�•i
•••.•.•.1.....1•.• •..••11..11.1.1•.1 ♦1.•..•.1.•.1..1.1
X1.11111.1.111�1•.1�1.1�1�1�11.11�•. •111�1�1.11/1/11.1.1�1.111�1.111.1�1. •1.x.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1••1111.1
........1.....1.1•. ...............111♦ .1•..•.•.1•.. .
♦11.1..1.11111.1.♦ .11.1.111...11111• •1.11•...111•.11..
....1... ..... .1.1•.1..1••••..••1 •.11111•..•....11••
♦1..1.1..11...•.•. •..11.1..1..••1•.• ♦111.•.1••••1.•.1♦
•11..11.......1•... •11.11..1.1•..1•.•. .1.111.1.1.111.11••
11. ♦.1..1..1..•.•.1.• ♦•.•1.•1•..••••1•.
.1.1...1 1••••..1 1•1...1 1
1.•.••.
1.•.••..••••1.11... .•11.1.11•.•11.11.. 11.1•♦
1❖.1••••••••�1•••1.1❖.•1❖1•61
.❖•❖1.1.1.1•••1• .•1.1.1.1.1•. .•1•••.1.•1.1.1•.1.i•1❖❖1❖.••
1.1.1 i i•1 i i❖�.❖.1•••1•••1•. . ❖.i❖.•1❖•�•••.i❖.❖••. ••1.1❖.•.�•••1❖.•1❖1❖1•..•i
•••❖.•1•�.❖.•1.1❖1.1❖/❖1•. I 1❖1.1�❖.❖••.�❖.❖1.1•••1 ••1❖.•.�•.�••❖1•••1❖.❖1❖1
•..•1.11..11•.111. •11.111...•...1..• ♦.....•1.1.1.•1.1•
♦11.11.11..11.11••. •..•1......1.1.111• 11.1.1.•..1.....11♦
1❖1•.•1•.1.••11.1.1❖1•.❖••1•••1 .❖.•1.1❖1.1.1❖.1.•1•.•1❖.•.•1 ••••1❖1•••••••x•1•.❖•❖.•1.1�••
♦..•..•11.1•.1.•1♦ ..11.1111111111.1• •1...11.1....1.111
III 11••••1.11•••1.11.1 •1..1111.1.11...1.• x•.1.1..11.111.9.00
1❖1.1•••1.1 i❖1❖••.i•1❖1.1•. •••❖••.X11 i❖.1.1.1.1�❖.i•1 .❖.•1•�••1❖••1.1❖•❖1.11.•1•.
.❖.•1❖1❖1.1❖11.•1.1•••1.1.1.1 .❖.•1❖1.1.1.1.1❖1❖1••❖1.1.1 .11.1.1.1.1•••1.1❖.❖.•1.1•••1.1••
... 1.1.1•.•1.1•••1.1•••••1.1�•1 .•1••�•1 ❖�•1❖• ❖.•••1•.i•• .❖1•. ❖••1❖1.1.11.•1.1❖•❖.
1❖1•.11.❖.❖1••❖�❖1.•. ••1•.1.•.•1❖.•�1.1�❖1❖.•�.•• .❖1•••.❖1.1••x•1.1❖•❖1.1❖.
1.1.1❖.•1❖1.❖1❖1•••1❖1•••1 .❖.•1•.•1❖1❖.•1•�.❖1.1❖••1 .❖1.11.❖1.1❖.•1.1❖1❖1❖1•i
/❖•❖.❖.•1.1•.i❖.•�•1❖1•••i ••iii i❖.�.•1❖i••1ii•�•�•1•i•. 1•iiiiiii•••1•i•�•i•1•1❖1❖i
I
i 1 • 1 • 1 1 • . 1 • " • •
1 IY 1 111 1 11
t '
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lnpact Analysis
paying for Public Improvements. An unfortunate fact of life regarding land development
in the 1990s is that there is virtually no tax support available from either the Federal, the
State or local governments to pay for the capital costs necessary to provide additional public
service capacity. As a practical matter,in the face of the staff cuts and other economies that
were necessary when San Luis Obispo entered into its current fiscal year,there is no realistic
possibility that tax monies from the City would be available to pay for additional roads,
parks, etc., to serve the Airport Area. Instead, development projects must finance the full
cost of public improvements. The fiscal results shown in Figures I-2 and I-3 would be
subject to revision if the City Council did decide to use tax monies to pay for public
improvements. However, it is assumed that development will pay its own way regarding
public improvements and that general purpose revenues will not be used.
2. Impact Monitoring and Mitigation
An unfortunate admission is appropriate when a fiscal impact analysis is presented. It must
be admitted that, at least in terms of individual line items, the future will prove the fiscal
impact analysis to be less than exact. For example, local governments in California have
been impacted severely by decisions of the State legislature and the Governor to solve State
budget problems at the expense of the entitlement of cities,counties and special districts to
property tax revenues. There can be no assurance that this type of adverse fiscal impact will
not continue in the future.
Therefore,IF the City decides to annex the Airport Area,THEN it is strongly recommended
that the City monitor actual fiscal impacts each fiscal year. A growth management program
could require corrective action if continued growth and development in the Airport Area do
not produce a fiscal balance that is in the best interest of the City.
As one example,an Airport Area growth management program could impose no restrictions,
other than the existing City residential growth limit, provided that an annual measurement
confirmed that incremental revenues were at least matching incremental expenditures. If
the City's fiscal balance was found to be eroding, a potential growth management policy
might limit the rate of residential development until the amount of the generally more
fiscally-beneficial retail and other commercial land uses grew to the point that a fiscal
balance could be maintained. Achieving this improvement in fiscal balance would be largely
a private sector process. Owners of lands zoned for residential and commercial purposes
could enter into joint ventures and/or profit sharing arrangements that would permit both
land uses to proceed.
City Council Workshop Edition Nie 7
. wao
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal hnpact Analysis
3. Next Steps
As the City Council begins its deliberations about whether to continue considering the
possibility of annexing the Airport Area, the appropriate role of both City staff and the
consultants is to be available to answer questions about implications as forthrightly As
possible. The annexation decision itself is a"legislative act"In the fullest sense ofthe word.
Only the City Council can weigh the fiscal, environmental, social, and public policy
implications of a decision to continue the process of considering annexation.
If an affirmative decision is made by the City Council, then it is appropriate for staff and
consultants to document the fact-that the process of preparing a Specific Plan at the
Appropriate level of detail, a set of design guidelines and a Public Facilities Implementation
Plan (PFIP),is demanding,challenging and time-consuming. This process is vital if San Luis
Obispo is to achieve and maintain control of development in the Airport Area.
Page 8 City Council Workshop Edition
.307LA3
i
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lnpact Analysis
II. FUTURE LAND USES IN THE AIRPORT AREA
If the Airport Area is annexed to the.City of San Luis Obispo, there may be a delay before
a full level of urban services can be provided. Generally, development cannot occur until
the City commits to one or another of the sources of additional water that are currently
being evaluated Certain properties with a dependable source of well water may be able to
develop in advance of an additional source of water becoming available to the City, if these
properties are permitted to continue to use their local water supply,but are able to connect
to the City's system of water for fire protection.
Because of the uncertainty about when water might be available,the consultants looked at
two situations. In the first case, a fiscal evaluation was based on the assumption that the
Airport Area is annexed immediately,but only the existing land uses in the Airport Area
require services from the City. This is called the "status quo". In the second case, the
period of analysis was assumed to begin the year after additional water becomes available
(whenever that occurs). Growth and development would continue from that point, at a
realistic rate of development.
_..____A._ ._The.Status..Quo_- With.and Without_Annexation_
The formal definition of "impact" is a measurement of the difference in some impact
variable,measured over time,between a proposed project and a reasonable alternative to
the proposed project. In the present case,the"impact variable"being measured is net fiscal
balance. The "proposed project" and the "alternative" deserve further discussion.
For purposes of the first portion of the fiscal analysis, it is assumed that the "proposed
project" is the act of annexing the Airport Area. The first fiscal analysis considers whether
this "status quo" can be serviced by the City from the outset, without having the additional
cost to provide ongoing services exceed the additional revenue that would become available
to the City after annexation. No additional development is assumed.
B. Growth and Development After Annexation
A development forecast for the Airport Area that departs from the status quo was selected
to illustrate fiscal impact of a reasonable rate of growth and development. This forecast is
not tied directly to a date at which development will begin. Instead, the starting point for
the analysis is the point at which an additional source of water becomes available to the City,
at a price that is comparable to the cost of water in the Central Coast market area.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 9
X17SA
® 1 1
1
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Guidance for the.mix of land uses and design and development standards was taken from
the M¢rgarita Area Concept Plan M-2)1 and from the conceptual land use plan for County
Service Area 22. Although the Margarita Area Concept Plan has not been formally adopted,
it has received wide public review and comment. Its design standards are ambitious,and it
is based on a "non-traditional" planning concept that has received much discussion
throughout California in the last three years. Further,it is an internally-consistent document
that has mutually-supportive policies regarding environmental preservation, a multi-modal
circulation system and ambitious policies regarding affordable housing. The Margarita Area
Concept Plan is a useful starting point for evaluation of residential development patterns
in the Airport Area.
The land uses in County Service Area 22 (i.e., in the area between the southern boundary
of the Margarita Area and the airport) are primarily business park and areas designated for
services and manufacturing.
Discussions with the City's department heads confirmed that cost to provide public services
was not particularly sensitive to the specific location of development within the entire
Airport Area. Accordingly the development forecasts described below do not identify
individual parcels that might or might not develop by the end of the planning period being
--considered. _
The forecast of growth and development after water becomes available is shown in Table
II-1. This forecast was intended to represent a reasonable target that would be consistent
with San Luis Obispo's current growth management policies and.achievable in a market-
driven economy. The growth forecast was reviewed with individuals who are knowledgeable
about demand and competing supply in the market area and is considered to be realistic.
1 Underscored numbers in parentheses refer to References listed at the end of this report.
Page 10 City Council Workshop Edition
3076.0
San iuis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lnpact At,...ysis
...... ............ ...... ... .......... ......
N .eee e e r e r e e e e
» Py0 O + M N N n N N O
Y • N
n w ry
s
p w Nee a o r n + e e o e
• y i e w e
i n w n
Y P F n n
0
FO
O
n eee e e r • e e e e
0 nn+ + • � n n e e 0 O
n
Y • 000 O+ O o o •o
� n111+ N
'; F N •
o a N n^± OnO O O
(n V y
O a w
F ^ e
. C N •+j O e o
e e o
Y N O O
N
d �
/1 N
F n n
... .. ........... ....
� . e e•
e O
o 0
. n n
0 - _
0 N
n^e e e n e e e
1"4 . ^ N N N N + O O
N
n
.di 0 F
,w
rA
`L a F
O
dC F,
H , w e r • e e e
•a
O O
a0 • O O e e' 0 e
V • °` °I
F n w
da n eee e
»tl N
Y o e
is
3 N eee g n e
NNtl O O
II••Yf h• y 000
v NNtl
N N
n n
aa
_ S
N o~p M 1
1 F GI N
09
r�• a M 9 1 � pp n
u a ! aN
City Council Workshop Edition Page 11
X0'6.0
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
III. FISCAL MPACT ANALYSIS
A fiscal impact analysis is basically a comparison of annual expenditures to provide public
services and annual revenues that will accrue to the City. The process of estimating
expenditures is fundamentally different from the process of estimating revenues. As a
generalization,revenues respond to State laws and local ordinances and respond directly to
economic conditions. As one example,the total amount of taxable retail sales is a function
of the national, regional and local economy and the competitive supply of retail outlets in
San Luis Obispo compared to the rest of the market area. The City's share of the tax on
retail sales is controlled by State law.
In contrast, expenditures (e.g., the cost of providing police protection) depend on initial
recommendations by the managers of each city department,final recommendations by the
City Administrative Officer and decisions by the City Council. The distinction between
expenditure estimating and revenue estimating is particularly significant regarding the
proposed Airport Area annexation as discussed in the following paragraphs.
A. Public.Services Delivery and Cost
Estimates of the annual cost to provide public services in the Airport Area were strongly
influenced by an initial set of assumptions that guided the fiscal impact analysis.
1. The Concept and the Commitment
Traditionally, the cost of certain public services has been estimated by adopting standards
based on the residential population. For example, a police service standard is frequently
defined as number of officers per 1,000 residents or number of total police personnel per
1,000 residents. Park standards are frequently expressed in terms of acres per 1,000
residents, and the recreation program and maintenance costs of the resulting acreage are
then calculated.
An extension of this concept recognizes the fact that the service population of a city should
be defined more broadly. The employed work force, the University population,the tourist
population, and those who come to San Luis Obispo for entertainment all create a demand
for public services. In other jurisdictions, it has proved practical to gather data over time
and to relate demand for services (e.g., calls for police services) to underlying land use
categories. Detailed data that would permit this type of analysis were not available for San
Luis Obispo, so the concept of"persons served"was based on demands from the residential
population and demands from the work force within the City limits.
Page 12 City Council Workshop Edition
saga
`J
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
This approach general captures the effect of employees, and insofar as employment
increases with tourism and other entertainment activities, it may partially. capture the
demand for public services created by these particular service populations. A more exact
approach would deal explicitly with service demand generated from each land use category
in the City. Over time, an attempt should be made to gather the data that.will permit a
more exact relationship to be formulated between cost of services and
University/tourist/visitor demands.
In the present instance,it should be noted that the land use plan for the Airport Area does
not emphasize touristMsitor or University-related impacts. Accordingly, the definition of
"persons served" as a combination of the resident population and the employment base is
A useful method for estimating service demand for the Airport Area.'
