HomeMy WebLinkAbout07/26/2005, PH 2 - REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, Mccus
council I7� �OJ—
acEnaa RepoRt
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
FROM; John Mandeville,Director of Community Development
Prepared By: Michael Codron,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT OF THE AIRPORT
AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (CONTINUED FROM JUNE 14, 2005).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1) Review Chapters 6.0 through 9.0 of the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area
Specific Plan, and take public testimony.
2) Provide staff with direction on any desired changes to Chapters 6.0 through 9.0.
3) ., Continue the hearing to August 23, 2005, to provide staff with time to prepare a summary
of the changes and a final recommendation for adoption of the Airport Area Specific
Plan.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The Council will hold its second public hearing on the Draft Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
on July 26, 2005. During the previous meeting, the Council heard a staff presentation, took
public testimony and directed staff to make changes to the Specific Plan. The most significant
change directed by Council involves expanding the boundaries of the AASP to the south and
east, per Alternative 3 in the Final Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Alternative 3
includes all of the land that is already designated for urban development by the County's SLO
Area Plan. Nevertheless, choosing this alternative will be considered to cause additional
significant and unavoidable impacts in the areas of land use, traffic and public services. Despite
additional environmental impacts associated with Alternative 3, a revised Statement of
Overriding Considerations is recommended because this alternative will ultimately allow the City
more control over development that is inevitable. Alternative 3 will allow the City to pursue
implementation of important goals and policies such as creating a permanent greenbelt south of
the City, agricultural preservation, higher quality urban design, improved drainage and waterway
management, provision of adequate public facilities, improved airport safety and mitigation for
project related traffic impacts. This report also includes new goals, policies, programs and
mitigation measures that are recommended to address changes to the AASP associated with the
revised land use program. Additional information regarding Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP)
consistency and public facilities financing will be provided to the Council with the agenda report
for the August 23,2005, special meeting.
DISCUSSION
Situation/Council Directed Change.to_Policy
On June 14, 2005, the Council reviewed Chapters 1.0 through 5.0 of the AASP. After the staff
presentation, public testimony, and discussion, the Council voted unanimously to direct staff to
Airport Area Specific-Plan,July 26, 2005 Page 2
change the AASP boundaries per land use Alternative 3 in the EIR (Attachment 1, Minutes).
Alternative 3 expands the City's Urban Reserve Line (URL) south and east to meet the County's
URL (Attachment 2, SLO Area Plan), reducing the likelihood that urban development south of
the City limits would occur in the future (see Attachment 3, Revised Land Use and Zoning
Maps).
The proposed changes to the land use plan associated with Alternative 3 also result in changes to
subsequent chapters in the AASP, including Circulation (Chapter 6), Utilities (Chapter 7j, and
Financing (Chapter 8). It is also important to note that the EIR identifies additional impacts
associated with Alternative 3 that are considered significant and unavoidable: The environmental
impacts related to land use Alternative 3 are evaluated below as part of the continuing review of
the AASP.
City staff contacted the residents, property owners and business owners in the expanded urban
area and scheduled an informational meeting for Monday, July 25, at 5:30 PM in the Planning
Conference Room. A meeting update will be provided to Council during the staff presentation
on July 26.
Overview of the Plan (Chapters 6.0—9.0)
The AASP 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 AASP. On June 14, 2005, the Council reviewed Chapters 1.0 through 5.0 of the
AASP in detail. An overview of Chapters 6.0 through 9.0 is provided below.
6.0 Circulation and Transportation
Chapter 6 provides the circulation plan that includes a roadway plan, bicycle plan and transit
plan. The circulation plan is 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 may need
to be expanded or replaced with a more conventional traffic control system if traffic volumes
exceeded this threshold . Finally, based upon "project" land use estimates, transportation demand
management requirements were built into the AASP. These standards require employers of 50
people or more to participate in programs to help achieve General Plan goals for improving
average vehicle ridership rates and reducing employee commute trips.
Circulation and Transportation-Alternative 3 Issues
The EIR says that three intersections in the City would operate at unacceptable levels of service
(LOS) under land use Alternative 3. These intersections include Los Osos Valley Road/US 101
(LOS F), South Higuera/Prado (LOS E) and Tank FarmMroad Street (LOS F). These three
a-�
Airport Area Specffic Plan,July 26, 2005 Page 3
intersections perform worse under Alternative 3 than they do under the proposed project due to
increased urban land use south of Tank Farm Road. Findings of Overriding Consideration are
recommended (Attachment 4, Exhibit A), which indicate why the benefits of the project under
Alternative 3 outweigh the potential impacts.
Why have these intersections not been fully mitigated under Alternative 3? For the US
101/LOVR Interchange, the final LOS calculations and proposed mitigation are contingent upon
a final interchange configuration that has yet to be determined. As Council is aware, the City is
acting as lead agency on the interchange project and is currently working with Caltrans to
determine the ultimate lane needs for the interchange. As part of this process, City and State,
LOS objectives will be used to determine build-out LOS for the interchange. Therefore, the
impacts of Alternative 3 land use on the interchange should be addressed as part of that project
development and implementation process.
Regarding the other two intersection locations, the deficient LOS findings are largely caused by
competing policies and objectives of the City's Circulation Element. To fully mitigate these two
intersection locations (to roadway LOS standards), additional lanes would be needed (double or
triple left tum lanes as an example) that would significantly widen the intersections to a point
where they may become barriers for pedestrian and bicycle movements. The EIR has identified
some widening to take place at these intersections as mitigation to the proposed land uses.
However, where such widening was perceived to compete with other objectives, the consultant
concluded that widening should not take place to serve one mode of transportation (vehicles)
more so than other modes (bicycles and pedestrians).
Are there other opportunities to mitigate these impacts that Council could consider? The draft
AASP contains policies, programs and standards that were derived for the "project" land use and
circulation system. As a result, discussions in the document including policies and standards are
based upon that land use level. Upon establishing these standards and policies, Council has the
discretion to consider modifications later if needed to further address traffic impacts from
Alternative 3 land uses. The Council may choose to add mitigation measures to the project if it
deems that such additional measures further reduce project impacts, a nexus exists and secondary
impacts do not occur as a result. While not mandatory, Council may wish to consider
incorporating the following mitigation strategies into the AASP:
1) Decrease the employee threshold for requiring Transportation Demand Management (TDM)
participation from 50 or more employees to something less (Standard 6.4.9.1 —5, Page 6-28).
Staff recommendation: Reduce requirement threshold to employers with 25 or more
employees. The AASP established 50 or more as the threshold because the traffic impacts
of the proposed project were mostly addressed. Now that certain intersections will fall
below an acceptable LOS, the threshold for TDM participation for all employers should be
reduced accordingly to help mitigate impacts. Participation with an existing County
Transportation Management Association such as Ride—On or Rideshare would be one way
to satisfy this requirement. With Council direction, staff will incorporate this requirement
into the AASP.
Dropping the threshold for employees to form a TMA may seem onerous to some but the effects
of this requirement are actually.minimal. Current costs of joining available County TMA's, such
23
Airport Area Spedrfic Plan,July 26,2005 Page 4
as Ride-On, are as little as$4.00/employee per month. Thus, for a.small employer of 25 or more,
the annual costs of participation would be $1,200. While there will be some additional internal
coordination requirements (paperwork and site coordinators), the TMA's assist with this work;
and once established, it becomes part of daily working routine.
2) Include additional transit service improvements to address Alternative 3 development
locations.
Staff recommendation: As development occurs, projects will be required to' improve
adjacent streets to include bus stop locations, including turnouts, transit pads, shelters and
amenities in appropriate locations along Buckley, Vachell and Broad Street to serve public
transportation. With Council direction, staff will incorporate this requirement into the
RASP.
These proposed changes can be incorporated into the AASP and could have a positive effect on
future operations at the impacted intersections, but do not change the conclusion in the EIR.
Therefore, impacts to the intersections are still considered significant and unavoidable.
As discussed later in this report, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is required when
environmental impacts are significant and unavoidable. The practical reality is that if the
Council rejects Alternative 3 due to "unacceptable" traffic impacts, urban development will
proceed in the County - with direct traffic impacts on City streets and intersections - without the
greater protections afforded by annexation of the added areas. Development under City
jurisdiction would allow the City to pursue implementation of important goals and policies such
as creating a permanent greenbelt south of the City, agricultural preservation, higher quality
urban design, improved drainage and waterway management, provision of adequate public
facilities, improved airport safety and mitigation for project related traffic impacts. Therefore,
staff believes that the Council's interest in including Alternative 3 in the Specific Plan is wise and
should proceed.
7.0 Utilities &Services
Chapter 7 details the utilities and service requirements for the AASP. The details for water,
sewer and storm-water management are based on community-wide 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 early drafts because of the elimination of a planned
regional storm water detention system. The regional system was eliminated after the Planning
Commission's review of the 2002 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
Airport Area Specific Plan, July 26, 2005 Page 5
improvements to accommodate increased run-off from a project site, if a detention basin is not
feasible or desirable.
Utilities-Alternative 3 Issues
According to the EIR, future site specific studies are required for the area south of the current
Urban Reserve _Line (URL) and east of the airport to show how-the City's water, wastewater and
storm drain systems can serve the proposed projects. City staff is currently working to confirm
that development in this area can be served without a significant increase in costs. Although
some additional infrastructure needs have been identified, the increase in developable land is
likely to have a corresponding offsetting effect.
The background studies for the water and wastewater master plans include an evaluation of
service needs under Alternative 3; however, the adopted master plan fee program (March 12,
2002) and subsequent projects such as the Water Reclamation Facility Master Plan and the Tank
Farm Lift Station project are based on the "project" for the AASP and not Alternative 3. As a
result, the master plans may need to be updated to insure adequate infrastructure sizing. The
following mitigation,measures for utilities are also listed in the Final EIR under Alternative 3.
Mitigation Measure PS-1.1. Submit Engineering Feasibility Study. Before
specific project approval of project in the area east of the airport and south of the
1994 URL, the project proponent will submit a detailed engineering assessment of
the specific project's water demand and wastewater and storm water production,
and an assessment of the City's infrastructure system to handle the project in
question. The project proponent will be required to provide mitigation to offset
impacts on the water, wastewater and/or storm drainage system as determined by
the City.
Mitigation_ Measure PS-1.2. Require Developments Expanding Water,
Wastewater and Storm Drainage Infrastructure to 'Pay for Improvements.
The City will require that new developments in the area east of the airport and
.south of the 1994 URL to provide a funding mechanism for the installation of
water, wastewater and stone drainage infrastructure and service to the area.
With Council direction, Mitigation Measure PS-1.1 will be added as a new program to Chapter 7
of the Specific Plan. (The intent.of Mitigation Measure PS-1.2 is already reflected in Chapter 8,
and as such,no added language in the AASP is recommended.)
8.0 Public Facilities Financing
Chapter 8 presents the Public Facilities Financing Plan that was prepared to distribute area-
specific infrastructure costs among the land uses proposed in the RASP. (Existing community-
wide fees for improvements to facilities like the Water Reclamation Facility are unaffected by the
AASP fees: as discussed in Chapter 8, new development in this area will be responsible for
paying both community-wide impact fees as well as the "add-on" fees identified in the Plan.)
The Financing Plan was prepared for both the Margarita Area and the Airport Area, and as such,
the financing chapters in the respective specific plans are virtually identical. The area-specific
2 S�
Airport Area Specffic Plan,July 26, 2005 Page 6
("add-on") impact fees that have already been established for water and wastewater, and the add-
on fees proposed in the AASP for transportation and plan preparation, are consistent with City
policy that the cost of new facilities should be borne by new development, unless the community
chooses to help with the costs of certain development to obtain community-wide benefits. As a
reality check, the proposed impact fees were compared to those of other communities. While the
proposed 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.
Financing—Alternative 3 Issues
The inclusion of the added land uses described in Alternative 3 within the AASP area is likely to
reduce impact fees per unit of development by spreading them over a larger base, summarized as
follows:
1. Transportation Improvements and Specific Plan Preparation. As discussed above, there
are no added infrastructure costs proposed for Alternative 3. Accordingly, since the
development base is larger than the "project," this will reduce add-on fees per unit of
development (square feet or acre) for transportation improvements and specific plan
preparation compared with those presented in the current draft AASP.
While more detailed analysis is needed before finalizing fees— which will be prepared by the
August 23 meeting—an initial evaluation of changed land uses indicates that fees per unit of,
development for transportation improvements and specific plan preparation will be reduced
by about 50% from those presented in the current draft AASP. While this indicates a
significant reduction in fees for the areas initially proposed in the "project," they represent
new fees for the areas added under Alternative 3.
2. Water and Wastewater Improvements. As discussed above, while there are likely to be
some added water and wastewater infrastructure costs under Alternative 3 the affect on fees
per unit of development is likely to be more than offset by added development. As noted
above, add-on fees for water and wastewater improvements in the AASP have already been
adopted by the Council (in March 2002), and as such, are not specifically addressed in the
AASP: For this reason, we plan to make any needed revisions in add-on water and
Wastewater impact fees at the next regularly scheduled impact fee update in Spring 2006.
9.0 Implementation
Chapter 9.0 provides an overview of how components of the AASP will be implemented through
annexation, zoning, subdivision approvals, architectural review, building permits and
interpretation and amendments of the AASP. This chapter also covers implementation of the
financing plan, capital improvement programming and the budget, as well as environmental
review requirements for future projects.
Environmental Review
The Final EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans was certified by the Council on October 12, 2004, when the Margarita Area
a2-(v
Airport Area Specific_Plan,July 26, 2005 Page 7
Specific Plan was approved. Although. no action is required relative to the environmental
document, the Council must make Findings for Significant Environmental Effects, Findings of
Overriding Consideration and must approve the Mitigation Measure Monitoring Plan for the
AASP. The draft resolution for approval of the Specific Plan lists the significant and
unavoidable impacts associated with the project and includes the required environmental findings
in Exhibit A (Attachment 4). The Mitigation Monitoring Plan is attached to the resolution as
Exhibit B. The following statement is a Finding of Overriding Consideration that was not
previously adopted when the EIR. was certified. This additional finding addresses the new
impacts associated with Alternative 3.
■ Consistency Between City and County Plans: The project incorporates
portions of Alternative 3 in order to insure consistency between City and County
plans for the area south of the URL and east of the airport. The implementation of
the land use program outlined in Alternative 3 fully mitigates Impact LU-2,
however it also results in significant and unavoidable impacts to land use, traffic
and public services. Nevertheless, consistency between City and County plans is
considered critical for achieving other important General Plan goals such as the
establishment of a permanent greenbelt south of the City, agricultural
preservation, higher quality urban design, improved drainage and waterway
management, provision of adequate public facilities, improved airport safety and
mitigation for project related traffic impacts.
Recommended Added Policies and.Programs
Agricultural Land Policies
The following goal and policy are recommended to be added to Chapter 4 of the AASP to reflect
the inclusion of Agriculture as a land use designation and zoning district within the AASP
boundaries.
Goal 4.1.11: Agricultural Buffers
Preservation of agricultural land and open space for on-going agricultural uses.
This is accomplished through the provision of buffers on urban land so land use
conflicts are diminished..
Policy 4.2.7: Agriculture
Areas designated Agriculture are intended to encourage conservation of
agricultural lands and continuation of agricultural uses and keeping of livestock
where compatible with urban development. The sites designated as Agriculture in
the Airport Area have historically been used for agricultural uses and are bordered
by agricultural buffers on the parcels being developed with urban uses to insure
compatibility between the uses.
Goal 4.1.1.1 is reflected in the proposed land use and zoning maps (Attachment 3),
which.include buffers on urban land adjacent to agriculture.
1
Airport Area Specific Plan,July 26, 2005 Page 8
Tank Farm Road and Buckley Road
The Council also discussed the idea that the AASP should accommodate future widening of Tank
Farm Road to four lanes. As proposed in the Plan, Tank Farm Road reduces to a two lane
section with bikeways and pedestrian facilities between Santa Fe and the new Unocal Collector
road. The traffic analysis for the project does not indicate the need for four lanes of traffic in this
area; but the Council may decide that it is prudent to insurethe long-term possibility of roadway
expansion_ in future years if it becomes necessary. Based on a review of the proposed street
sections for Tank Farm Road (AASP Figures 6-6 and 6-7), sufficient right-of-way will exist
along the proposed rural cross section of Tank Farm Road to allow for ultimate conversion to the
urban cross section. If at some future time Council determines that widening is appropriate, the
roadway would be re-constructed from the rural cross-section to the urban cross-section.