After the concept of persons served had been introduced, the City.Administrative Office
(CAO) and the City's management team accepted the "new financial reality" or holding
constant or to reducing the real-dollar cost per persons served,while maintaining San Luis
Obispo's 1993/94 Level of Service. Productivity enhancements and other economies would
permit the cost-per-persons-served to remain constant or to decline (after the cost-per-
-persons-served-hiid-been adjusted-for inflation)_-Tlii policy on"cost containmentwas first----
assumed,and then tested. An estimate was provided by the consultants of the City's current
cost-per-persons-served and this cost-per=persons-served was applied to the residential,
commercial and industrial land uses in the Airport Area. Each departmental representative
was then asked to confirm that the service could be provided at San Luis Obispo's 1993/94
Level of Service to the Airport Area at the estimated cost.
In every instance, We was exercised to be sure that service to the Airport Area would not
be at the expense of service to existing residents and businesses.
The expenditure-estimating relationships for the two cases being analyzed reflected the
purpose of each case. The estimating relationships for "Status Quo With Annexation"were
based on the assumption that an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) would be provided in
the Airport Annexation Area. During that interim period between the date of annexation
and the date when a newly-available water supply would permit planned growth to occur,
"acceptable" was defined as at least equal to the existing LOS provided by the County.
Improvements in service standards were assumed,where current City policy requires a higher
LOS than San Luis Obispo County currently provides.
'During the design review process of individual development prospects, special demands
for public services may be identified. Additional investigation measures can be specified at
that time.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 13
3077.0
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lnpact.Analysis
Fire prevention and protection, provided by the City of San Luis Obispo,can be used as an
example. The Fire Chief concluded that fire protection services could be extended to the
Airport Area(given existing land uses)without increasing City staff or equipment. owe e
an increased level of preventive inspection would be necessary to meet a minimal safety
standard acceptable to the City of San Luis Obispo.
The service standard applicable to the case "Planned Growth and Development" generally
assumed a Level of Service comparable to that provided to residents and businesses within
the current City limits.
Estimates of expenditures applicable to the "Status Quo With Annexation" case were based
on case studies by the relevant department heads. For example, the Fire Chief ran
numerous response drills to evaluate the actual response times from existing fire stations to
different parts of the Airport Area. The Police Chief conferred with representatives of the
County Sheriff and analyzed frequency and types of calls for service.
In most cases it would be possible to serve the Airport Area under the "Status Quo"
condition with only a limited increase in expenditures. As noted above, an exception was
- --preventive inspections liy-the Fire Department" A significant budget-�mcrease would be-
required, given that San Luis Obispo County's standards for preventive inspection are not
as demanding as those of the City. In addition to the annual cost for preventive inspection
described in the following section,it would be necessary to have.a fire inspector on contract
for 12-18 months to establish reliable data regarding land uses and other items of concern
to the Fire,Planning,Police and Public Works/Utilities Departments. This individual would
also serve as liaison with existing businesses in the Airport Area. This individual would
develop a mutually acceptable plan for future improvements that may be necessary.
A second exception involves the requirement to prepare base maps for the Airport.Area if
annexation takes place. Base maps are required primarily to support planning for public
improvements that will provide additional capacity to serve the Airport.Area. Accordingly,
the cost of preparing base maps can be recovered from the financing plan that would be part
of a Public Facilities Implementation Plan(PFIP) that will be completed, if the airport area
is annexed.
The expenditure estimating relationships applicable to the "Planned Growth And
Development" case are summarized in Table III-1.
The issue of costs to maintain parks and trails in the Airport Area requires special
consideration. The Margarita Area Concept Plan has a target for active-use parks that
considerably exceeds both the park standard that exists today for the residents of the City
Page 14 City Council Workshop Edition
sono
San Leas Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table M-1
SUMMARY OF EXPENDITURE ESTIMATING RELATIONSHIPS
San Luis Obispo Airport Area FiscalImpact.Analysis
11-►eb-94
11$14 all
_ Total. Offsetting Met
Description of Erpesditu a Bstpmditure0 Revenues b¢eaditutw Ratimating Relationship Motes
OPiRATieG PROGRAMS .
PUBLIC SAFETY
Police protection - $3,599,000 $104,100 $S,494.700 Veig6ted Paceene served
Fire and Envirasmmtal.Safety $3,939,000 $103,000 $1,664,000 Cale Stody/weighted pesasne Served
PUBLIC UTQ.ITIES $6,419,500 RA $6,419,300 ,M.A. Enterprise Fond. Full cwt recovery is
assumed.
'IRARSPORTATIOY .
Streets and Flood Control
Street end Signal Maintenance $_1,770,100 $53, 000 $1,113:100 Lana Milan
Flood Control. $46,000 $31,000 -j1S,000 N.A. Any significant costs will be paid free m
Airport Area basiefit'assasamctt.
Transpartatiw Planning $144,000 $144.000 Weighted Persons Served
parking $714,500 $714,500 R.A. Entaryriso Fund, Full cost recovery is
assumed.
Mnaicipal Transit.System $910,700 =210;000 $708,700 N.A. Enterprise Fund. 2)
LStSURS,-CULTURAL-&-SOC3AL-SFAVICES-------------. ....--- - _-.---
.Parks and Recreation .
Sua and Fun $120,90,0 $255,300 ${5,100 per Capita
Recreation Programs - Other,1) 52,17$,600 iS26,100 j6S2,100 Weighted:Periem.Served
Maintenance Services $961,100 $931,100 Case Study. (See Report Tart)
Calf Course Operations/Maintenance $277,600 $277.600 R.A. mterprias Fund. Tull.eomt recovery is
assumed.
Cultural Services $75.600 $79;600 weighted Persons Served
Social Services (Woman Relations) $207,200 $207,$
00 Weighted Persons Served '1)
CONNUMM DSOHIOPI®T .
Development Review $461,600 $110,000 S1S2,600 M.A. Toll coat recovery in assumed. 4)
Planning- Other ThanDevelopmentReview $415.000 $419,000 weighted Persons served 4)
Construction Rego I stun .
Building and Safety - Sew Construction $156,300 $130.000 $20$,700 N.A. Pull cost recovery is assumed.
Sullding and Safety - code Enforcement $63,000 -$63,000 Weighted Persons Served
Engineering -
capital Imp revenue t Program management $507,400 $507,600 Weighted.persoN Served
Development Review - $231;700 .$111,500 $120,200 N.L. Full cost recovery is assumed.
Record Eesping Spread to above two functions
Economic Development
Businesst Area (RIA) $112,300 $120,000 "$2,000 R.A. Toll.funding Ls from Business IepLess es Ana.
Community P�rc®oon $101,200 $101,200 Weighted Persons Served
Economic Stability $100,000 $100,000 M.A. We future General Fund support is assumed.
Vii. GOVERM®T
Legislation end Policy $110,000 $711,000 go 2eeact
General AdministratL" and Support Services $1,776.000 .$134,900 $1,191,100 In proportion to operating programs. 3)
BUTLDn= AND■0UIPMSMT .
Building Operatims and maintenance $441,100 $441,100 In proportion to operating programs.
Vehicle and Equipment Maintenance $112,100 $112,100 in proportion to operating.programs.
TOM MCP35MXTUM FOR OPERATING PROGRAM $29,543,300 $2.216.000 $27,112.000
Not"I
3) Includes Swim Center Maintenance. Also includes Commissions and Committees
21 Expenditures fon transit will equal the rearms that Moeeor available to the Transit Find.
1) It is asaumad that, in the future. the 1991-94 Ganerel Fund aoatribution for services to
the homeless will be replaced with"grant fasddiaQ.
41 The cwt of departmental ministration and cammissione/caoittau have been.allocated
proportionately to these two fulktions.
31 The growth in departmental administrative costs is limited to half the rate of growth of program costs.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo 1991-95 r,----W Plan
(Classification of ecymditurs categories is by Angw McDonald & Associates.)
(A)Ct\P\1911\BUDr•CLs2.WE1($DUDCET-SUMVARr)
ref 74176.4$
City Council Workshop Edition _ Page 15
147%A3
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
and the targeted park standard for the future that is incorporated into the City's General
Plan.
The situation is as follows:
Acres/1,000 Residents
Existing Situation 3.2
City's Adopted Standard 10.0
[Margarita Area Concept Plan 253
Given current financial realities the City is not able to commit immediately to raise its park
standard above the existing 3.2 acres/1,000 residents, although the long term target is to
move towards 10.0 acres per 1,000 residents. As a matter of public policy it would be
inappropriate to commit to a higher standard of service to a newly annexed until this same
standard can be supported Citywide. Accordingly the fiscal analysis assumes that the full
- - -inventory of park land in the Airport Area will not be developed immediately.—It-is--assumed--- -
that the City will maintain park land at the existing ratio of 3.2 acres per 1,000 residents in
the Airport Area until the Citywide standard can be increased.
The increased standard beyond the City's target (i.e., 253 acres per 1,000 residents in the
Margarita Area Concept Plan compared to the city's goal of 10.0 acres per 1,000 residents)
represents a standard for the Airport Area that would not be available Citywide for the
foreseeable future. If the residents and other landowners in the Margarita Area decide that
this augmented standard should be maintained,it is assumed that the cost of maintenance
will be financed locally by Airport Area landowners. Similarly, if the landowners in the
Airport Area wish to move towards the goal of 10.0 acres per 1,000 residents in advance of
the time when the city can support this improvement throughout the entire City, local
landowners could approve a benefit assessment district for an interim period, to move from
a standard of 3.2 acres per 1,000 residents to a standard of 10.0 acres per 1,000 residents.
2. Estimate of Annual Expenditures
The estimating relationships described above were applied to the "Status Quo" and to the
future land use assumptions described in Chapter II. The result is shown in Table III-2.
As noted above, the expenditure estimates are more than a "projection' or even a forecast.
They represent a commitment by the City Administrative Officer and the City's management
team that services will be provided at a total cost not to exceed the amount shown.
Page 16 City Council Workshop Edition
wn.a
San,Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 1112
ESTIMATE OF CITY EXPENDITURES
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
11-Peb-94
1104 AM
• Status.0" .•
i with
Description Of Expenditure Ites ! Annexation ! Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 10 Year is
PUBLIC SAY=
Police Protection • SO ! $29,200 $50,100 $061600 $115.400 $140,200 $270,500 $356,200
rice and Raoiiooceaotal.Safety (Mute 1) •' $50,000 • '$21:100 -$42,500 $43,000 $94,000 $1021040 $196,000 $210,600
TEANSPOYMMOE. • i
Street and Signal Maintenance • $67,200 •, $14,000 $20.600 $41,200 $57,600 $73,000 51441000 $127,300
Transportation:PlnmisSi.too '• $500 $1,600 $2.400 $1,200 $3,900 $7,500 $9,900
LUSURSr, CWXURAr A SOCIAL SRRVICES • - .
Sun and ran ! $300 ! $400 $200 $1.100 $1.500 $1.800 $1,500 $4,506
Recreation programs - • $0 • $1,600 $5,100 $7,600 611.164 812,100 $31,600 $31,500
Rainten=-servit" ----------- ---- ---!-------$o:-t----dsaoo ----S10,100------$Is.300----$30,300------'524,400-----$46,so* S60.200
cultural Services $200 $400 $900 $1;100 $1,700 Moot $3,900 $5,200
social services (Roman Relations) ! $300 • $506 $1,600 $1,500 $1.900 $2,400 $4,500 $6.000
COIOIOMITr DEVELOYNBUT
Planning - other Than Development Review (Mote 2) • $2,000 • $1,600 $3.900 $5,200 $7,000 $8,500 .$16,400 $21;700
Building and Safety - Coda Rnfozeoont ! $2,000 • $400 $700 $1,100 $1,400 $1.800 $1,400 $4,500
Capital Improvement Program Maeageeant • $2,000 • $2,900 $5,700 $6,500 $11,300 $13;700 $26,400 $15,000
Commsitp Proeotiou ! $0 • $1,700 $3,400. 55,000 E6.700 $61100 $15,700 $20,800
GRUKRAL GOVERMMT.(Note 3) • $19,900 1 $11,000 $25.900 $1$,500 - $31,300 $62.700 $121,600 $160.200
TOTAL EXPENDITURES • $144,900 + $94,400 $108,500 $200.200 $371,200 $055.800 58841900 $1,165.500
Mot":
(1) An additional one-tim cast of SS0,000-75,000 will be incurred to support
I
contract fire :..mor for 12-10 months. This individual rill provide the
additional staff.support'rsjmired to bring the Airport Area up to The City's Standard
for fire protaetion.
(2) A one-tim investment of $43,000 should be budgeted for adding the Airport
Area tate the City's mapping Program.
(1) General Goaernmst expenditures ware calculated based on the existing
ratio of General Goverment expenditures to the Total oust of opesetinq.paugrem.
This ratio is 1S.941. -
Sourest Angus KcDonald A Associates.
(AjC:\P\1911\SG�R1-1.RE1(!ffi®1DITOR68)
City Council Workshop Edition Page 17
x075►
San Luis Obispo Airport Area_Fiscal hnpact Analysis
B. Revenues to the City
As noted above, a city's revenues can be affected by land use and economic development
policies.. The major determinants, however, are economic forces, State laws and local
ordinances.
1. Sources of Revenue
Appendix A to the present report describes in detail the revenues that will accrue to the City
of San.Luis Obispo if annexation takes place. The most significant revenues are property
tax revenues, sales tax revenues and those revenues shared among all local governments in
California that respond to formulae enacted in State law.
Of great importance,the revenue estimates in the present report respond to State laws and
regulations as of Fiscal Year 1993/94. In view of the fact that these laws and regulations
have changed—and changed to the detriment of local government in California=during the
--=----last two-fiscal-years,and-given-that-the-State-of-California.has by no-means solved its budget--- - -
difficulties, it would be imprudent to assume that local governments have seen the last of
fiscal adversity. This point is discussed further in Chapter IIID. beginning on page 21.
2. Assumed Tax-Sharing Agreement With San Luis Obispo County
A property-tax-sharing agreement must be reached with San Luis Obispo County before
annexation can take place. Traditionally, the agreement between San Luis Obispo County
and the cities in the County has included two provisions. First, San Luis Obispo County
retains the entire base property tax amount that it collected prior to annexation. Second,
Property Tax Apportionment Factors for the County and for the annexing city are adjusted
so that the city receives a percentage of the change in property tax (i.e., the Annual Tax
Increment) that equals the city's average percentage, throughout its jurisdiction.
This traditional arrangement was assumed for purposes of the Airport Area fiscal analysis..
Page 18 City Council Workshop Edition
sono
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal impact Analysis
C. The Fiscal Impact on the City of San Luis Obispo
The estimate of revenues to the City of San Luis Obispo is summarized in Table III-3. This
exhibit also shows the fund balance (i.e., annual revenues minus the estimate. of annual
expenditures that was presented in Table III-2) for the City's General Fund. The General
Fund is supported wholly or in part by tax revenues. The City's Enterprise Funds (i.e.,
Water Fund, Sewer Fund, Parldng Fund,Transit Fund, and Golf Course Fund) are,by City
policy, supported from user charges or from revenues that are available solely for the
purposes of the Fund. Enterprise Funds were excluded from the fiscal analysis. Revenues
and expenditures for Enterprise Funds will be approximately equal each fiscal year and will
not affect the City's tax base.
There is no guarantee that user charges for the Airport Area will be equal to the present
user charges in the existing City. If, for example, the source of water to serve the Airport
Area proves to have a higher cost-per-acre foot than is currently the case, the City reserves
the right to recover this cost from those who benefit from the more expensivewater supply,
rather than assigning a portion of this higher cost to existing City rate-payers.
1. Short-Term Fiscal Impact
If the Airport Area is annexed, the period after annexation but before growth and
development begins would produce an annual fiscal surplus to San Luis Obispo., The
Airport Area has a pre-existing base of commercial and industrial activity that would
generate significant revenues for the City. The City is in a position to provide police and
fire protection and other public services at a modest increase in costs. Accordingly, an
annual surplus would result.
2. Nfiid Term Fiscal Impact
The Airport Area continues to produce a fiscal surplus after annexation;when growth and
development begins to occur. Additional tax revenues would more than cover the costs to
extend public services at the City's existing standard for providing public services.
City CoumM Workshop Edition Page 19
�arso
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table 11113
ESTIMATE OF CITY REVENUES AND FUND BALANCES
San Luis Obispo Airport Area FWAI Impact Analysis
11-Feb-96'
1L•36 AE
•. Siatus-Quo
• NTN
Description Of Revenue Ite ! Anttaation • Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 6 Year S Year 10 Year 13
SAE R4Btl086 i
Sales 6 Use rare • §371,000 ! '5]5,300 $70,700 $106,600 $136,500 $166,300 $322,300 $610,600
Property Tax • $0 • $32,000 $65,000 1$94,004 $120,000 $139,100 $259,900 $335,300
Tranaiet Le lab rax ! $0 ! $0 $0 $4 $0 s0 i0 $0
!hie:Ya: ${1,500 $6.600 $9,200 $13,700 $10,500 $22,900 $65,600 $61,600
Fte
Ruainems
chill rax sec ! $129,600 • $3.600 $7.100 $10,700 $16,700 $37,000 $35,700 $53,500
utility Ueere Taxx N • $103,600 ! $15,360 $30,500 .$65,000 $61,500 $76,300 $132,600 $205,900
Mal Property rranefer Tai[ ! $0 • $12,000 513,200 "$13,500 $13,700 $22,500 '$20,$00 $17,900
Total - rax Revenue • $605,500 • $103.600 $195,700 $202,300 $366,900 $616.900 je17,100 $1,002,200
Fn=Alm FORFUTURE6
Vehicle Lode [iaes ! $300 • $400 $900 $1.306 $1,700 $2.100 $6.100 $5.200
othid-[lues-Oad-fOrlsitur+e ____ ... . ....__ - ______•_ _ :5600.. •..___- $600- --41,Z00-_- - $1,000--- $2,300--___.$2,600-__--jSrt00. _...$7,600
Taw - Yiaes and Forfeitures • §700 • $1,000 $2.100 $3.100 $6,000 $6,900 $9,500 $12,200
SUEVENTORS A® GRWTG • • -
Motor Vehicle In-Lien • $5,600 • $6,600 $17,100 $23,000 $32,600 $39,200 $70.700 $05,600
Gasoline Tex Subvet- • $2,300 i $3.500 $6,700 $9.600 .$11,600 $13,606 $20,700 $21.500
Total - Subaetionand Grants • 50,100 % 632,100 $23,609 $36,600 µ4,600 $52,000 $91.600 $107,100
Interest Sarnia" • 520.!00 • 53,S00 $61600 $9,600 $12,300 616,000 $20,100 $36,300
TOTAL REVZMM • S715,100 4 $120.200 $220,200 $329,600 $627,600 $509,600 $966,100 $1,244,000
TOTAL mm mrim as (From Table III-2) • $166.900 • $94,600 6166,500 5260,200 $373,200 §655,600 - $6/6,600 $1,165,500
NET Rrimm (MOM=) • $570,200 • $25,600 $39,700 $69,200 $56,600 $53,600 .$01,300 $79,300
Status Quo Not Revenue (IMPSMAe) • • 3570,200 SS70,200 $570,200 $370,200 $570,200 SS70,200 $570,200
IRT REVidOi (MWMMZ) V13E:STATUS Qw • + $596.000 $609,900 $619,600 $626,000 $623,600 $651,300 $669,500
gourcet Angm McDonald 4 Aamoczatem.
(A]Ot\P\1933\6cm013-1.vb(@rzsCAL RE5Mm
Page 20 City Council Workshop Edition
3075.0
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact_Analysis
D. Impact Monitoring and Mitigation
In general,techniques of economic forecasting have not proved to be as reliable as (say)the
techniques employed by astronomers or physicists. Further, as noted above, recent history
in California verifies that the fiscal situation of cities and counties is particularly vulnerable
to the State of California's budget process. Accordingly, it is accepted practice when
economic forecasts are to be used(in part) to guide a policy decision,to evaluate the extent
to which a decision is still a sound one, even though economic forecasts prove to be
different from actual future results. Similarly, it is accepted practice to consider, at the
outset, the steps that could be taken to avoid adverse consequences if economic forecasts
proved to be optimistic.
1. Sources of Vulnerability
Two specific sources of vulnerability were considered,with respect to the proposed Airport
Annexation. The first was vulnerability to market forces. The second source was further
inroads on the property tax base of cities and counties, to shift property tax to school
districts and ease the burden on the State General Fund.
The decision about whether to annex the Airport Area was not considered to be particularly
vulnerable to future increases in cost to provide services. It is possible to conjecture about
future events that would increase the cost to provide services(e.g., State-mandated changes
in wage and hour regulations affecting public safety personnel). The increasingly tight limits
under which cities and counties are operating in California suggests that mandated cost
increases will not be supported politically. Further, the commitment of the City
Administrative Officer and the management team to control costs (measured in real dollar
terms) that is described on page 12 suggests that vulnerability to cost increases is not as
serious as vulnerability to revenue deficiencies.
Deficiencies in Commercial Development. The development forecast presented in
Chapter II.B. provided a reasonable balance between residential development and
commercial development in the Airport Area. Figure III4 illustrates the extent to which
the cumulative fiscal balance for the first five years after growth and development begin in
the Airport Area would decline as commercial and industrial development decline from the
cumulative estimate of 175,000 sq.ft. that is anticipated to occur in the first five years after
development begins.
It should be understood that Figure III4 represents a worst case regarding the impact of
a decline in successfully attracting commercial land uses. The exhibit is based on the
assumption that,if the commercial development did not occur, then the property tax and the
sales tax that was forecast to be generated by the commercial development would not occur.
City Counc�7 Workshop Edition _ - page 21
WMA
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
This is a very conservative assumption. San Luis Obispo is a regional center. If shoppers
were not able to shop in the Airport Area, and if employers did not locate in the Airport
Area, a significant number of each might well conduct their commercial transactions
elsewhere in San Luis Obispo, and the net fiscal effect would be less pessimistic than that
shown in Figure I1I-4.
Diversion of Property Tax. Figure III-S illustrates the effect of a continued diversion of
property tax away from cities and counties by the State of California. If the past two years
is precedent; this effect is a dollar-for-dollar diversion away from local governments, to
relieve what formerly had been an obligation of the State of California General Fund.
2. Responses to Adverse Fiscal Impacts
In spite of uncertainty, the City is not helpless if it decides to annex the Airport Area, and
if the actual fiscal impacts prove less positive than indicated by the forecasts in the present
report It is recommended that, if annexation takes place, the City monitor actual fiscal
impacts on a year-by-year basis. If adverse impacts are experienced, then corrective action
can be taken.
The annual monitoring program would both measure expenditures to serve the Airport Area
and revenues generated by the Airport Area. Both sets of measurements would be carried
out as.part of ongoing City administrative procedures and would require only a modest staff
effort
The level of detail of the expenditure monitoring program will depend on whether the City
continues to develop the "persons served"concept and monitors case load generated by each
land use category in the Airport Area. Experience in other jurisdictions indicates that two
of the most significant expenditure items — police and fire services can be monitored
continuously by making modest adjustments to existing programs where calls for service are
translated into the appropriate response of either the Police or Fire Department. In other
cases (e.g., .Park ,Maintenance and Recreation Programs), the extent of availability of
opportunity can be monitored by means of reporting on park acres maintained and
recreation programs offered. From time to time and for special purposes, a user survey or
resident survey can be carried out to gauge actual use, level of satisfaction, etc.
Revenues can be monitored by observing the variables that determine amount of revenues
that will be collected. Property tax revenues can be monitored directly from the records of
the San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller. Vehicle license fee-revenues and fuel tax
revenues can be monitored by observing the variables (e.g., population, taxable assessed
value) that are incorporated into State law and that determine the City of San Luis Obispo's
share of these revenues. Taxable retail sales in the Airport Area can be monitored,based
Page 22 - - City CoumA Workshop Edition
3033
San Luis Obispo Airport Area.Fiscal Impad Analysis
on annual records that can be made available to the City by the California State Board of
Equalization.
The annual fiscal impact monitoring program is not an end in itself. The results of this
monitoring program should lead to an appropriate course of action. The City of San Luis
Obispo is not committing itself to bear indefinitely the fiscal impacts of a decision made
(presumably in 1994), if the future fiscal impact is not to the City's advantage.
An appropriate response to adverse fiscal impacts (if this occurs)'Will depend on the cause
of any adverse impacts. As one example, if the monitoring program revealed that
commercial development was not keeping pace with residential development, then an
appropriate response would be to amend the City's growth management policies.
Supplemental limitations could be placed on the permitted rate of residential development
if the conclusion was reached that commercial development was not keeping pace with
residential development.
As an example, if demand for residential development were strong, then residential
developers would find it in their best interest to arrange joint ventures with commercial
--developers:_ Appropriate profit-sharing arrangements-or--write-downs-of-the-*---cost-of
commercial land could be negotiated privately between residential and commercial
developers. Under such an arrangement, the market potential of residential development
could be realized,but the commercial development that assures a fiscal balance would also
occur.
If, at a particular point in time, the residential.market was not strong enough to support
joint ventures,then residential development would be deferred until the marketplace would
produce a fiscal balance that prevents a decline in San Luis Obispo's tax base.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 23
w•�.a
San Luis Obispo Airport Area.Fiscs! Impact Analysis
Figure M4 SENSITIVITY TO AMOUNT OF COMMERCIAL RCIAL DEVELOPMENT
T6onsands of Dollars
700
690 ... .... ....................... ............. .. ---.... .........
1660
....... ..................... .. ..........
640 - :............... . ... .............................. ........
620 •...... ... ....... ........ ..... .. .--......----....... ... ....... .
600 -
0% 10% 2096 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Reduction of Business Par&Space
So=ce:Angus McDonald&Associatcs
Note:
1) Reduction is measured from the 15-year target of an additional 525,000 sq. ft. of
commercial and industrial buildings in the AirportArea.
Page 24 City Council Workshop Edition
30MG
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Figure 111-5 SENSITIVITY TO DIVERSION OF PROPERTY TAX
Thousands of Dollars
690. .... ........ ....... .. ...... ....... .. ............ .. ......... ....
670 .... ....... . ...... .. . ...... ....... .. ............... . .. .......
650 ........ . ..... .............. .. ................ .
630 .. ... ...... ..... ....................... ............
1610 ....... ....... ...... .. ................ ............. . ......
570 ... ... ...... ...... ... ...... ..... .. ..... .. ... .... . ..... ...
550
0% 2% 4% 6% 8% 10% 12% 14%
Possible Rednctlon of Property 71ix ftom State Reallocation
Source.-Angus McDonald Jk Associates
Notes:
1) This exhibit is not a prediction that the State of California will continue to solve
its own budget problems by reducing the property tax share to local government. It is an
illustration of the effect of any further diversion,if this diversion takes place.
City CouncB Workshop Edition Page 25
307LO
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lupact analysis
IV. NEXT STEPS IN THE EVALUATION PROCESS
The present chapter attempts to put the results of the fiscal impact analysis into perspective
and then provides a discussion of considerations other than fiscal impact that should be
evaluated before a decision about annexation is made.
A. Significance of the Fiscal Impact Analysis
The fiscal impact analysis has confirmed that the City of.San Luis Obispo has the capacity
to serve the Airport Area without imposing an additional burden on city taxpayers. This
conclusion is contingent on the City adopting the Growth Monitoring And Impact Mitigation
Program that was described in Chapter IIID. The Airport Area will not necessarily produce
a positive fiscal balance for the City unless actual future events resemble the assumptions
used in this report.