Additional east-west roadway capacity resulting.from the Prado Road connection (3-5 years out)
will defer the need, if ever, for this widening along Tank Farm Road. If it is Council's intent that
the AASP reflect the potential need for preserving this ability in the future, staff recommends
that Council consider adding the following text into the AASP:.
Standard 6.4.2.1. In order to maintain.the rural character of the area, Tank
Farm Road will have a four-lane cross-section within urbanized developed
areas and a narrower two-lane cross-section with median in areas adjacent
to rural open space. As part of any adjacent development, or public
improvement project, sufficient right-of-way shall be acquired or
preserved so as not to preclude eventual widening of the roadway. If it is
determined that established thresholds in the Circulation Element are
exceeded, and that a four-lane cross-section for the entire length of Tank
Farm Road is warranted, then the City may require that a project be
implemented to convert the rural two lane section of roadway to the four
lane urban cross section to address congestion improvement goals and
objectives. (AASP Page 6-17.)
In order to provide a four-lane section for Buckley Road, additional right-of-way would
need to be acquired in the eastern portion of the Airport Area, adjacent to the airport,
which would require coordination with the County. Staff does not anticipate a need for
this additional right-of-way, but if the Council chooses to pursue this option, then staff
should be directed to revise Standards 6.4.3.2 and 6.4.3.3 (AASP Page 6-19) to
accommodate the change.
Airport Land Use Plan Consistency
Staff is continuing to work on revisions to Chapter 4 relating to Alternative 3 and ALUP
consistency. City staff will be meeting with a sub-committee of the ALUC prior to August 23rd,
the next Council meeting scheduled for consideration of the AASP. Additional policies and a
revision of Figure 4-5 Maximum Non-Residential Density Standards, will be presented at that
time. The ALUC.is expected to make a determination on the AASP during their meeting
scheduled for August 17, 2005.
2-F
Airport Area Specdic Plan, July 26, 2005 Page 9
Recommended Council Review Procedure
After the staff presentation and general questions, the Council may wish to receive additional
public testimony. Following public comment staff suggests that Council members provide
specific questions and comments on each chapter, in succession, from Chapter 6.0 (Circulation)
through Chapter 9.0 (Implementation). For the August 23 hearing, staff will return with
responses to any issues raised at the July hearing:that cannot be dealt with immediately. Also on
August 23, staff will provide the Council with all document revisions needed to reflect the land
use program under Alternative 3. With Council direction, minor changes to graphics and text
that do not have an effect on goals, policies, programs, guidelines or standards will be made
during the production of the final document for publication.
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 & Information Technology, Administration and the City Attorney's Office.
FISCAL IMPACT
1. Ongoing Cost and Revenues. When the General Plan was prepared, it was accompanied by
a fiscal impact analysis of on-going costs and revenues, which found that overall the General
Plan was fiscally balanced. If Alternative 3 is incorporated into the AASP, new costs and
revenue sources are anticipated; however, given the fiscal nature of the type of land uses
added.under Alternative 3, the on-going fiscal impact is likely to be more favorable than
anticipated under the current General Plan.
2. Infrastructure Costs. As discussed above, the Public Facilities Financing Plan (Chapter 8)
has been prepared to assure that new development in the AASP will pay for the infrastructure
needed to serve it. Based on an initial analysis of the changes under Alternative 3, impact
fees per unit of development should be less those identified for the "project" in the current
draft of the AASP.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Determine that extensive revisions to the AASP are needed and refer the project back to
the Planning Commission. This alternative is not recommended unless the changes to the
Specific Plan require additional environmental analysis. At this time, none of the
proposed changes are outside of the scope of the EIR.
2. Adopt a resolution and ordinance to approve the AASP (see Attachments 4 and 5). This
alternative is not recommended because staff is preparing additional background
information on fees and airport compatibility for the August 23, 2005, meeting.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment l c June 14, 2005, Council Minutes
Attachment I SLO Area Plan (County)
2- 9
1
Airport Area Specffic Plan,July 26,2005_ Page 1.0
Attachment 3: Revised AASP Land Use Plan and Zoning Map
Attachment 4: Draft Resolution Approving the AASP
Attachment 5: Draft Ordinance Approving the Zoning and Pre-Zoning Established by the
AASP
COUNCIL READING FILE
A. Council Agenda Report and Attachments for the June 14, 2005 Meeting
B. Final Program Environmental Impact Report
C. Public Correspondence Submitted to Planning Commission
L:\AASP\aasp(CAR-7-26-05).doc
Attachment 1
MINUTES
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
TUESDAY,JUNE 14,201%-7"00 P.M.
COUNCIL CHAMBER,990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA
ROLL CALL:
Council Members
Present: Council Members Paul Brown,Christine Mulholland,Allen K.Settle,
Vice Mayor John Ewan and Mayor Dave Romero
City Staff:
Present: Ken Hamplan,City Administrative Officer;Jonathan Lowell,City
Attorney;Audrey Hooper,City Clerk;Wendy George,Assistant City
Administrative Officer,John Mandeville,Community Development
Director Bill Statler,Finance Director; Michael Draze,Deputy
Director of CommunityDevelopment;John Moss, Utilities Directory;
Tim Bochum,Deputy Director of Public Works; Shelly Stamuyck,
Economic Development Manager,Michael Codron,Associate
Planner Neil Havlik,Natural Resources Manager
PUBLIC COMMENT
None.
PUBLIC HEARING
1. REVIEW OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT-OF THE AIRPORT_AREA.
SPECIFIC PLAN(AASP): - - - -
Community Development Director Mandeville commenced the presentation. He discussed
the purpose of and need for the AASP,the City's commitment to its completion,the history
and status of the Airport Area and the AASP to date,and objectives of the AASP.
Associate Planner Codron reviewed the contents of the draft AASP and the AASP planning
arcea.
Economic Development Manader Stanwyck discussed economic opportunities presented
by the RASP:
.Natural Resources ManagerHavllk discussed the purpose of the Conservation and
Resources Management portion of the AASP,including the protections it will provide and
the resources-it will manage. He pointed out the location of endangered species and
discussed remedlation of those sites,as well as mitigation of Identified Impacts.
.Associate Planner Codron discussed the Intent,goals,map,business park and services
and manufacturing designations,development standards;Airport compatibility,and
community design.
Attachment 1
City Council Meeting - Page 2
Tuesday,June 14;2005,7: 0 p.m.
Deputy Director Community Development Draze reviewed and discussed the Importance of
altematives to the proposed project,summarized the Environmental Impact Report,and
discussed the CAO recommendation.
Staff responded to questions throughout their presentations.
Mayor Romero opened the public hearing.
Jan Potter.San _Luis Obispo,opposed development In the AASP area because of traffic
impacts on Broad Street and Buckley Road,and because she thinks large industrial buildings
are Incompatible with a scenic corridor or with her neighborhood.
Patricia Witmore,representing the Chamber of Commerce,spoke in support of the RASP,
eicplaining that it has been part of the Chamber's vision since 1992.
Bill Almas,representing Unocal Corporation,indicated that while Unocal Is supportive of most
of the RASP goals,it does not support annexation of the area south of Tank Farm Road
because of Its proximity to the Airport. He provided copies of a.letter submitted to the
Planning Commission on March 9,2005(on file in the City Clerk's office),containing Unocal's
specific comments and concerns.
Mayor Romero closed the public hearing.
Council discussion ensued during which staff responded to questions. During the
discussion,Council Member Mulholland raised the following concerns:
• Suggested that.the City should not be Involved with trying to remediate or regulate
open space that does not have biological value and that the language in Policy
3.2.24 should be deleted. Also questioned the desirability of annexing contaminated
lands(page 3-16).
Staff clarified the Intent of the policy,noting that it is an attempt to respond to concerns
ralsed by property owners.
• Questioned the need for the City to develop a comprehensive development and
conservation pian as Indicated In Policy 4.3.6 for the Tank Farm Site if the plan must
be approved by the federal government or a regional board(page 3-12).