B. Considerations Other Than Fiscal Impact
Given the consultants' conclusion that the Airport Area can be served without producing a
------negative-fiscal-impact,-it.-is.-important_to_consider-.factors-other_thari fiscal-impact-that-may----
affect the decision about annexing the Airport Area.
1. Land Use Controls In The Airport Area
Research and interviews conducted during the present study confirmed what has generally
been understood for several years. The development potential of the Airport Area is
significant. If the Airport Area is not annexed by the City of San Luis Obispo there is a
high probability that development will take place under standards applicable in the
unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County.
The choice before the City may well be whether to manage growth in. the Airport Area
under City standards or to be an observer as growth occurs, beyond direct City control.
A strategy to annex the Airport Area sometime in the future after additional development
has taken place will almost certainly add to City costs. The City's standards for public
service delivery are higher,in some cases,than the standard applicable in the unincorporated
area of San Luis Obispo County. An example cited previously was preventive inspections
by the City Fire.Department.
If development occurs that is not up to City standards,then this development will constitute
a pre-existing deficiency at the time that annexation is attempted. Any plan to finance
public improvements and public services for new development in the area that is then
Page 26 City Council'Workshop Edition
• 307SA
San Luis Obispo Airport Area]rL%W Impact.Analysis
proposed for annexation will have to acknowledge these existing deficiencies must be
remedied from San Luis Obispo's General Fund and cannot be charged against future
development in the area being annexed.
2. Required Commitment of City Staff
On August 24, 1993, the City of San Luis Obispo conducted a City Council Workshop on
fiscal and financial issues pertaining to annexation. The experience of all of the invited
speakers tended to confirm the assertion that the process of extending City services to
undeveloped areas depends critically on involvement of senior City staff. The involvement
of consultants may be useful but, however expert and dedicated are the consultants, they
leave the City when the assignment is over. The City's management team must be both
supportive of and highly knowledgeable about the public facilities financing plan and(in the
present case) the fiscal monitoring and mitigation program that will be key to a successful
annexation:
An intensive,"hands-on" involvement of the City's management team is recommended,if the
City decides to adopt_a Specific Plan and a Public Facilities Implementation Plan(PFIP) for
._--- —the Airport Area.—Given-that the-management-team-is-already-fully-occupied,-it-tray-be-_.. `.
necessary to augment City staff temporarily. (The cost of this augmentation can be
recovered from the financing techniques that are incorporated into the Public Facilities
Implementation Plan.)
The recommendation is not that additional staff be hired.temporarily to work on the Specific
Plan/Public Facilities Implementation Plan. Instead temporary staff should be assigned to
existing departmental duties. Senior City staff could then be assigned to provide leadership
and personal involvement,while the Specific Plan/Public Facilities Implementation Plan are
being prepared.
3. The Implications of Development-Related Financing
In the 1990's, there is a simple reality regarding sources of money to pay for public
improvements that will serve new development In sharp contrast to the past, neither the
State of California nor the Federal government are in a position to provide financing for
public improvements. In the face of a 30.7-position staff reduction, entering the present
fiscal year,the City of San Luis Obispo is hardly in a position to use General Fund revenues
to pay for public improvements to serve new development
As a practical matter, the oo,ly money to pay for public improvements must come from the
increase in land values that occur because land has the potential to be developed.
City Council Workshop Edition - Page 27
30"
San Lids Obispo Arport Area FSscal Impact Analysis
Development-related financing has two forms. Public improvements can be financed on a
"pay-as-you-go" basis, using development impact fees collected at or near the time of
development. This is the preferred financing technique unless large and expensive
improvements are required early in the development process.
If development impact fees will not produce adequate cash flow, then a form of"pay-as-you-
use" financing must be considered. Tax-free municipal bonds are sold to investors and the
proceeds of the bond sale are used to pay for major public improvements. The landowners
(future residents and business owners) repay the bonds over a period of 15-25 years.
The merits of"pay-as-you-go" or "pay-as-you-use" financing should be discussed fully, if the
City decides to prepare a Specific Plan/Public Facilities Implementation Plan for the Airport
Area. The point of the present discussion is not to guide the selection of a means of
financing. The point of the present discussion is that, if a decision is made to annex the
Airport Area. financing for public improvements.will depend on development. It can be
expected that this development will be subject to the design guidelines and other conditions
incorporated into the Specific Plan. The City's existing growth management policies will be
applicable and (as noted previously) it is strongly.recommended that additional growth
- ---policiesbe-adopted-to-assure-a continuing-fiscal balance-from-the Airport Area— -- ------
Nonetheless, financing for the roads, sewer, drainage and other public improvements to
serve the airport will depend on development actually taking place. The Qty should decide
that development - albeit development that is fully subject to GSty controls, standards and
guidelines - is acceptable, before the City decides to proceed with the Airport Area
annexation.
Page 28 City Council Workshop Edition
.7[S1SA
1
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
APPENDIX A. METHODOLOGY AND ASSUMPTIONS
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
A. General
if Continuity Of Legal And Institutional Constraints
The analysis was based on assumptions about intergovernmental municipal finance applicable
as of January 1, 1994. The analysis assumes the constraints and limitations of Proposition
13. While there are court cases pending that would significantly affect property taxes in
California,any assumptions other than present law is highly speculative.
2. Cost And Revenue Inflation
The fiscal analysis is presented in terms of dollars with January 1, 1994 purchasing power.
While the results are presented in constant January 1, 1994 dollars, both the general rate
of inflation and the rate of property value appreciation affect property tax revenues. The
general rate of inflation is assumed to be four percent (4.0%) per year, and property values
are assumed to increase at the rate of general inflation.
3. Time Period For Analysis
For the purposes of the fiscal analysis a development forecast was prepared which makes
assumptions about the amount and timing of growth in the Airport Area. The forecast is
shown in Table A-1.
The development forecast was prepared after extensive discussions with landowners in the
Airport Area and discussions with builders and developers who are active in the Central
Coast market area. The forecast is aggressive,but is considered by the consultant team to
be achievable,assuming a continuing recovery in the State and regional economies.
B. General Fund Revenues
1. Property Tax
The process of estimating increases in property tax revenue is extremely complex This is
a direct result of the interaction of the legal constraints imposed by Proposition 13 and
Assembly Bill 8, and the market forces affecting the price and turnover of property.
Proposition 13 (1978) limits property taxes to one percent (1.0%) of the Taxable Assessed
Value (TAV) of real and personal property. Increases in the TAV of a given property may
not exceed two percent (2.0%) per year unless the property experiences a change in
ownership, or taxable improvements are added to the property. If the property is sold the
City Council Workshop Edition Page 29
3073.0
San.Adis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Anxr�sis
n o ee
n nN
N
•+ e o ee
w o o Oe
w a N O
n n P
r
y.; N^ee eN ee .e es
w nn nn ee a ee
w N N N
n nN
yn a»oe eN ee a ee
eeee
M
n nN ,
yM Ne•00 Oa 00 O 00
N N N N
00 O 0 0
„ N O 00
N a N N
N N O
^
ye N^ee eN ee a ee
N Nn NN eo a ee
„ we It It It
N N a O
n N
n
�P aeeewNn .00.O•II a ee
N« a eo
� ww It o0
L a as
C^ n NN
n
r1 ye� Nzee «eN ee a ee«« « ee a ee
w. a ee
Uea N N e
ry w w
yn N^ee eN ee ee.
nn ry« ee O o0
�.• wr a oo
N� N
00
y e a O O O O a O O O O O
w N N N ry 0 0 O 0 0
w O O O O
N a O
n N^1
i Na N eo a ee
� wN a ae
a
�o OO O ee a ea
MeN 'Ne•e
yn Meee as u ee
ri w.N eu a ee
• � '� � wn a ee
O N N N
N N•O•
An 1J N O ON O O O O O O O
i N O
O
O
O O O
NN 00
m ae
/aN w n r
1�M 000 OO O 00 '
(n 3 Nrye 00 O 00
N N N
n nn
O O O OO O O O O O O O O O
pnw" IwON eO eO OO
'w O« N N oil
N O O O
w w O O N N
Np n P N N
O a a
ya a
a
r n
w N n
404 , 1169 R
4 VVVVY✓O � V i
YYY pPp•�p)p)N.�OyyiVy Y P
-Page 30 City Council Workshop Edition
saR.a
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Lnpact Analysis
TAV is adjusted by the County Assessor to the property's then current fair market value.
If the property is improved the TAV is adjusted only on the improved portion of the
property. . The effect of this anomaly is that the property tax revenue flowing to a
jurisdiction from a particular property will most likely decline, in real terms, over time.
For example, if the increase in the market value of a single family home is the same as the
rate of inflation then the real purchasing power of the property tax revenue from this
residence declines over time unless:
(1) The rate of inflation is less than, or equal to, two percent (2.0%) per
year, or,
(2) The property changes ownership each and every year.
This phenomenon is true for all land uses, in all jurisdictions, throughout the state of
California.
In light of the above discussion,it is clear that the property turnover rate plays an important
role in estimating the amount of property tax revenue that will be generated from a new
-----development-project.The-turnover-rates-and.market-values-used_in the-analysis_are_shown—__
for each distinct land use category in Table A-2. It should be noted that the turnover of
vacant land and the ability of some homeowners to transfer their property tax basis when
they purchase a replacement home was not considered in the analysis. In addition, the
analysis assumes the market value of residential and non-residential property will increase
at the same rate as inflation. Again, the inflation rate is assumed to be four percent (4.0%)
per year.
An algorithm was constructed by Angus McDonald&Associates that estimates future TAV.
The algorithm simulates the process in any given year in which;
• the TAV of those properties which change hands, as reflected in the turnover
rate, rises to the then current market value, and
• the TAV of the properties that were not sold increases by two percent(2.0%).
For each distinct land use category a multiplier is calculated that captures the effect of the
general price level inflation,real estate inflation,and the turnover rate of a typical property.
The multiplier is, in effect, a probability coefficient in which the probability of the TAV
increasing to the market value is a function of the turnover rate and the probability of the
TAV increasing by two percent (2.0%) is one minus the turnover rate. This multiplier is
used to adjust the TAV created by new development to account for the effects of
Proposition 13.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 31
3a73A
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table A-2
MARKET VALUE AND TURNOVER RATE ASSUMPTIONS
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
08-Feb-94
01:11 PM
Annual
Estimated Turnover Turnover
Market Rate Rate
Land Use Category Unit Lot Size Value (Percentage) (Years)
Residential
Low Density - Category 1 (8,000 eq ft lot) Dwelling Unit $275,000 10.01 10
Low Density - Category 2 (6,000 aq !t lot) Dwelling Unit $200,000 10.01 10
Low Density - Category 3 (4,000 sq St lot) Dwelling Unit $150,000 12.51 8
Medium Density - Zero Lot Line Dwelling Unit $150,000 12.St 8
!tedium Density - Townhouses Dwelling Unit $140,000 12.51 8
I[edium Density - Housing Authority Site Dwelling Unit $125,000 20.08 5
Medium High Density - Townhouses Dwelling Unit $130,000 20.01 5
High Density - Rowhouses Dwelling Unit $90,000 20.01 5
Residential over Commercial Dwelling unit $80,000 20.0% 5
Non-Residential
Neighborhood Commercial Square Foot $73 5.01 20
Business Park Square Foot $95 5.01 20
Source: Angus McDonald i Associates.
[A]C:\P\1933\1933PTAX.WR3(BPTAX ASUMPTION)
Page 32 City Council Workshop Edition
waas
i
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
a. Property Tax Apportionment Factors
1) Tax Rate Areas And The Use of Property Tax Apportionment
Factors
A Tax Rate Area (TRA) is defined in §95 of the Revenue and Taxation Code as:
A specific geographic area all of which is within the jurisdiction of the same
combination of local agencies and school entities for the current fiscal year.
Every year the San Luis Obispo County Assessor measures the change in TAV in each TRA
in the County. Under the limits imposed by Proposition 13, one percent of the annual
change in TAV represents the total change in property tax that will be shared among the
taxing agencies within each TRA. This change in total property tax revenue is referred to
as the "Annual Tax Increment" in §97 of the Revenue and Taxation Code.
The San Luis Obispo County Auditor-Controller has calculated a Property Tax
Apportionment Factor (PTAF), or Annual Tax Increment Factor, for each agency serving
-- — .a particular-T-RA. -PT-AFs-are defined-in-§973 of-the Revenue-and-Taxation-Code and-have— - -
the following characteristics;
• The sum of the PTAFs for all the taxing agencies within each TRA will be 1.0.
• The PTAF for each agency indicates the percent of the total Annual Tax
Increment that will be distributed to the agency from that particular TRA. In
other words, the PTAFs control the share of the property tax revenues
generated from the change in TAV that will be distributed to each agency.
• The property tax revenue an agency receives in any given year,is equal to the
total property tax revenue it received in the prior year plus the agency's share
of the current year's Annual Tax Increment. This calculation is performed for
each TRA.
2) Property Tax Apportionment Factors In The San Luis Obispo
Airport Area
In calculating the property tax flowing to the City an average PTAF of 15.0% was used.
This figure was based on the rate applicable to the Broad Street Annexation with
appropriate adjustments to reflect the property tax shifts brought on by the State.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 33
)0MG
i
Saa Luis Obispo Airport Area FUW Impact Analysis
2. Real Property Transfer Tax (Documentary Transfer Tax)
Authori Revenue and Taxation §11901 et. seq.
Administering Agency: San Luis Obispo County.
Description: Real property sales, and resales,within the San Luis Obispo Airport Area will
be taxed by the County at the rate of$35 per $500 of property value.. As this area will be
annexed to the City of.San Luis Obispo, one-half of the property transfer tax will flow to
the City.
The following assumptions were used in the estimate of transfer tar,
(1) All property is transferred free of any lien or encumbrance.
(2) Sales, and resales, of anything other than a final product was not considered.
(3) All property is transferred under circumstances in which the transfer tax would
--- --- ---be-applicable.— ----------------- ---
(4) The same assumptions regarding turnover rates and propertyvalues used in
the property tax calculation (as shown in Table A-2) were.used to calculate
the Real Property Transfer Tax.
Use Of Revenues: Unrestricted.
3. Transient Occupancy Tax
Authority Revenue and Taxation §7280 and §7281..
Administering Agency: City of San Luis Obispo..
Description: The Transient Occupancy Tax is imposed for the privilege of occupying a
room,or rooms,or other living space,in a hotel,inn, tourist home or house,motel, or other
lodging unless the occupancy is for more than thirty (30) days.
The current Transient Occupancy Tax rate imposed by the City of San Luis Obispo is ten
percent (10.0%). The proposed project does not include any uses that would directly
produce Transient Occupancy Tax.
Pate 34 City Council Workshop Edition
34MG
San Lias Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Use Of Revenues: Unrestricted.
4. Sales Tax
In general, sales or use taxes are imposed on the retail sale or the use of tangible personal
property in California. Items excluded from taxation include property that is purchased for
resale, food for home consumption and prescription medicines. Since the initial enactment
of sales and use tax laws in California in 1933 numerous other exemptions and exclusions
have been granted that remove the liability for tax on certain types of property and
organizations. In general, services are excluded from taxation, although services incidental
to the sale of tangible personal property are usually taxable.
All cities and counties in the state levy a basic one percent sales tax and have the option to
levy additional sales taxes under certain circumstances. Sales and use tax revenues are
collected by the California State Board of Equalization. The Board of Equalization allocates
the local portion of these revenues to the appropriate local governments. The localportion
of sales tax revenues generally are allocated according to the location of the sale rather than
residence or business location of the purchaser. (Exceptions occur for certain items and for
-----taxes-im osed-on-the-use-of e - —------
P Prof ��)— -------- ------- ------
Table A-3
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SALES TAR RATES
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Analysis
State 6.00%
City- local rate 1.00%
County transportation rate 0.25%
Total Sales Tax Rate- San Luis Obispo County 7.25%
Source: State Board of Equalization,
Sales and Use Tax revenues were estimated for only the following component:
• Sales tax revenues that would derive from the taxable sales by new residents
that are forecast to be included within the City's new corporate limits.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 35
x,73.3
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Sales tax revenues from new residents were estimated based upon a sales tax per capita
figure of$135.74. This figure was derived using the 1993/94 budgeted amount of$5,959,000
and an existing population of 43,900.
S. Utility Users Tax and Franchise Fees
The City of San Luis Obispo currently levies a Utility Users Tax at the rate of 5.0% applied
to gross receipts for gas,electricity,water,cable television and telephone. The revenue from
the Airport Area was estimated based average residential usage rates which yielded
approximately $115 per household per year of Utility User Tax flowing to the City. See
Table A4 for these calculations.
The non-residential utility users tax generation rate was derived by estimating that portion
of the existing city utility users tax revenue and developing a per square foot multiplier. See
Table A-5 for these calculations.
The City of San Luis Obispo currently levies a Franchise Tax (the rates are summarized in
Table A-4) applied to the gross receipts for gas,electricity,water,cable television and waste
disposal ._The revenne_from the.Airport Area-was estimated based average residential usage__.___
rates which yielded approximately $35 per household per year of Franchise Fee revenue
flowing to the City. See Table A4 for these calculations.
The non-residential Franchise Fee revenue generation rate was derived by estimating that
portion of the existing city Franchise Fee revenue and developing a per square foot
multiplier. See Table A-5 for these calculations.
6. Business Tax
Auth ri Government Code §37101.
Administering Aged: City of San Luis Obispo.
Description: The Business License Tarin the City of San Luis Obispo was enacted only for
revenue raising purposes. The current tax rate is $50 per $100,000 of gross receipts and is
applicable to all businesses. The estimate prepared for the Airport Area was prepared based
on a $0.10 per square foot, multiplier. The multiplier was derived based on the .1993/94
budgeted amount of $754,200 and an estimated existing non-residential square footage of
7,402,000.
Use Of Revenues: Unrestricted.
Page 36 City Council Workshop Edition
3075A "
4
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Table A-4
DERIVATION OF UMJTY USERS TAR AND FRANCHISE FEES FROM
HOUSEHOLDS
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
13-yeb-94
11:]6 aM.
Usual .
a0n::a2. Utility Uaoia franchise
80> ice Utility rranahise Sar Bats y" Bat"
Re~" Per Users yse generation Generation.
Descriptio- of Utility Household San Bate Bat" Per Household Per Household
8lectcieity $773 5.001 1.001 $32.63 $7.73
au $309 5.001 1.001 $19.43 $3.09
cahle television (3s1 Market sharer $192 3.001 3.001 S3.65 $s.4s
Taloph.Gas $420 5.004 $22.00
wa $600 3.001 2.001 $30.00 $12.00
w"ts Disposal S94 5.001
Total* - Per.Beu"hold $2.476 $116.55 $34.83
.. -. ... Saucce: Angus McDonald t Associates.
(Alc:\P\1933\BMx=A2.w83 j) '
Table A-S
DERIVATION OF UTILITY USERS TAR AND FRANCHISE FEES
From Non-Residential Space
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
31-Pab-94
11:34 AM
Utility Pranchiss
Dasaiption Users Tar rev
Midyear 1993/94 Budget Review $2,600,000 $772,600
B:istiaB.B"idsntiel Population 43,900 43,900
Pereeae per Household (Satieats) 2.1 2.0
■-:.tt_g.•Households 16;679 15,479
estinated B"id"tial Portion $1,793.902 $346,005
Batieated M n-B"idestial Portion $004,092 $232,594
BetLaute Non-Bee.Square Peet (l) 7,402,000 7,602,600
Bstieate ekm-Hes Per Square root $0.109 $0.031
Annual Revenue
Batinete Han-B" Per Square Poet $7.17 $0.63
Aemual Utility coat
(1) Source esistinq son-r"ideatial .quaee footage is Urban
Dominions Systm, county Besi"es Patteons
Source: -Augas McDonald a Associates.
[aJct\P\19]3\B(mws2.as](IDut_Bae_eas)
City Council Workshop Edition Page 37
3o7so
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal hnpact Analysis
7. Vehicle Code Fines
Vehicle Code Fines were estimated based on a per capita multiplier of $1.71. This
multiplier was derived from the 1993/94 budgeted amount of $75,100 and an existing
population of 43,900.
8. Other lanes and Forfeitures
Other Fines and Forfeitures were estimated based on a per capita multiplier of$2.28. This
multiplier was derived from the 1993/94 budgeted amount of $100,000 and an existing
population of 43,900..
9. Motor Vehicle License Fees
Authorily Article XIX, Section 3 of the California Constitution.and the Revenue and
Taxation Code §10751 and §11005.
Administering_Aeena: Collected by the State Department of Motor Vehicles and
.distributed by the State Controller.
Description: Motor vehicle license fees are collected by the State.Department of Motor
Vehicles in-lieu of local property taxes. Pursuant to §110015 of the Revenue and Taxation
Code,24.33% of these revenues are deposited into the Vehicle License Fee Account of the
Local Revenue Fund. These moneys are allocated to Counties, and several cities, as
described in Welfare and Institutions§17604. Article 9 of the Welfare and Institutions code
includes a provision that the local agency must deposit an amount at least equal to their
allocation of Vehicle License Fee revenue distributed under §17604 to the local health and
welfare trust fund in order to receive their allocation from the Sales Tax Account of the
Local Revenue Fund.
The remaining funds are allocated under Revenue and Taxation Code §11005 as follows;
(a) 81.25% of the revenue is allocated to cities and counties.
(1) 50% to cities, and allocated in proportion to population.
(2) 50% to counties, and allocated in proportion to population.
(b) 18.75% allocated to cities and counties.
(1) Allocation first to "no and.low"property tax cities pursuant to Revenue
and Taxation Code §11005(1)(A).
Page 38 City Council Workshop Edition
Ms.a
San Loris Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
(2) The remainder of the 18.75% after the allocation in (b)(1) is allocated
to counties, and cities and counties, in proportion to population.
The allocation of the 81.25% was estimated based on a per capita multiplier of$3357, this
is the 1993/94 per capita estimate from the State Controllers office.
Use Of Revenues: Unrestricted with the exception of the 24.33% distributed under Welfare
and Institutions §17600 et. seq.
10. Use Of Money And Property
The City wi71 earn a return on the investment of idle monies. Idle monies consist of money
deposits in a Reserve Fund and monies that are received in advance of expenditure
requirements. Revenue from this source depends upon the size of the reserve and the rate
of return earned. The estimate is based on an annual three percent (3.0%) real rate of
return on the total revenue generated in the Airport Area.
C. Fuel Tax Revenues
1. Highway Users Taxes - Tax Rates.
As a result of the passage of Proposition 111 (June 1990) the $0.09 per gallon tax under the
Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law (beginning with §7301 of the Revenue and Taxation
code and applicable to gasoline) and the $0.09 per gallon tax under the Use Fuel Tax Law
(beginning with§8601 of the Revenue and Taxation code and applicable to diesel fuel)were
both increased to $0.14 per gallon effective in August of 1990. Each tax rate was increased
by$0.01 every January 1 through 1994, at which time each rate reached it's current level of
$0.18 per gallon.
The following sections detail the apportionment of highway users tax revenue from the
applicable sections of the Streets and Highways Code.
2. §2105.
In July 1989, SB 300 amended§210.5 to the Streets and Highways code to detail the method
of apportionment for the additional highway users tax revenue generated by the passage of
Proposition 111.
(a) County
City Council Workshop Edition Page 39
Same
1
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
Each county, including a city and county, in California is apportioned an
amount based on 113% of the amount in excess of $0.09 per gallon as
imposed under the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law (gasoline) and the
Use Fuel Tax Law (diesel fuel). As a result,beginning in 1991, $0.00690 per
gallon from each of the applicable taxes is apportioned under §2105. The
apportionment methodology applicable to counties under §2105 is as follows:
(1) $1.0 million is apportioned in proportion to §2104 and §2106 received
in the prior year.
(2) $1.0 million is apportioned based on (a) and (b) below:
(a) $750,000 is apportioned based on the proportion of fee-paid
and exempt vehicles in the county to the fee-paid and exempt
vehicle registration in the state.
(b) $250,000 is apportioned based on the proportion of the number
of road miles maintained by the county to the number of road
miles maintained by counties in the state.
(3) Determine a factor for each county, determined.as the higher amount
calculated in (1) or (2) divided by the sum of the higher amounts for
all of the counties.
(4) The amount to be apportioned to counties is the factor as determined
in (3) multiplied by the remaining amount to be apportioned to
counties.
(b) City
Each city,including a city and county, in California is apportioned an amount
based on 11.5% of the amount in excess of$0.09 per gallon as imposed under
the Motor Vehicle Fuel License Tax Law (gasoline) and the Use Fuel Tax
Law (diesel fuel). As a result, beginning in 1991, $0.00690 per gallon from
each of the applicable taxes is apportioned under §2105. The apportionment
methodology applicable to cities under §2105 is as follows:
(1) The proportion that the city population bears to the total population
of all the cities in the state.
3. §2106.
Page 40 City Commil Workshop Edition
was
San Lius Obispo Airport area Fuel Impact Analysis
Under the Streets and Highways §2106, the net revenue from $0.0104 of the $0.18 per
gallon tax imposed on gasoline is apportioned to the cities and counties in California. The
following sections detail the apportionment of this revenue source.
(a) Each month $400 is apportioned to each city, including city and county, and
$800 is apportioned to each county; including city and county.
(b) $30,000 per month is transferred to the Bicycle Lane Account in the State
Transportation Fund
(c) The remaining funds are apportioned as follows:
(1) A base amount is calculated for each county using the same
proportions of fee-paid and exempt vehicle registration as calculated
for §2104[d].
(2) The ratio of Taxable Assessed Value (TAV) in the county outside of
incorporated cities to total TAV subject to local taxes is applied to the .
base amount as calculated in (1) above. The resulting amount is
.-----.---:------distributed-to the-county.
(3) The difference between the base amount calculated in (c)(1) and the
amount distributed as calculated in (c)(2) is apportioned to the cities
in that county in proportion that the population of each city bears to
the total population of all cities in the county.
4. §2107.
Under the Streets and Highways §2107, the net revenue from $0.01315 of the $0.18 per
gallon tax on gasoline and .a $0.0259 of the $0.18 per gallon tax on diesel fuel are
apportioned to the .cities, and cities and counties, in California. From the revenues
collected, snow removal costs equal to one-half of the amount incurred in excess of$5,000,
as detailed in the report filed pursuant to §2152,is apportioned to those cities who had such
costs and filed pursuant to §2152. The remaining amount of revenue is apportioned based
on the proportion that the total population of the city bears to the total population of all
the cities in the state.
5. §2107.5.
Under the Streets and Highways §2107.5, revenue is allocated to cities based on population
as detailed in the following section:
City Coumc.H Workshop Edition Page 41
wno
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact AnalYsis
_ _
(a) Population over 500,000 $20,000
(b) Population 100,000 to 500,000 10,000
(c) Population 50,000 to 99,999 7,500
(d) Population 25,000 to 49,999 6,000
(e) Population 20,000 to 24,999 5,000
(f) Population 15,000 to 19,999 41000
(g) Population 10,000 to 14,999 3,000
(h) Population 5,000 to 9,999 21000
(i) Population less than 5,000 1,000
D. Ongoing Expenditures
As discussed in Chapter III, expenditure estimates were either based on case studies by the
responsible Department Heads or were based on the current cost per person served. The
City's net cost per person served is summarized in Table A-6.