Staff discussed the need for this policy and explained It does not stipulate that the City will
develop or prepare the pian; Rather,it indicates that the plan is a prerequisite to approving
development
• Questioned the feasibility of including the guidelines for building orientation and
setbacks in the AASP(page 5=11).
Staff explained that these guidelines encourage parking behind buildings,but does not
eliminate front setbacks,landscaping or other standards requiring the preservation of
views.
• Suggested that consideration should be given to including,maintaining and
protecting views from places other than roadways(page 5-20).
Staff referenced other standards that exist to preserve views of scenic resources,clarified
that roadways are not typically considered an obstruction of those resources,and
Attachment .1
City Council Meeting Page 3
Tuesday,June 14.2005,7:00 p.m-
referenced mitigations such as landscaping to Improve the appearance of large parking
areas and roadways.
No direction was given to pursue concerns or suggestions raised by Council Member
Mulholland.
ACTION:
ulholland.ACTION: 1.Reviewed the Planning Commission Draft of the Airport Area Specific
Plan(AASP). I Took public testimony on Chapters 1.0 through 5.0 and the minor
changes requested by the Airport Land Use Commission. 3. Moved by Ewan/Settle
to direct staff- a)to modify the Land,Use Map by extending the Specific PI-an
ry -
boundasouth to Buckley Road,between the Airport and Vachell Lane,with an
agricultural!cultural designation to be applied to land outside of the County's Urban
Services Line; b)to exclude this agricultural property from the City's Urban reserve,
as well as to exclude the properties south of Buckley Road,between the Airport and
Vachell Road,from thb urban reserve and proceed with ifforts to obtain
conservation easements over prop grtles south of Buckley Road;and c)to replace
program 3.3.4,to support expanding the wetlands north of Tank Farm Road.
4.Cont1hued the hearing to July 26,2065,to provide for additional review of the
AASP,Including Chapters 6.6.through 9.0;motion-carried 5:0.
There being no further business to come before the City Council,Mayor Romero adjourned
the meeting at 9,37 pmL to the next regular Council meeting scheduled for Tuesday,June 21,
2665,-at 7.00 p.m.In the Council Chamber,990 Palm Street,San Luis Obispo.
Audrey Hoops
City Clbrk
APPROVED BY COUNCIL: 7WO65
�2
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO URBAN RESERVE AREA
Land Use Categories LEGEND _
REWSm W&W
Agrieultu[e
k tt Rural Lands
Recreation
Q Residential Rural
Residential Suburban
CHVWSr1 , + Residential Single Fainih
PEE
WHOPPEM Residential Multi-Famlly
22 w x �fi Office/Professional
2 Commercial Retail
21
Commerclal Service
industrial
FOOTHUBLVM Public Wily
r
._ _ Open Space
HVYY rOr
28
SA-a cd-
\ I 27CERM
\
SANLUMOSW01A
—art—— CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO
34 /
TERRACENU
- SOUTH ST. �.
S-La CLL
OaarrTRD.
y�i.a•,:_:;�
.. ADO h.s'• ? W dye
f '
\ W W
v� v I'
v
1
_ WLL
+rt
t
J
74
J
Attachment 2
SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PWI
Rural Land Use Categories
Revised-W7/."
, 1
LEGEND .
ME i
Agriculture
Rural Lands
EM Recreation
M Residential Rural
i•r __ E= Residential Suburban
Residential Single Family
s
Residential Multi Family
MM Office/Professional
Commercial Retail
Commercial Service
Industrial
"a Public Facility
Open Space
a •
�- \I0
San Luis Obispo _
Urban Reserve Area
1
1
1 ,
� � 1
1
0
l
- 1 r•
, o•
I
�•
0
•
li
SII i
r
3
o"
Los Raru;boslEdna
1
0
Ville a Reserve Area
i
9
� Illll
tl
I p
"MAZ1,11,61 i F.•' .
CD All
06 C11 L)
z.
V.
IM T�►• ♦ \I0 .\
iii/n•II-
-
0 Illi I///-
�_LI IIS%//-
- LSI L!\1,/-
1PL
%r� qty,. ,� ♦ 1 p�� � ,
,;,����� •:°/\ fin.. ►�/ii��■■�
E
WIS
COPY
11
am
am
MINES
sm
om
MISS
MAW
s
INC
,.
NOW
:un
Lima
40 vi
GLp
• uw
rlAW$%A WI
10
'W 111 9-"AWAWAIIININ
11 MEMO F/
I'MIN7.ilhl � FAW
\51JA61101111111--741
9.11INE!.
—AVA bir.0 M
wAWAWAffmom
Ne AWaiWAWM�NOM
.1®r
/MWJdlD lmr�Alllll 9 m BOB
1AWAFmW�ME 2 a
2m,mmwAWAEW�on
iwjrAr��mm�
IBM
Ban=
on no
In=
IBM
MEMO
III �� � : �� ������
�� .�
MOVE
WORM
awgwqm
z�
Attachment 4
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 23 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 and July 23, 2005, the City Council held public hearings 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.
2
Hnacnrrlent, �+
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 six impacts identified in the EIR that, even after mitigation, are considered
significant and unavoidable: (1) Impact LU-5-. Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to
Urban Uses, (2) Impact LU-6: Change in Views, (3) Impact T-2 (Altemative 3): LOS in
Excess of LOS D, (4) Impact PS-1 (Alternative 3): Impacts on Water Supply and
Distribution Facilities, (5) Impact PS-2 (Alternative 3): Impacts on Sewer Mains and
Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and (6) Growth Inducement-. the project
would have a significant and unavoidable growth-inducing impact. These significant
effects identified in 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.
Attachment 4
City Council Resolution No. (2005 Series) Page 3
Airport Area Specific Plan
2. All subjects required in a specific plan by the California Government Code and applicable
City ordinances ace appropriately and adequately covered.
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 Urban
Reserve Line, the Land Use Element Map, and the Street Classification Map, shall be amended
to reflect the adopted.boundaries, land uses and streets in the Airport Area 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:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
L:AASPaasp_res[council].doc
�a20
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
SECTION 1. INTRODUCTION
The City of San Luis Obispo (City) has decided to approve the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Master Facilities Plans (project). The City is the lead
agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has certified a program
environmental impact report (EIR) for the project.
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 adopt findings for each
significant environmental impact disclosed in an EIR. Specifically, for each significant impact,
the lead agency must find that:
■ 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
IN specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible.
In addition to making a finding for each significant impact, if the lead agency approves a
project without mitigating all of the significant impacts, it must prepare a statement of overriding
considerations, in which it balances the benefits of the project against the unavoidable
environmental risks. The statement of overriding considerations must explain the social,
economic; or other reasons for approving the project despite its environmental impacts (14 CCR
15093, Pub. Res. Code 21081).
This document contains the findings and statement of overriding considerations for the
approval of the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Master Facilities
Plans and reflects the City's independent judgment. This document incorporates by reference the
program EIR. The EIR, specific plans, related master facilities plans, and other portions of the
administrative record are available for review at:
City of San Luis Obispo
Community Development Department
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Contact: Mike Draze
(805)781-7274
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 1 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
SECTION 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Project Objectives
As required by the City General Plan, each of the specific plan's is intended to contain
policies and standards that will facilitate appropriate development of land, protection of open
space, and provision of adequate public facilities. The specific plans are more detailed than the
general plan but less precise than subdivision maps or construction plans. The overall objective
of the project is to adopt specific plans for the Airport and.Margarita areas, pursuant to the City
General Plan.
Airport Area Specific Plan Objectives
Airport Area Specific Plan objectives include;
® identifying the infrastructure needed to provide city services to the area;
i facilitating the City's eventual annexation of the Airport area;
N ensuring that planned land uses are compatible with airport operations and consistent
with the SLO County Regional Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP);
® 'accommodating businesses identified in the City's Targeted.Industry Cluster Study
that provide household-supporting incomes for San Luis Obispo residents; and
o establishing goals and policies for open space protection, conseryation; and
restoration.
Margarita Area Specific Plan Objectives
Margarita Area Specific Plan objectives include-
a accommodating a wide range of housing types, with .anemphasis on housing
affordable to those working in San Luis Obispo;
o protecting substantial natural habitats, including creeks, hills, wetlands; and corridors
between these habitats;
■ providing convenient access for residents"to employment, basic shopping, recreation,
and education through both the location of land uses and the design of circulation_
features;
Findings of Fact and StareaW— of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Pldn's and2 - July2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
2 a!