Table A-6
--- -- -- -
EXPENDITURE MULTIPLIERS ----- -----
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
11-Teb-94
11,34 AM
Papulation 43,900
IDgloFsmt. 23.152
Total Nat Cost
[DX &WS Sainting Total Minus Half
Factors Factors Parsons Met Adsin Of aloin
Fun-tion Description Relationship Residents asplor«s second Cost Costcost Multiplier
Police protection params Served 1.0 0.5 SS,474 65.494,700 6604,400 65,192.500 993.40
2rmgportstioa Planning Persons served 1.0 0.5 $5.476 6144,000 90 6144,000 62.60
sun and >m Persons served 1.0 0.0 43,900 963.100 90 665.100 61.40
Recreation Prograse parson. Served 1.0 0.5 S3,476 9652,100 9391,360 94S6,430 90.23
cultural Services Forgoes Served 1.0 0.3 55,476 575.000 so 675,000 91.37
Social Services (Susan Relations) Fergon Served 1.0 O.S SS,476 607,200 90 607,200 91.57
Plaonfaq - Other Tban Davalapnm! Revive persons Served 1.0 O.S $3,474 9413,000 9200,700 9314,650 95.67
Building and Safety - Cods Enforrar'et Forgone Served 1.0 O.S 53,476 963,000 90 963.000 91.17
CIP Management Persons Served 1.0 0.5. 43,476 9507.600 $0 $507,600 99.13
C0a®unitF Promotion Persons served 1.0 O.S S3,476 6701,200 90 9301,200 95.43
Fire and aDviconnestal Safety Persons Served 1.0 0.3 55,476 62,004.000 9212.400 93,777.900 960.10
Street and Si qul Maim-�� Per Lae Hili; a/a a/a a/a n/e e/a A/a 9144.00
Haiatanance 6aeviean Far Capita n/a 4/4 A/a a/a 0/6 n/e 919.70
Sources Angus McDonald.& Associates.
)ASC:\9\1933\BoacCLS 2.Fa3(9C0ST-pan-HAST
N]��patpon�.rwsf4zor .
Page 42 City Council Workshop Edition
76173A
San Luis Obispo Airport Area Fiscal Impact Analysis
REFERENCES
R-1Fugro-McClelland (West) Inc. 1992 LAND USE ELEMENTICIRCULATION
ELEMENT UPDATES. (DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT) Prepared
for City of San Luis Obispo. Ventura: January, 1993.
R-2 RRM Design Group. MARGARITA AREA CONCEPT PLAN (Preliminary Draft).
San Luis Obispo: January 1992.
R-3 San Luis Obispo, City of. 1993-95 FINANCIAL PLAN/APPROVED 1993-94
BUDGET. San Luis Obispo: July 1, 1993.
R4 San Luis Obispo,City of. GENERAL PLANLAND USE ELEMENT(Hearing Draft).
San Luis Obispo: February, 1992.
R-5 San Luis Obispo, City of. LAND USE ELEMENT& CIRCULATION ELEMENT
UPDATES (Draft Environmental Impact Report Supplement). San Luis Obispo:
September, 1993.
R-6 San Luis Obispo, City of. PLAN FOR SERVICES FOR.77IE AIRPORT AREA
ANNEXATION. San Luis Obispo:
R-7 San Luis Obispo, City of. COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT - SUBJECT. BROAD
STREET ANNEX47TON, by Ken Hampian. San Luis Obispo: November 17, 1992.
R-8 Urban Research Associates. INDUSTRIAL SECTOR ANALYSIS - SAN LUIS
OBISPO COUNTYAIRPORTAREA INDUSTRIAL SPECIFIC PLAN,by Ray Young,
Ph.D. Prepared for County of San Luis Obispo. Fullerton: July, 1986.
R-9 Willdan Associates. PRELIMINARY SPECIFIC PLANANALYSIS FOR 711E SAN
LUIS OBISPO COUNTYAIRPORTAREA SPECIFIC PLAN. Prepared for County
of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo and Airport Area Property Owners.
San Luis Obispo: April 1988.
City Council Workshop Edition Page 43
so7so
Airport Area Annexation
Fiscal Impact Analysis
1994 REPORT UPDATE
June 1998
Prepared by the Department of Finance
►��������������iiii�►� ,��� i� c I t o s A WI
ny � s OBISPO
p
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
Stinimary of Findings and Key Assumptions
Purpose
The purpose of this report is to update the analysis prepared in 1994 on the fiscal impacts of
annexing the airport area. As with the 1994 analysis, the focus of this report is on General Fund
operating costs and revenues. Infrastructure costs are the subject of a separate study currently
underway as part of the airport area specific plan.
Table A
Summary of Findings Airport Area Annual Revenues and Costs
$2,000,000
Annexing the airport area will $1$00,000
result in positive fiscal impacts $1,600,000 0001,
for the City. $1,400,000
$1,200,000
■ In the first year after $1,000,000
annexation,the annual net $$00,000 •
difference between revenues $600,000 -
and operating costs will be $400,000
about$450,000. $200,000
so
■ This will continue to increase Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Build-Out
over time,rising to a net fiscal
benefit of about$750,000 Annual Revenues . . . Annual Operating Costs
annually by build-out.
Table B
Key Assumptions $aoo,000 Airport Area Annual Net Fiscal Impact
The findings of this analysis are $700,000 — --
directly tied to the assumptions $600,000
used in projecting revenues and $500,000
operating costs. $400,000
The following is a summary of the $$00,000
key assumptions and methodologies $200,000
used in preparing this update: $100,000
Operatingb Focus $0
Yar 1 Yar 3 YM 10 YM IS Build-0ut
■ As noted above,this update ®Annual Revenues Over Operating Costs
focuses solely on operating
costs and revenues. Public facility improvement costs are the subject of the specific plan
currently underway for this annexation. A major tenet of the specific plan is that new
1
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
development will pay for the infrastructure needed to serve it With this understanding,major
infrastructure costs have no affect on the results of this fiscal analysis.
Based on the General Plan
■ While there are a number of alternatives that could be analyzed,the City's adopted General
Plan is the basis for all land use and planning assumptions.
Builds on Previous Work
■ This is an update. As such, it builds upon the work performed in 1994. To the extent
feasible,it follows the methodologies used in the 1994 report,and only varies from them
where we know there have been changed circumstances.
Based on Current Intergovernmental Fiscal Relationships
■ This update is based on the intergovernmental fiscal relationships in place today. These
relationships change over time,and can have a significant impact on the outcome of this type
of analysis if key revenues are affected. For example,sales taxes are currently allocated on a
"situs" basis—where the sale occurred. If this was to change to a"per capita"basis,the
fiscal results projected in this update would be significantly different.
Locally,the most notable intergovernmental fiscal relationship is theannexation tax sharing
agreement with the County,as it affects the City's top two General Fund revenue sources:
sales and property taxes. Under this agreement,the City retains all current and future sales
tax revenues, and the County retains all current property tax revenues and future property
tax revenues from non-residential development. The City receives 5%of incremental property
tax revenues from residential development.
Area Analyzed
■ The area evaluated by this update is different from the 1994 report This update focuses on
just the airport area,whereas the 1994 report included both the airport annexation area and
the Margarita specific plan area.
■ In accordance with the General Plan,this update includes the airport property owned by the
County. The affect on this analysis if it is ultimately excluded from the annexation is not
significant If this area is excluded,the net annual fiscal impact immediately after annexation
would be about$425,000 (rather than$450,000); and about$700,000 at build-out(rather than
$750,000).There will be greater adverse impacts,however, if by eliminating the airport itself,
we are not to annex other properties due to contiguity issues.
General Fund Focus
■ Like the 1994 report,this update focuses solely on General Fund costs and revenues. For the
enterprise operations,costs are fully covered by user fees. At this time,we do not believe
2
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
that operating service costs and revenues for the airport area will be significantly different
from current account averages. Infrastructure costs could certainly be different, but as noted
previously,this is being evaluated separately as part of the specific plan.
Revenue and Expenditure Estimating Relationships
■ Revenue and expenditure estimates are generally based on the 1998-99 budget.
■ Revenues are estimated based on their relationship to land use types,and relevance to the
airport area. In the case of sales tax revenues,estimated revenues upon annexation are
based on a detailed analysis of amounts currently generated in the airport annexation area.
■ Expenditures are estimated using one of the following four methods:
• Per capita costs may be used in selected cases where services are typically only
provided to residential uses.
• "Weighted persons served" is a concept that addresses services provided.to both residential
and non-residential uses. It does this by considering both population and employment in
the City. As discussed more fully below,this update follows the "weighting"methodology
used in the 1994 report for residential versus-non-residential.users. . _.
• In some cases,service units are used independent of land uses such as street maintenance
costs per lane mile.
• The "case study" method is also used: rather than developing service demand formulas
based on average cost scenarios,this approach takes a focused look at what the
department head believes will be incrementally needed to service the area
■ Where operating programs have "functional" revenues associated with them,these have been
credited against the service cost to arrive at a"net" cost that must be supported by general
purpose revenues generated by the area.
Timeframe
® Like the 1994 report,this update assumes that the airport area is annexed in its entirety as set
forth in the General Plan. In the event that annexation occurs incrementally(as it is currently
doing under the City's interim annexation guidelines),the ultimate fiscal impacts will be the
same,but the benefits will take longer to achieve.
■ This update looks at the fiscal impacts immediately upon annexation, and then in 5 year
intervals for the following 15 years, using absorption rates similar to those in the 1994 report.
Additionally, it looks at the fiscal impact upon build-out(no timeframe is projected for this).
3
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
Not a Budget
❑ Fiscal impact analyses are not a budget: they do not make revenue decisions;they do not
make expenditure decisions. For example,just because this study shows certain costs
occurring at some point in time does not mean that this will happen. Incurring new costs and
adding staff resources will only occur through the budget process. The City has never used a
"formula-driven"budget in the past,and it is not likely to do so in the future. Budget decisions
are based on evaluating priorities,analyzing our overall fiscal outlook and then linking
resources with our goals.
In summary,this type of analysis is not a resource commitment—it is just a tool for
evaluating the likely 'order of magnitude" fiscal impact of a land use decision.
Differences from the 1994 Report
Both the 1994 report and this update Airport Area Fiscal Analysis-Net Annaal Impacts Table C
conclude that this annexation will be 1994 Report 1998 Update Variance
fiscally beneficial for the City. Year 1 $ 570;200 $ 458,800 $ 111,400
Year 5 623,800 507,900 115,900
However,as reflected in TableL C, Year 10 651,500. . 586,000 65,500
there are variances in the results. Year 15 649,500 547,000 102,500
These are due to several key Build-out not addressed 754,800 trot appacabte
differences in assumptions between
the two reports as detailed below. In some cases,these differences result in an increase in the net
annual fiscal impact;in others,they reduce the net fiscal impact. The general affect on the analysis
(up or down)is shown by the arrows.
Differences in area analyzed
As noted above, the 1994 report included the Margarita area as well as the airport area. This
update analyzes just the airport area. There are both positive and negative impacts associated
with this change which are difficult to quantify because the land uses in each area are so
different: In general,however,because the Margarita area is primarily planned for residential
development,not including this area improves the net fiscal impact over the 1994 report. The
impact of this change is relatively minor in Year 1, but grows over time as new development
occurs.
4
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
Year 1 Projected Revenues Table D
0 Improved revenue base 1994 Report 1998 Update Variance
Sales tax 371,000 414,400 43,400
As shown in Table D,the Utility users tax 143,400 186,800 43,400
"Year, 1" base used in Franchise fees 41,500 65,400 23,900
projecting future revenues is Business tax 129,600 212,400 82,800
stronger in 1998 than it was Interest earnings 20,800 23,400 2,600
in 1994 for every key revenue Other revenues 8,800 1 9,900 1 11100
source. JTotal $ 715,1001S 912,300 IS 197,200
Increased cost of street maintenance
The 1994 report was based on the 1993-95 Financial Plan. Under the 1997-99 Financial Plan
(which is the basis for this update), resources for street maintenance were significantly
increased to meet the standards outlined in the 1988 pavement management plan. Resources
were further increased in 1998-99 to meet the standards of the new pavement plan adopted by
the Council in 1998.
The result of this change is to increase the per street mile cost for street maintenance. In the
1994 report,the maintenance cost per lane mile(excluding overlay) was$11,900. In this
-" "update;the comparable cost pefIane mile is$14,500. This is after accounting for a
significant decrease in street lighting costs from 1994 resulting from the purchase of this
system from PG&E.
0 Same number of street miles to maintain
As noted above,the area analyzed in this update is significantly smaller than the 1994 report.
However, street miles at build-out are about the same. While this probably means that street
miles were understated in the 1994 report,the end result is that the number of street miles to
be maintained are the same(and maintenance costs per mile are higher as discussed above),
but the amount of development to support this cost is much.less.
0 Includes ongoing capital needs
The 1994 report focused solely on operating costs as presented in the 1993-95 Financial
Plan. The only exception was the inclusion of$425,000 for street overlay,which was
included in the per mile maintenance cost.
This update takes a more conservative approach. Although major new infrastructure costs
will be addressed separately in the airport area specific plan,there are likely to be ongoing
"capital" maintenance costs- like pavement overlay-that are applicable to the airport area
which are shown in the City's capital improvement plan(CIP),not in the operating budget.
5
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
For this reason,this update reflects these kinds of costs by taking the two-year average of
General Fund contributions to the capital outlay, sidewalk fund and equipment replacement
fiords for 1997-99, and allocating them based on weighted persons served
In Year 1 (which is the most comparable year between the two analyses due to differences in
the areas analyzed),this results in an annual expenditure difference of$143,200. This factor
alone accounts for more than the total difference in the first year of$111,400.