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
■ accommodating research and light manufacturing jobs that can support local
households in forms compatible with airport safety and neighboring residences;
■ .ensuring that planned land uses are compatible with airport operations; and
il ensuring consistency with San Luis Obispo County's Airport Land Use Plan.
Proposed Project
The proposed project includes implementation of the goals and policies contained in the
Airport Area Specific. Plan, Margarita Area Specific Plan, Water System Master Plan,
Wastewater Master Plan Update, and Storm Drain Master Plan.
Specific Plans
The specific plans include the following designations:
® designation of the Airport area for 2 hectares (7 acres) of Residential, 193.3 hectares
(477.7 acres) of Services and Manufacturing, 93.1 hectares (230.1 acres) of Business
Park; 139.9 hectares (345.9 acres) of Open Space, and 145.3 hectares (359.1 acres) of
Government Facility, fora total Airport Area of 606 hectares (1499 acres);
® designation of the Margarita area for 75.4 hectares (186.2 acres) of Open Space, 10.5
hectares (25.9 acres) of Parks, 28.6 hectares (70.7 acres) of Residential, 1.3 hectare
(3.1 acre) of Neighborhood Commercial, 0.4 hectare (.9 acre) of Special Use, 28.0
hectares (68.8 acres) of Business Park, and 19 hectares (47 acres) of Streets, for a
total Margarita area of 168.7 hectares (416.1 acres);
■ extension of Prado Road to Broad Street;
■ extension of new commercial collector connecting Tank Farm Road and Prado
Road;
z extension of Santa Fe Road from south of Tank Farm Road to Prado Road;
extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street; and
■ widening of various existing roadways, including Prado Road, and Tank Farm Road.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis.Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and3 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
� .a,3
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
Water System Master Plan
The Water System Master Plan describes improvements to the water treatment and
distribution systems to meet Citywide General Plan development needs, including needs of the
Airport Area. The following is a brief summary of substantial treatment plant and facilities
improvements identified in the Water System Master Plan.
Recommended Treatment Plant Improvements.. The recommended treatment plant
improvements are as follows:
■ Phase I: Perform a seismic evaluation of the existing treated water storage and
clearwell facilities.
i Phase II: Add facilities to improve filtration rates, treatment processes, and
emergency operations.
■ Phase III: Monitor.water levels at the forebay, improve efficiency of pump motors,
evaluate means to protect the water treatment plant from railroad accidents, and
improve emergency standby power capacity.
Recommended Distribution Improvements. The recommended distribution
improvements are:
■ a grid of 12-inch diameter mains: three traversing east to west and three north-south
mains connecting the existing 16- and 20-inch mains to the north (the .mains will be
located in the major roads);
■ adding a 757,000-liter (200;000-gallon) water tank in the Edna Saddle zone in the
southwestern part of the city; and
• adding a 4,542,000-liter (1,200,000-gallon) water tank in the Bishop zone to serve
the Bishop zone.
Wastewater Master Plan Update
The City's Wastewater Master Plan Update addresses the city in its entirety, including_ the
annexation areas. The plan identifies improvements to collection and treatment facilities that
will be needed to provide wastewater service to future annexation areas and provides
recommendations concerning Citywide wastewater system facilities. The Wastewater Master
Plan Update identifies the following substantial reclamation facility and system.improvements:
■ replacing the Howard Johnson and Tank.Farm pump stations;
0 installing approximately 3,790 meters (12,400 feet) of new trunk sewer mains in the
Airport area;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 4 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
■ installing 4,000 feet (1,219.2 meters) of 16-inch discharge pipe (required at the new
tank farm facility);
■ installing approximately 9,400 meters (30,700 feet) of new trunk sewer mains in the
Margarita area; and
® upgrading existing pump stations in the project area.
Storm Drain Master Plan
The Storm Drain Master Plan addresses the East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek
watershed. This watershed includes the Airport and Margarita areas as well as areas to the east.
The features of the plan would, downstream of the Airport area, limit storm drainage flows at
build-out to the level estimated for existing conditions, provide 100-year flood protection,
provide for environmental enhancement of stream corridors, and provide individual onsite or
sub-regional detention basins that will serve the area, rather than a single regional detention
basin. Previous project improvement recommendations included parallel, minor creek
modifications .as needed and permitted by the governing entity to enhance flood conveyance
capacity. However, the City has determined that the existing creeks have capacity to sufficiently
convey floodwaters. The Storm Drain Master Plan identifies the following recommended
improvements:
® replacing bridges across Acacia Creek at Tank Farm Road and the East Branch of
San Luis Obispo Creek at Santa Fe Road and
® replacing and improving Tank Farm Creek culvert facilities at Tank Farm Road with
a standard Caltrans two-span concrete slab bridge.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lais Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and5 - July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
�S
Attachment 4
- Exhibit A
SECTION I 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:
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
o specific economic, social, legal, technological, or other considerations make the
mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the EIR infeasible.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Aitpart Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 6 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
-2 77 4(/��
�
Attachment 4
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 EIR:
s 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 feasi ble 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-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies
and Agreements
The project expands the urban reserve to encompass all land designated for urban use by
the County. Thus, the URL extends"down to Buckley in the area west of the airport, and across
Broad Street to land east of the airport._ This expansion of the urban reserve, and the re-
designation of lands on the City's General Plan Map in that area from Open Space to Business
Park and Services and Manufacturing, would be inconsistent with City policy to limit its urban
expansion to the current urban reserve.
Although not consistent with City plans and policies, the proposed urban reserve is
consistent with the County's plans and policies. In addition, by designating a buffer of
Agriculture and Open Space land north of Buckley Road and. within the URL, the proposed
project implements City policy for providing a permanent greenbelt along its southern boundary.
The impact remains significant and unavoidable.
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
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of Sari Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and7 .July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
a -a7
Attachment 4
-. Exhibit A
failure to address the inconsistency represents a'significant impact because it allows a condition
that is not in conformance with its policies io 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
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 has been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the impact
is mitigated to a less-than-significant level because land use Alternative 3 was incorporated into
the project by the City Council, which expands the City's Urban Reserve Line to match the
County's zoning. As a result, there is no longer a discrepancy between City and County plans
and no impact.
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
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 8 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans r/
—2 d
Attach_r nent 4
Exhibit A
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.
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 3A2 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 the area(21% and I I%, 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 EIR, 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
significant and unavoidable impact.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City,of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 9 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
2�
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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 1:1
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 11.
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.
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 Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and1 O jury 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
� - 36
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
Impact LU-7: Potential Increase in DaytiniONighttime 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.
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-foot candles 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 EIR 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations - City of Snn Luis Om po
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 1 1 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
2 -31
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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.
Mitigation Measure BIO4.1. 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 3C4 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;
E 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);
a identification of special-status species and species of local concern as identified in
the (forthcoming) Conservation Element;and
IP 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obtspo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and l2 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
-32
ti
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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.
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:
® 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.
® Minimize 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.
o 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 13 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
- 33
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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 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
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 BIO-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 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 33.3), and most significant areas are designated as open space.
Impact BIO-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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Lais Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 14 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
�2-3q
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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. To
avoid and minimize impacts to freshwater marsh and other wetland habitats, the project
proponent will do all of the following:
a obtain a qualified wetland ecologist to conduct a delineation of waters of the
United States, including wetlands, at the project site;
a obtain verification of the delineation from the Corps;
a 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;
a 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.h_as 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 BIO-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 unsurveyed 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and15 July 2.005
Related Facilities Master Plans
-� S
Attachment 4
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-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..
Impact BIO-S: 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 Specific Plan requirements for Setbacks Regarding Riparian Corridors. The
project proponent will do all of the following:
0 retain a qualified biologist to identify and map riparian woodland and scrub in the
project area;
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 16 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Exhibit A
® 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: Mitigation 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 BI0-9: 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
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 BI0-9.1. 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:
■ Whenever possible, set aside as nature preserve areas known 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Croy of San Leis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and17 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans 2
i
Attachinent 4
Exhibit A
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 Con_gdon's Taiplant 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.