�! New tax sharing agreement with the.County
As discussed above,this update reflects the new annexation tax sharing agreement with the
County. Under the old approach(which was never formally adopted by the City or the
County,but based on past practice,was the assumption used in the 1994 report),the City
would have received about 14%of future property tax growth(the County retained the base).
Under the current agreement,the City receives 5%of the property tax growth from residential
development only(no increment is received for non-residential development). However,the
City receives all current and future sales tax revenues from the annexed area. As reflected in
this analysis,this is a fair trade-off given the importance of current and projected sales tax
revenues.
-0-- Fire prevention/haiardods materials
Both the 1994 report and the 1998 update use similar assumptions for this cost area.
However, in first year,they treat start-up costs(which are discussed in more detail later in
this report)differently. Because of the way that costs and revenues for Year 1 versus future
years were presented in the 1994 report,this one-time cost($20,000) was not shown as a net
impact immediately upon annexation. The 1998 update includes this one-time cost in the first
year. It is important to note that this only affects first year costs.
(! Fire emergency response costs
The 1994 report projected fire emergency response costs based on the estimated increase in
"weighted persons served." The 1998 update projects these costs on "case study" basis.
We believe this provides a better estimate of likely fire protection costs. As detailed later mi
this report,this results in an ongoing cost of$45,000 in the first year to assure that we
maintain three person engine companies at all stations in order to effectively respond to the
area.
It should be noted that this only has a significant impact in the early years: by Year 5, the
revised methodology results in total.fire&environmental safety costs that are the same as the
1994 report; by Year 10,these costs are$95,600 lower annually than the 1994 report; and
by Year 15,these costs are lower by $149,600 annually.
6
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
�! Engineering costs -CIP management
In the 1993-95 Financial Plan, net engineering costs-primarily those needed for CIP project
design and inspection-were $365,200 less than the 1998-99 budget($506,700 versus
$871,900). This costincrease is largely attributable to a larger ongoing CIP,and related need
for staff support to design and build projects.
0 General government General Government Variances Between Reports:Year 1 Table E
1994 Report 1998 Update Variance
In both reports, general Total direct costs 144,900 453,500 (308,600)
government costs are Percent of total costs 13.7% 12.3% 1.4%
projected to increase in Amount $ 19,900 $_ 55,600 $_ (35,700)
proportion to total costs.
For the 1998 update, this percent actually decreases from 13.7%to 12:3%. However,
because total costs are higher, general government costs are higher as shown in Table E.
Change Summary Key Variances Between Reports:Year 1 Table F
1994 Report 1998 Update Variance
Table F summarizes these key Revenues 715,100 912,300 197,200
changes between the 1994 report Street maintenance• 67,200 65,000 2,200
and"1998 update based on the first Ongoing capital needs - 143,200 (143,200)
year,which is the best comparison Fire&enviromnental.safety 50,000 121,000 (71,000)
based on the differences in the area Engineering-CIP Mgt 2,000 37,300 (35,300)
analyzed. General government 19,900 55,600 (35,700)
Total $ (85,800)
These six factors account for Note:Became the 1994 report includes 3425,000 for overlay;and the cost for sheet
about 80%of the total variance lighting before the system was purchased from PG&E,the cost difference b jar less
between the two reports. than it otherwise would be.
Conclusion
b.
The findings of this update are generally consistent with those presented in the 1994 report. Both
reports conclude that annexing the airport area will be fiscally positive for the City.
Why Is This Importantto Know? The Limits of Fiscal Impact Studies
As noted in the 1994 report,while it is important to ensure that we are not "growing ourselves poor"
as an organization, it is equally important to stress that fiscal impacts are just one of many factors
that need to be evaluated as part of the airport area annexation process. Far more important
considerations are the long-term environmental, social and economic impacts of annexing and
developing the airport area In short, will this be a positive step in making our vision for our
community a reality? A fiscal impact study cannot answer this question,nor is it designed to.
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
It can only tell us if this is likely to have a favorable or unfavorable impact on the City's finances.
But our City does not exist solely to be fiscally healthy --if we did,we would have no residents,and
the only development would be car dealerships,large discount stores and mail-order computer sales
desks. This would be a fiscally healthy city,but who would want to live here?
Our purpose is to help create a place where people want to live, work and play. To do this does
require adequate fiscal resources--but this is a means, not an end in itself.
In summary on this point,while we can not ignore fiscal realities, land use decisions should never be
driven by fiscal considerations alone, but by our vision for the future. The fact that this particular
General Plan goal is likely to be fiscally beneficial is good information to know,but there should be
more compelling reasons than this for developing the airport area in the City.
Best Use ofFucal Impact Studies
It is also important to note that fiscal impact studies of individual land use decisions are rarely the
best use of this type of analysis. It is generally far more valuable in the context of an overall General
Plan review where the cumulative impact of all land uses can be weighed and balanced. The City
has also done this type of analysis as part of the 1994 General Plan update,
and overall our land use plan was "fiscally balanced."
The need to not focus on just one annexation-or type of annexation-is
important to keep in mind as other proposals come forward. For example,
while this annexation is fiscally favorable,other annexations will come
forward that are not likely to be,such as the Margarita and Orcutt areas.
Typically,residential development(at least in California)does not"pay its own way," and for that
reason,balance is needed with non-residential development, like the airport area.
Because of this,it is more important to consider the overall fiscal impact of
future development, and then review specific proposals for consistency
with the General Plan,than to focus on just one development proposal or
land use decision.
In summary,our hopes and vision for San Luis Obispo as expressed
through the General Plan should drive our development and land use 1:3
decisions,not the results of this or any other case-by-case fiscal impact study.
8
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
Baseline
City-Wide: k urPd,>
Existing Existing
See Notes Below Situation Situation Build-Out
Population(1) 42,600 50 50
Employment
Including the County airport property 24,500 4,600 8,700
Excluding the County airport property 24,500 3,600 7,760
Weighted Persons Served(2)
Including the County airport property 54,900 2,350 4,400
Excluding the County airport property 54,900 1,850 3,900
Non-Residential Square Footage(3)
Including the County airport property 7,830,800 1,645,000 3,207,000
Excluding the County airport property 7,830,800 1,454,000 3,011,000
Employment Per 1;000 Square Feet 3.1 2.8 2.7
Lane Miles 116.0 4.5 8.0
Landscaped Area-In Acres(4) 148.0 0.0 2.0
Trees 20,800 1 0.0 1 2,200
Notes_
v .
1. There is a mobile home parkin the airport area with.33 units. At 1.7 persons per household per the 1990 census,
we estimate there are about 50 residents in the airport annexation area
2: Weighted persons served(WPS)are based on the following equivalencies:
Including County Airport Property
City-Wide:
Existing Existing
Weight _Situation Situation_ Build-Out_
Residents 1.0 42,600 50 50
Employees 0.5 12,300 2,300 4;350
Total WPS- 54,900 2,350 4,400
Excluding County Airport Property
City-Wide: itwdae rpo� fea .
Existing Existing
Weight Situation Situation Build-Out
Residents
Residents 1.0 42,600 50 50
Employees 0.5 12,300 1,800 3,850
Total WPS 1 54,900 1 1,850 3,900
3. Annual build-out over the next 15 years in the airport area(square feet) 50,000
4. Landscaped medians are proposed for Tank Farm and Broad(about 85,000 square feet of landscaped area). While
this could occur at any time,these are projected to be built by Year 5 in this analysis.
9
1
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
RelationshipsGeneral Fund Expenditure
Service Cost 1998-99 Functional Cost Unit
See Notes Relationship Cost Revenues(1) Net Cost Base Cost
Public Safety
Police Protection(2) WPS $ 6,283,800 $ 715;300 $ 5;568,500 54,900 $ 101.43
Fire&Environ Safety(3) Case Study 4,321,100 438,000 3,883,100 na na
Transportation
Transportation planning WPS 218700 39,000 179,700 54,900 $ 3.27
Streets Lane Miles 1,769,500 92,900 1,676,600 116.0 $ 14,453.45
Flood protection(4) See Note 118,500 118,500 na na
Leisure,Cultural&Social Services
Parks&recreation
Recreation prog(2) Per Capita 1,623,000 890,700 732,300 42,600 $ 17.19
Swim center maint(2) Per Capita 248,500 248,500 42,600 $ 5.83
Park&landscape Per Acre 1,055,300 1,055,300 148.0 $ 7,130.41
Trees Per Tree 216,800 216,800 20,800 $ 10.42
Cultural services(2) WPS 152,800 152,800 54,900 $ 2.78
Social services (2) WPS 100,100 100,100 54,900 $ 1.82
Community Development
Planning&building WPS 1,344,200 790,300 553,900 54,900 $ 10.09
Natural resourcepmt(2) WPS 158,600. _ 158,600 54,900_ .$_ 2.89
Engineering WPS 1,067,700 195,800 871,900 54,900 $ 15.88
Comm promotion(2) WPS 309,100 309,100 54,900 $ 5.63
Economic dev(2) WPS 152,100 152,100 54,900 $ 2.77
General Government See Note 5 3,348,000 157,500 3,190,500 nal na
Total Operating Programs 22,487,800 3,319,500 19,168,300
Capital Improvement Plan(6) WPS 3,345,700 3,345,700 54,900 $ 60.94
Debt Service See Note 7 1,464,400 1,464,400 na_ na
TOTAL 27,297,900 3,319,500 23,978,400 * TrL
Notes
.r ,w ...} ..t.- meq..,.. ..
I. "Functional"revenues are deducted to arrive at a"net cost'to be supported from general purpose revenues.
2. No costs are projected initially;weighted persons served(WPS)or per capita is used to project costs thereafter.
3. A summary of the fire&environmental safety costs case study follows.
4. No future flood protection costs are projected as a result of annexing the airport area. Any significant costs will be
directly paid by the area depending on the nature of storm drain improvements as set forth in the infrastructure plan.
S. General government costs will be incurred in proportion(12.3%)to total direct costs.
6. CEP costs are based on the two year average General Fund contribution for'capital maintenance"costs for 1997-99:
1997-98 1998-99 Average_
Capital outlay fund 2,936,900 2,879,400 2,908,200
Sidewalk replacement 75,000 75,000 75,000
Equipment replacement fund 350,000 375,000 362,500
Total $ 3,361,900 $ 3,329,400 $ 3,345,700
7. No future General Fund debt service costs are projected as a result of annexing the airport area.
10
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
Case Study: Fire & Environmental Safety Co'sts
Fire and environmental safety cost impacts are detailed in the Fire Chief s memorandum on this
subject dated May 29, 1998. The following summarizes the results of this 'base study:
Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials
One full-time, ongoing inspector will be required to serve the annexation area. Additionally, for the
first 12 to 18 months,temporary assistance(estimated at$20,000)will also be required to ensure an
effective transition from the County to the City. This will include enhanced communication and
coordination efforts with property owners and businesses,as well as inventory and data collection
activities.
Emergency Response
Any one of three stations(1,3 or 4) may respond to the airport area depending on where the incident
occurs. For this reason,we should maintain minimum staffing of three at all stations. This will
require adding three positions. Two of these positions are already in planning to be funded through
other cost savings. Therefore,one position can be attributed to the airport area upon annexation.
COST SUMMARYYear 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Build-Oat
Fire Prevention/Hazardous Materials 76,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000
Emergency Response 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000
Total $ 121,000 $ 101,000 $ 101,000 $ 101,000 $_ 101,000
tt
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
General Fund Revenue Relationships
1998-98
Source Revenue Relationship Revenues
Taxes
Sales tax—General See detailed analysis—Schedule A $ 7,268,600
Sales tax—Prop 172 Functional revenue--police protection 185,000
Property tax Not applicable to annexation under current City/County agreement 4,104,900
Transient occupancy tax Derived from hotel/motel uses;not applicable to this annexation 3,136,600
Utility users tax See detailed analysis—Schedule A 2,925,400
Franchise fee See detailed analysis—Schedule A 1,025,000
Business tax See detailed analysis—Schedule A 1,066,000
Real property transfer tax Weighted persons served—Schedule B 120,000
Fines&forfeitures Functional revenue-police protection 230,800
Investment&property Estimated @5.5%of any net annual fiscal impact 566,000
Subventions&grants
Motor vehicle in lieu Per capita—See Schedule B 1,767,200
Gasoline tax Per capita—See Schedule B 811,400
TDA Functional revenue—transportation planning 39,000
Homeowners subvention Not applicable to annexation under current City/County agreement 82,500
Other in-lieu taxes - - Existing agreements—no direct-relationship to annexation area - -41,400
SB 90 reimbursements Functional revenue—general government 80,000
Police training(POST) Functional revenue—police protection 45,000
COPS grant Functional revenue—police protection 96,700
School resource officer Functional revenue—police protection 16,800
Diablo canyon phase-out One-time revenue—no direct relationship,to annexation area 80,000
Service charges
Police protection Functional revenue 141,000
Fire&environ safety Functional revenue 438,000
Transportation Functional revenue 92,900
Community development
Planning&building Functional revenue 790,300
Engineering Functional revenue 195,800
Leisure,cult& soc sery Functional revenue 890,700
General goverment Functional revenue 77,500
Other revenues Weighted persons served—Schedule B 40,000
Total Revenues 26,354,50.0
12
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
General Fund kevenue:Relationshi": Schedule A
Sales Tax
s . . , ,
Existing Sales Tax Base. Year One The following summarizes sales tax.revenues from the airport
area for the past three years:
1995 412,100
1996 420,500
1997 410,700
Based on the current agreement with the County
on tax sharing,year one annexation revenues
are estimated at the three year average. $ 414,400
&&mated Sales Tau Base:Future Years Basis:Current sales tax revenues in the area per square foot
Existing sales tax revenues 414,400
Existing square footage 1,645,000
Sales tax revenues per square foot $ 0.25
Utility Users Tax
Estimated at 70%of revenues from,residential uses and 30%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 1998799 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent Amount Revenue
Residential Per capita 42,600 70% 2,047,800 $ 4807
Non-Residential Per sq ft 7,830,800 30% 877,600. $ 0.11
Franchise Fees
Estimated at 70%of revenues from residential uses and.30%from non-residential uses.