These occurrences are located in areas to be designatedas Open Space; therefore, no impact on
these populations is expected.
Many occurrences of Congdon's Tarplant have recently been documented is 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 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. 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispa
Jar the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and1 g July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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 BIO-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 minimize impacts 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 minimize impacts on-non-listed special-status wildlife populations and
individuals to the extent possible.
E Ensure that a qualified biologist conducts protocol-level surveys for burrowing owls
and, if presence is confirmed, develops a mitigation plan following DFG guidelines.
s, 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:
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Cm uiderations - City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 19 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
I_mpact BI043: 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 eastermand 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 real-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.
11 Priorto 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=disairbing 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.
•_ 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.
Findings of Fact and Starem nt of Overriding Considerations city of San Luis Obispo
for.the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plant and 20 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
�41
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
m 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.
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 Tiger
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 1)FG 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 deteinine 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:
a 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plaits and 21 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attach;�nent 4
Exhibit A
■ Preserve suitable fairy shrimp habitat at a 2:1 ratio or other ratio approved by the
USFWS. The habitat must be preserved ata 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 ESA 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.
Mitigation
Mitigation Measure BIO-16.1. Conduct. Protocol-Level Surveys for Least Bell's
Vireo. If the species or appropriate habitat is present, then the project proponent will
implement Mitigation.Measure BIO-16.2.
Mitigation Measure 11I0-16.2. 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-16.3. 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 DFG 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 22 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
2-VZ—
Attachment 4
- Exhibit A
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 SanLuis 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.
Mitigation
Implementation of the following_ mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant level.
Mitigation Measure BIO-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 BIO-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 wit] need to include measures
that would avoid and minimize impacts on the'southwestern pond turtle and additional
habitat creation,enhancement, and management in the planning area.
Findings of Fact and.Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 23 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
7
Attachnient 4
Exhibit A
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)
■ 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 acid 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-IA: Implement Design Features. The following design features
should be implemented:
■ On approaches to intersections where exclusive right-turn lanes are recommended
and Class H 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 24 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attach;hent 4
Exhibit A
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-tum 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 turn shall be
designed to minimize turning speed.
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.
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the.
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted through the standards in Chapter 6 of the
Specific Plan.
Impact T-2: LOS is Excess of LOS D
The Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection would operate at LOS E. The Tank
Farm Road/Broad Street intersection and the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 northbound ramps
would operate at LOS F.
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures could have a positive effect on future operations at
the impacted intersections, but do not change the conclusion in the Final Program
Environmental. Therefore, impacts to the intersections are still considered significant and
unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure T-2.1; The threshold for Transportation Demand Management
(TDM) requirements shall be reduced to apply to employers with 10 or more employees.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Gus.Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 25 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachi-nent 4
Exhibit A
Mitigation Measure T-2.2: Employers in the AASP shall participate in a Transit
Management Association (TMA). Participation with existing County TMA's such as
Ride—On or Rideshare would satisfy this requirement.
Mitigation Measure T-23: As 'development occurs, require projects to improve.
adjacent streets to include bus stop locations, including turnouts, transit pads, shelters and
amenities along Buckley, Vachell and Broad Street to serve public transportation.
Mitigation Measure T-2.4: Revise the AASP, and the financing component of the plan,
to include the acquisition of 6-7 acres of industrial property to be developed as a central
maintenance and dispatch facility for County transit providers .
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The above mitigation measures
have been incorporated into Chapter 6 of the Specific Plan in new goals,policies and programs.
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
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 26 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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
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.
Exaniples'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;
■ substitute gasoline-powered equipmeni for diesel-powered equipment, where
feasible;
w implementactivity management techniques as described below; and
• use compressed natural gas or propane-powered portable equipment (e.g,
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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.
■ 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..
® 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.
R 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
PM 10 emissions by 7-14%.
w 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 PM 10 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 PM1O emissions by 25-60%.
All PM1O 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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 28 July 2005
Related Facilities Master plan's
�—qf
Aflacll,-nent 4
Exhibit A
Mitigation. Measure AIR-13. Implement Construction-Related Activity
Management Techniques
■ Develop a comprehensive construction activity management plan designed to
minimize 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.
■ Limit the length of the construction work-day period, if necessary.
■ Phase construction activities, if appropriate.
Finding: 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?
Findings of Fact and Stmnnent of Overriding Considerations City of San Leis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 29 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
r�J r
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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?
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 comperisating 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.
Findings of Fact and Stateinenr of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 30 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans T
a-�v
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
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.
Finding: 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
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.
Findings of Fact and Statement bf Overriding Consideratians City of San LuisObispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans andJuly 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans 31
a-s
Attachso hent 4
Exhibit A
Mitigation
Implementation of the following mitigation measures would reduce this impact to a less-
than-significant 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
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 HAZ-1.2.
Mitigation Measure HAZ-1.2. Conduct Phase I and Possibly Phase 11
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 II 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 II
assessment may include monitoring well installation, groundwater sampling, and
analysis for anticipated contaminating substances. If groundwater contaminated.by
potentially hazardous materials is expected to be extracted during dewatering, the
SLOFD and the Central Coast RWQCB will be notified. A contingency plan to
dispose of contaminated groundwater will be developed in agreement with the
SLOFD and Central Coast RWQCB before activities.
Finding; 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 compliance with Fire Department and RWQCB
requirements.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis OBispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 32 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachnient 4
Exhibit.A
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
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-sign{Tcant 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 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.
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.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and33 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans .
�_S�3
Attachnnent 4
Exhibit A
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.
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
Impact PS-1: Impacts on Water Supply and Distribution Facilities
The project includes portions of the land use plan from EIR Alternative 3. Additional
demand for water supply under Alternative 3 is similar to demand under the proposed project.
However, the project would result in additional demand east of the airport and south of the URL.
This area is currently not planned for development within the City General Plan or facility
master plans. This area is not planned to be provided with adequate distribution facilities to
serve potential development. Therefore, a significant and unavoidable impact exists in the area
of water distribution facilities.
Impact PS-2: Impacts on Sewer Mains and Capacity, and Expansion of Treatment
Facilities
Additional demand for water reclamation facility capacity is similar to demand under the
proposed project. However, the project would result in additional demand east of the airport and
south of the URL. This area is currently not planned for development within the City General
Plan or the Wastewater Master Plan Update. As a result, the impacts in the area of wastewater
collection are considered significant and unavoidable.
Findings of Fact and Statemeni of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans 34
Attach dent 4
- Exhibit A
Impact PS-3: Impacts on Storm Drain Capacity
The proposed project would result in additional stormwater generation east of the airport
and south of the URL. This area is currently not planned for development within the'City
General Plan or the Storm is
Master Plan. As a result, impacts in the area of stormwater
collection facilities are considered significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation
The following mitigation measures address impacts PS-1 through PS-3. All impacts are
considered significant and unavoidable, because the area being served.includes land outside of
the current URL, General Plan and service plans. However, a development review procedure is
in place to insure that issues are identified are resolved prior to project approvals. '
Mitigation Measures PS-1.1 and PS-1.2 require future site-specific studies before the
review and approval of projects in the area east of the airport and south of the URL to determine
specific water, wastewater, and storm drainage system capabilities to serve the projects
proposed. Because the ability to mitigate these impacts cannot be projected pending the project
specific engineering study, these impacts were determined to remain significant and unavoidable.
Mitigation Measure PS-1.1. Submit Engineering Feasibility Study. Before specific project
review and approval of project in the area east of the airport and south of the URL the project
proponent will submit a detailed engineeringassessment of the specific project's water dernand
and sewer/wastewater, and storm drainage production, and an assessment of the City's
infrastructure system to handle the project in question. The project proponent will be required to
provide mitigation to offset impacts on the water, wastewater, and/or storm drainage system as
determined by the City.
Mitigation Measure PS-1.2. Require Developments Expanding Water, Wastewater, and
Storm Drainage Infrastructure to Pay for Improvements. The City will require that new
large-scale developments in the area east of the airport and south of the URL include a funding
mechanism for the installation and maintenance of water, wastewater; and storm drainage
infrastructure and service to the area..
Finding: Mitigation Has Been Incorporated into the Project. The City finds that the
mitigation measure is feasible and has been adopted. This mitigation measure is implemented
through policies in Chapter 7 (Utilities) that require performance of the requirements above.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations. City of San Luis 06ispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and35 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A.
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 susceptibleto 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 under the 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
construction of new structures, access roads, and underground utilities could have an impact on
known or unknown cultural resources; therefore, this impact is considered significant.
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:
0 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 msource(s) meets CEQA or
Findings of Fact and Statement of Ovemding Considerations - City of San tris Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 36 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
NRNP significance criteria. Impacts on significant resources that cannot be avoided
will be mitigated in copsultation' 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.
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 15130[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
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 37 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attach;hent 4
Exhibit,A
general plan. Where there ate 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 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 finds that no feasible mitigation is
available for the following cumulative impacts and that these cumulative impacts are significant
and unavoidable:
• Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans,
Policies and Agreements
■ Impact LU-5c Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
■ Impact LU-6: Change in Views
■ Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D
■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity,
and.Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity.
o Growth Inducement: The project would have a significant and unavoidable growth-
inducing impact.
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
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
proposed project, including the land use portion of Alternative 3, includes development beyond
the existing Urban Reserve Line. 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
Findings of Fact and Statententof Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 3 8 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
AttachTilent 4
Exhibit A
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 Ciry of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 39 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans y
Exhibit A
SECTION 5. FINDINGS FOR ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Introduction
As identified in Section 4 of this document, theproposed project will cause the following
significant and unavoidable environmental impacts to occur.
o Impact LU-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific-Plans with Applicable City Plans,
Policies and Agreements
e Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural Land to Urban Uses
e Impact LU-6: Change in Views
■ Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D
■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity,
and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity.
v 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. Theairport 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 5-1 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:
N 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 .
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and40 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans rQ
ExhibitWachment 4
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;
■ 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 he (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;
• 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.
Altemative 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
(96:3 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 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 (l.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;
■ extension of Prado Road to Tank Farm Road; and
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area'and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 41 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
■ extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera Street.
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);
11 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 fora 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;
■ construction of a roadway connection between Los Osos Valley Road and Prado
r
Road;
■ extension of Los Osos Valley Road from South Higuera Street to Broad Street; and
® extension of Buckley Road to South Higuera 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 Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 42 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
a-� z
i
Attachment 4
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-1: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans, Policies
and Agreements
The proposed project, which includes portions of the land use plan identified in
Alternative 3, is inconsistent with the City's General Plan because it involves an expansion of the
Urban Reserve Line (URL). Expansion of the URL is considered a growth inducing impact and
also applies to Alternative 2 and 3.
Alternative 1 and the No-Project Alternative do not involve an expansion of the existing
URL and would reduce impact LU-1 to a less than significant level, but Alternative 1 would not
be consistent with the County General Plan and would create aninconsistency between City and
County plans. The No-Project Alternative would be inconsistent with the City General Plan,
which says that the City should prepare a Specific Plan and annex the Airport Area.
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
reducedacreage is prime farmland. Therefore, the impact would remain significant and
unavoidable under Alternative 1. Alternative 3 has the same impacts as the project in this case.
Alternatives 2 and the No-Project Alternative would avoid the conversion of prime
farmland. Therefore, under Alternatives 2 and 4, the significant unavoidable impact of
conversion of prime farmland could be avoided. However, Alternatives 2 and 4 are not
consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and create an inconsistency between City and
County 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 proposed project; 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 City or County general plans.
Findings of Fact and Sta{entent of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area.Specific.Plans and 43 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Exhibit A aCh�ent 4
Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D
Alternatives 2, 3 and 4 would result in LOS impacts to the Broad/Tank Farm
Prado/South Higuera, and.Los Osos Valley/US 101 intersections.
Alternative 1 would avoid the LOS impacts associated with.the project, but would_ not be
consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and would be inconsistent with City and County
general plans.
Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity, and
Expansion of Treatment Facilities,and Storm Drain Capacity.
Alterative 3 would result in the same impacts to water distribution, wastewater collection
capacity and storm drain capacity as the proposed project, which uses the land use program
described in Alternative 3.
Alternatives 1, 2 and 4 would avoid these impacts, but these alternatives would not be
consistent with the City's greenbelt objectives and would be inconsistent with City and 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.
Environmentally Superior Alternative.and Feasibility of Project Alternatives
As described above, Alternatives 2, and 4 (No-Project Alternative) would avoid the
significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the proposed project and
Alternative 4 would avoid all but one of significant unavoidable impacts caused by theproject:
Alternative 1 would avoid the traffic impacts and public services impacts associated with the
project and would be consistent with the City's General Plan. As such,this section determines
whether Alternatives 1, 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 1
Alternative 1 would avoid the significant unavoidable impacts associated with traffic
levels of service at three intersections. This alternative would also avoid impacts associated with
public services and would not require expansion of the URL.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations 66 of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans 44.
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
However, Alternative I creates a discrepancy'regarding the disposition of lands south of
the URL and east of the airport, as described by Impact LU-2. City growth management policies
say that the URL is the "final edge for urban development," as a means of protecting agricultural
and scenic rural lands. The County's designation for the land south of the URL and east of the
airport is Industrial,inconsistent with the City's URL concept and greenbelt strategy. The
proposed project mitigates this impact by extending the City's URL south and east to match the
County's URL, as shown in the SLO Area Plan. Alternative 1 would not prevent the
development in this area from occurring; but would allow it to occur in the County outside of
City jurisdiction. 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 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
Alternative 3 would result 'in additional significant and unavoidable impacts associated
with expansion beyond the City's current urban reserve, would result in unacceptable levels of
service at the Prado Road/South Higuera Street intersection, the Tank Farm.RoadBroad Street
intersection, and the Los Osos Valley Road/US 101 northbound ramps, and would require land
south of the URL and east of the airport to provide further analysis of water distribution and
wastewater collection requirements prior to development. The proposed project is similar to
Alternative 3 because it has been revised to incorporate portions of the land use plan identified
for Alternative 3. However, 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 couldavoid most of the significant unavoidable impacts of
the project and would not introduce new significant and unavoidable impacts. Impacts LU-1 and
T-2, described above, would still exist:.. 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.
Findings of Fact and Staienent of Overriding Considerations - City of San Luis Obispo
Jar the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 45 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
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:.
e Impact LU-.l: Consistency of Proposed Specific Plans with Applicable City Plans,
Policies and Agreements
■ Impact LU-5: Conversion of Prime Agricultural.Land to Urban Uses
Impact LU-6: Change in Views
■ Impact T-2: LOS in Excess of LOS D
■ Impact PS-1-3: Impacts on Water Distribution Facilities, Sewer Mains and Capacity,
and Expansion of Treatment Facilities, and Storm Drain Capacity.
■ 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 theproject and has
incorporated portions of these alternatives into the project in order to reduce impacts. The City
has determined that none of these alternatives, taken as a whole, is environmentally superior or
more feasible than the project.
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations City,of San Luis Obispo
for the AirportArea and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 46 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
v�
; Attachment 4
Exhibit A
Alternative 1 would.result in essentially the same impacts as the project. Alternative 2
would avoid the significant unavoidable prime farmland conversion impact of the project.
However-,Alternative 2 would also result in.additional significant and unavoidable impacts on
land use and traffic that can be avoided by implementing the project. Alternative 3 includes a
more desirable land use program, which reduces some land use impacts,but includes greater
traffic impacts. 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
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 buildout 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.
Y 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 signifcant
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.
■ Consistency Between City and County Plans: The project incorporates
portions of Alternative 3 in order to insure consistency between City and
County plans for the area south of the URL and east of the airport. The
implementation of the land use program outlined in Alternative 3 fully
mitigates Impact LU-2, however it also results in significant and unavoidable
Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations city of san Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and4.1 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
Attachment 4
Exhibit A
impacts to land use, traffic and public services. . Nevertheless, consistency
between City and County plans is considered critical for achieving other
important General Plan goal's such as the establishment of a permanent
greenbelt south of the City, agricultural preservation, higher quality urban
design, improved drainage and waterway management, provision of adequate
public facilities, improved airport safety and mitigation for project related
traffic impacts.
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 Statement of Overriding Considerations City of San Luis Obispo
for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and 48 July 2005
Related Facilities Master Plans
A
Auachnient 4
LO
B
71
>1
a) CL. t r.