Revenue Revenue 1998-99 Revenue Unit
Relationship Base Percent Amount Revenue
Residential Per capita 42,600 70% 717,500 $ 16.84
Non-Residential Per 1000 sq ft 7,830,800 30% 307,500 $ 0.04
Business Tax
Estimated based on revenues per square foot for non-residential space, excluding revenues from home occupation and
businesses not principally located in the City.
1998-99 Citywide Unit
Revenue Sq Ft Revenue
Home occupations 5,000
Principally located outside of the City 50,000
Other businesses 1,011,000 7,830,800 $ 0.13
13
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
6eneraffund Revenue Relationships: Schedule�B
Per Capita Revenues
�-
Revenues estimated based on population:
1998-99 Revenue Unit
Revenue Base Revenue
Motor vehicle in lieu 1,767,200 42,600 $ 41.48
Gasoline tax 811,400 42,600 $ 19.05
Weighted Persons Served(WPS)Revenues
Revenues estimated based on weightedpersons served.-
i998-99 Revenue Unit
Revenue Base Revenue
Real property transfer tax 120,000 54,900 $ 2.19
Other revenues 40,000 54,900 $ 0.73
14
Airport Area Fiscal Impact Update
jected Annual General Fund Revenues and Operatino Costs
Projection Factors
Year 1 Year 5 Year 10 Year 15 Build-Out
Population 50 50 50 50 50
Weighted Persons Served 2,350 2,700 3,050 3,400 4,400
Non-Residential Square Footage 1,645,000 1,895,000 2,145,000 2,395,000 3,207,000
Lane Miles 4.5 5.1 5.7 6.3 8.0
Landscape Area(Medians)-In Acres 0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Trees 1 0 1 400 1 800 1 1,200 1 2,200
Annual.Revenues and Operating Costs
Year 1 I Year 51 Year 101 Year 151 Build-Out
_
2 0
Sales tax-general 414,406 477,400 540,400 603;300 807,900
Utility users tax 186,800 214,800 242,800 270,800 361,800
Franchise fee 65,400 75,300 85,100 94,900 126,800
Business tax 212,400 244,700 276,900 309,200 414,000
Real property transfer tax 5,100 5,900 6,700 7,400 9,600
Investment&property 23,400 29,200 31,600 34,100 44,000
Motor-vehicle-in lieu--.. 2;100 - 2,100- - --2;100- - -2;100 -- --2;100 -
Gasoline tax 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000
Other revenues 1,700 2,000 2,200 2,500 3,200
Aiiitua _. v,.�:.� f�';���. ���;SD(► �' S`44;50� ��.�.��,�7'9,30Q 'I'O�.s
Public safety
Police protection 0 35,500 71,000 106,500 207,900
Fire&environmental safety 121,000 101,000 101;000 101;000 101,000
Transportation
Transportation planning 7,700 8,800 10,000 11,100 14,400
Street maintenance 65,000 73,700 82,400 91,100 115,600
Leisure,cultural&social services
Landscape maintenance(medians) 0 14,300 14,300 14,300 14,300
Tree maintenance 0 4,200 8,300 12,500 22,900
Cultural services 0 1,000 1,900 2,900 5,700
Social services 0 600 1,300 1,900 3;700
Community development
Planning&building 23,700 27,260 30,800 34,300 44,400
Natural resource protection 0 1,000 2,000 3,000 5,900
Engineering 37,300 42,900 48,400 54,000 69;900
Community promotion 0 2,000 3,900 5,900 11,500
Economic development 0 1,000 1,900 2,900 5,700
General government 55,600 66,800 78,700 90,700 124,600
Capital improvement plan 143,200 164,500 185,900 207,200 268,100
e Over Ope 6 CCk-s? E �48 _ : r '''90 9 i N �0� ;'3- 007We -
15
7
UN O CAL 76 William J.Almas
Land Development Team Manager
Investment Properties,Real Estate and
Remediation Services
FaC 805.784.0494
Fax: 805.784.0493
walmas@unomcal.ci.c
om
March 9, 2005
Commission Chair
San Luis Obispo Planning Commission F!LE CDEIVED
City of San Luis Obispo In
990 Palm Street JUAN If 2005
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 SLO CITY CLERK
Re: Comments to the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission—March 9, 2005
Concerning the Airport Area Specific Plan, January 2005
Unocal thanks the City of San Luis Obispo for this opportunity to comment on the San
Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP). Many of the comments provided in
previous reviews of the Draft of the AASP and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)have
been considered and incorporated into the AASP,particularly with respect to zoning and
land uses north of Tank Farm Road and the development fee structure. These
modifications have improved the AASP. Regrettably, some key issues have not been
responded to and these comments address primarily those issues.
General Comments Concernine Area of Unocal tank Farm South of Tank Farm Road
While supporting many of the goals and objectives articulated in the AASP, Unocal has
maintained a consistent position regarding its opposition to potential annexation of the
portion of the Unocal San Luis Obispo Tank Fane (Tank Fane) south of Tank Fane
Road. in a letter to the Community Development Director on February 5, 2003, a letter
to the City Manager on March 31, 2003 and again in comments related to the Final
Environmental Impact Report on December 10, 2003,Unocal explained its unwillingness
to consider annexation of the Tank Farm area south of Tank Farm Road. City staff has
not accommodated our request to exclude this area from the AASP. The City staff has
also failed to address similar concerns and comments by County Airport management.
The reasons for Unocal opposition to the annexation of the Tank Farm area south of Tank
Fane Road are summarized below.
• Unocal is currently involved in a collaborative regulatory process to complete
evaluation and planning for the restoration and remediation of the SLO Tank
Farm property. This process commenced in June of 2003 and involves City,
County, State and Federal regulatory agencies in a cooperative effort to address
many of the environmental questions concerning the site prior to initiating the
CEQA process leading to the restoration of the site. The attached brochure
contains more details concerning the Surface Environmental Restoration and
Real Estate,Remediation Services,Mining Operations and Carbon 276 Tank Farm Road,P.O.Box 1069(93406),San Luis Obispo,CA 93401
Comments to SLO City Planning Commission
3/9/2005
Page 2
Remediation Team (SERRT) activities. Current plans are to submit an
application for CEQA review for restoration and limited development in 2006.
City staff has actively participated in the SERRT process. Annexation of the area
will not enhance the regulatory oversight or provide greater public benefit and
could become an impediment to restoration of the Tank Farm. The County is
more experienced in taking the lead role in CEQA reviews and is far better staffed
to administer the CEQA process leading to restoration of the Tank Farm.
• The portion of the Tank Farm that is south of Tank Farm Road is immediately
adjacent to the SLO County Regional Airport. Approach lighting, an exclusion
safety zone and other airport equipment that supports the airport already exits on
the Unocal property. If current plans for the extension of the runway come to
fruition, additional equipment and support facilities will be located on the Tank
Farm. The proximity of this area to the Airport makes Airport uses and access to
the area important to Airport viability. The Airport is a County facility and is
likely to remain so for the foreseeable future. Unocal is currently discussing with
Airport Management and San Luis Obispo County Administration how best to
accommodate future airport related safety and support facilities on the Tank Farm
area south of Tank Farm Road. It makes sense that land use decisions in this area
should be made by the County rather than the City.
• Unocal's vision for the site south of Tank Farm Road is consistent with current
County zoning. Unocal does not wish to limit the potential uses at this time to the
City land use category of Open Space. The City open space designation would
rule out recreational use such as trails, equestrian facilities, sports fields and
limited airport support facilities consistent with the Airport Commission Land
Use Plan.
General Comment Related to the Entire Unocal Tank Farm Area
Additionally, the AASP is overly proscriptive in nature and lacks reference to scientific
analysis supporting actions. For example, while the concept of an open space is
obviously critical to the City's vision (cf.,pg..3-1, "The plan is predicated on the belief
that, over the long term, practicing conservation and protecting the area's open space will
make life more enjoyable for those living and working in the area."), it appears that the
plan requires the land owner to not only provide the open space,but to perform other
actions such as leveling the dikes along Tank Farm Road to enhance views and design
upgrades to Tank Farm Road and other infrastructure. More importantly, as described
below, the document contains statements that (1) seek to describe the quality of the
natural resources at the tank farm with no biological or ecological support and (2)then
prescribe restoration/mitigation to retain these resources.
Comments to SLO City Planning Commission
3/9/2005
Page 3
Specific Comments Related to the Airport Area Specific Plan
Unocal does support most of the goals and objectives of the AASP and is agreeable to the
land uses and planned infrastructure improvement north of Tank Farm Road. However,
Unocal does have a number of specific comments related to the AASP as outlined below.
(1) Pg 3-5: The statement is made that "much of the Unocal property can be
characterized as a wetland complex." From the numbers presented in the AASP the
wetland community on the Unocal property accounts for 69.5 acres of the total 368 acre
Unocal parcel. This amounts to <20% of the acreage. This statement should be revised
to reflect the actual percentage. .
(2) Pg 3-14: Policy 3.2.7 calls for utilization of Unocal property for wetland mitigation
associated with development of other properties in the area. As noted in previous
comments to the City,Unocal will disturb portions of these wetlands during restoration
and remediation efforts for the property. To the maximum extent possible, mitigation of
these disturbances will be on the Tank Farm property through the expansion and
enhancement of wetlands. At this time, it is not known what the total area of disturbance
will be, nor is the amount of mitigation land that will be required known. Therefore,the
concept of establishing a wetland bank on Unocal property is speculative and.
presumptive and should be removed from the AASP.
(3) Pg 3-14: Policy 3.2.10 restricts public access to the "wetland complex and buffer
areas." This Policy appears to be in conflict with Program 3.3.7 (Pg 3-18) and the
statement on page 3-1 that the area's open space will make life more enjoyable for those
living and working in the area. Unocal envisions enjoyment of the property by the public
in those areas designated for public use consistent with Airport safety issues and
restrictions.
(4) Pg 3-14: Policy 3.2.16 appears to be a statement that dictates how the site is to be
restored. As noted previously, the restoration of the property is the subject of on-going
study by a multi-agency group in conjunction with Unocal developing restoration
concepts. No support for this Policy is provided in the AASP or supporting EIR and this
should not be adopted as a policy. For example, developing "continuous wetlands" and
encouraging water flowthrough these wetlands could destroy federally endangered fairy
shrimp habitat since they need vemal ponds to complete their life cycle.
(5) Pg 3-15, Policy 3.2.17: Contamination and biological issues are under the jurisdiction
of numerous regulatory agencies that are currently involved with remediation and
restoration planning. An overlay of City Planning adds nothing to the remediation
process.
(6) Pg 3-17, Programs 3.3.4 and 3.3.5: Both of these program statements serve to
constrain Unocal's and the various agencies ability to remediate and restore the property
• Comments to SLO City Planning Commission
3/9/2005
Page 4
as determined by the SERRT process, regulatory review and a full CEQA review. There
is no ecological basis given in the Plan to expand wetlands north of Tank Farm Road at
this time.
(7)Pg 4-13, Policy 4.3.7: It appears that the Specific Plan has singled out Unocal to
provide "detailed design plans for improvements to Tank Farm Road adjacent to its
property". Since the AASP does not require any other property owner to provide design
plans for improvements, it is unclear why Unocal is being singled out.
(8) Pg. 6-6, Table 6.2: The table references Figure 6-10 as a typical cross-section for the
Unocal and Santa Fe Collector Roads across Tank Faun property. However,the Figure
titles infer that the reference should be Figure 6-11. If the correct reference is 6-11, a
96.5 foot right of way is being required for collectors. These roads should be sized to
demand projected from increases in future development on the Unocal Tank Farm and
adjacent areas, not future demand being generated off site. If the City wants a larger right
of way for future unrelated demand then the additional right of way should be purchased
and not provided at owner expense. This expense.is not provided for in the AASP.
(9)Pg. 8-.11,Table 8.6: Table 8.6 incorrectly identifies the construction of the Unocal
and Santa Fe collectors as 100% City funding through impact fees. No project developer
funding is indicated. This is inconsistent with our understanding of the City funding
position and should be corrected:
(10) Pgs. 8-6, Infrastructure Phasing: The construction and improvement of
infrastructure in the Airport area is a key component and goal of the AASP and a key
benefit for the community and landowners. However, with infrastructure revenues
dependent largely on impact fees assessed on development that may not occur in the near
future (if ever), it is not clear that the City can deliver the scheduled improvements in the
time frames provided. Unocal has indicated to the City that its current interest in
development in the area is limited to a much smaller area than the 79 acres projected by
the City for development on Unocal land. Key elements of the circulation plan such as
improvement of Tank Farm Road and construction of the Unocal and Santa Fe Collector
Roads may not be constructed for years to come. This could become a significant
problem to the City as more traffic pressure comes to the area from development in the
City and County to the south of the Specific Plan area. Alternate funding sources should
be considered by the City to accomplish the most critical infrastructure improvements.
i
I
Comments to SLO City Planning Commission
° 3/9/2005
Page 5
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to participate in the process and provide
comments. Unocal has worked directly with City staff for more than 3 years to advance
the AASP. Unocal is also working diligently to formulate plans for restoration of the site
with a number of local and.State agencies. We are supportive of annexation plans for the
area north of Tank Farm Road and could support the AASP, if the concerns expressed in
this letter and previous comments are addressed. We are opposed to annexation of the
Tank Farm area south of Tank Farm Road, and for this reason can not support the AASP
until it is clear that annexation of this area is not envisioned by the City. Please contact
me at 784-0494 if you have any questions related to these issues.
Sincerely,
qWilliam J. A
enc