0)
O0
-=
to
E- >
Cl. R Q Q. R G d VQ)- i m 00.0 ca
bo
0 200
FL
U .1 0 u 0 a 0
bo
co
>1 o 0 0 0
ca
R
CA
C .0
0 C? q 0
O
LZ cn
of
w E
V 00
R L E bo
U)C0
ci oo E C:6 ao ca
ca cn C m m N 2 0 0 =
lu 0 ca
< en 0 2 B E
E
co —,u
>
bo
w r c ca
rz
ca 9:6
ca uZ ci
Z+ • t: u
C(S 0 w r-
.— -- 'a 0
Cc r_ w t: 0 0 rz
cts
a) o 00 0 rz
RE
0 -- o cqs �o 0 Q.) -0
< C3 L)
ej
0. 0
0 4-w 60 0 W rz 10 *a
ca
U .— u
< cw > Ma tr) Ddu S u 0c m E 0 'E.
4 -5 0 .- r- Cl —
ooh Q
cd
.a rAu = o c v CZ p jo
r 'a
CJ
0
Q. 0
x C3 0 0 co
CC) U — 0. - 00
%:6 0 (U L CS)
FL 0 0 o o w
13 ma =
-6 .— -S 5u a
E 04
u —, 0 '0
0 0
m
.4 u m u u
C9 - -0 3 cz -0 U
73 u
G. = C oz 0
.— cz 4)
co a' —
to
w e a m m 00 40 0
C6 z 0 V M U
"a C2 — E F w E
U w m m -0 W -- C. U .0 CLO 0
M 0 E
0 x ce (U ow > LM ,o w
0 >
91, m t ca m
Im m 0 cz M 0tip 0 o Lu o to =w E
L'a >1
Ow Q.
0 06 C%
0 0 co 0 u w = >
tz as -Z .0 E o 4-
> C:6
a
a E
2 r- E E >
C6 = u
C3 0
E E .2 cu
(u ;a
L) > 0 U 0,
C6 CL.
LU cqs V. =0 .4 W� tz u 1,01 ti
Attache Ghent 4
N cCi n• O C 3 0 d E `� .c R. 60 >.
C _ 'O U O ._ �. U,.0 C C C w
tm U vi ° U E OAU iC
d C d
'F l cU r
ae•� v .� 4 70p•O�U E Za
E a n n E E Ga ao� m
00
H �
o >, U .a °
0 y a
0 1
� Q Q 00 U `o0
eA
C �
U
U U
U U
C C
O O 0 0
c c
c d e c
y O y O
c 7 •, n. .tea
4i r0tu
4L a a a
Wo
N 7 O C C7 C C a) D L
U O L
•C Q �y+ T L O N C s oCZ
C •fl G w O O' U co = 0 M.=L •C 0
F
'fl 00e3 N a) w U c E 0 m .??• C d 7 y O 3 C
06
z O a) `' .7 O e'1 O.•O N d 7 N
L
O 'fl C O"• L .DO t C 7 w
7 p O
�i fA 0 > U h L OA R .n 'C C
:d y y y G �' 0 0 m X. cC'. O
td N y
E •'o o aci �- ° v 'v • o a
EL-
tu
E 0yaw c ' tz y q °
OT to � �
> °aA D
rz
p E7O'DU7A0 0
OAt,,, ai 7 a)
Cd
c6 cLSrz
b0 y O a) G •V O O _ ? d C C cI y y C
a) a p fl 7 O O eC b .L. O cs cC Qr a) ea p.w 'C O y E C
bo Cd
> .t+ .Y L O bA �' rn N a) - C .. O U
c
bo C:6 04r ° >+ ti c "O c .5 a°i .E 3 3 o � � E
> r y V " O ti R L = p a) U •C L b
to bA •� m �'O a) O 7 d O L eC I.O. 3' 'w 9:6 •"'
W) y pq d d C C' w O. O
m 'fl r. •p 3 "o T m E E 'O cC C a) .. y O, ca. a) C C O •� :: w F" O L
y aQ a) O C y - O G h 7 y > i .D �' O aQ •+ IO
m U
�> aw q >
5O . a c O ?o° u , E
ej V O•ot o> cl m .0 00 0 a) a N .O° -'mo e
0 3
W F- fl Cq a act I w E 3
Attachent 4
LO
r � -
0 '
i
T >
F O .y
d C O C .O
tw
Cd
F" m OD'L m 0.1 00'C m
h
R
vim
o o n.
Q a o0 ASU .'a0
e
n•� 'o o � 'o o
I
� c c
c o i o
c o ° o ( o 0
s C O E
i C wo ;'O o
° 7 C O. w m p � C m
3
_ y C v m a•g C
C O „fl GL p y? O. I d C i s R. w C C N
3 0 0 .
.. a 0 o ° ei = m030.� s
Cc toti
0 U
pEDp �GO7 =
In. O O.� = �O .E b0 0
O O 3 E
� d O ; ='Gp
10 OS o enEE.a h:
Oa�
•Cc
� e03 N C i I •y N n' r 'O N m':"..' m W
d a _> y C7 to
cc CL 'n a 0 ? m 0 -L6 0
C
CO v° - � d ''oera c ami a 'c o E s
>
O cc C '� m p C U p p C C y
c aiQF E so a c °
> y o 3 °v
c E E cca i � oo c°�
ai w v y o c.U
T E ° •O UI� w W OL h W Cf' m Z:. C O O TO
"0 0y I C C ° 0 = .0 V
•J• � � uE
F H'
C. y tn O0 p C o M > vO`.. .yO..
. c -Up E O
> 3 = C > m
> ZZ o .d c E O
W 0 O > O �m
0 -0
0.
E
E _ E Er � � c.
w mU d 3 Ici1 Ew° UU
Attachiment 4
LO
T
°
R T
w U O L
l4
d 0 7 7 '>
N
00 C
C c0
ci O G
C
� < LI � U .40
ao
c
•� c
d
U
C
c
m d
c ri c
9 0 0
a) to
G cd C U M Y ° ° G V vOi O p L
3 N = 4: C L C C L = au O
L_
v> > ao n o ° O 0 ° ' o L i o aE
3 c
° oo -cu $ � cLvR wy5y `po f y 3 uC° ds'C aE
L O � °° Cs .0 L 'C0 U
° 3 OV .0
>% = ° 0= =
C — y
d awi > to o = y E
rl = � c E N ao °? � � Eos = m
o v v c � - -o on a'= o v ° '° o °' o
0
mC `•k�mE» •UE .0
3. n� �� o � 00ow ocj
ys U E O ye=- _
O = O -G O . m • LtAx3_.
s°f
•hCo° O � � -0 >c •e
no w ° ne ° gC .- a >E cz .0 m
o =O U p, U y. eLJ V r m O N O C O
U C = °�' e y c epi � L yU 'c
y C C G. .� Q.. y '_ .d �. p � C d > = C •= cLa :: •N = d O C
ca
to ° �I. o ° � ° ° ° o sem _ � ? Vsys .. LE ° bA = n ° O
o
m Geli E - yo >' xo� c°» E �L a°'Di E
RS O CU �>
0 oto » ° U3oo13
.+
,N. ayi y
Attachment 4
T
wr
O
[� 07 bD'C. cU6 p7 00 9 �
t* C C
3 a
[z. � '- 'oma
¢ AAU -Io AZu 0
eo
c
c c c
d
d �
0' 'O O 'O O
c �
ou �
L: U U CO U C
O
LL y d d 6. d
rl
N O '_ 3 C O L O
a o >;
eUt d O t N L cC H _ 'a) C C C U w
`0 bAcS L G a) 'C ri Q cc
s s a0i ` nE = c O •; o ° e`e a.� `ot
c p ami a s 0; va a v v� ...
v 3
p '0 3 O w r O w C e 'x '•'= .> '0 � •0 >
c.. > '. p O 'w .p O a, 0 x10 .0. N >Tw
U Cq•a) pOp 'y Q N C+f1 c0 a] u) Oto L L
v. r c to ao H e .=° c ri c 3 0 r p v a c
C a) O p = p �' �. -p •0. L:. p bo 'C E y `O —�'� ^.+ CJ L L .Cd
° $ c a v v .= EU v 0 a�
� O � = v y .� ;? a ._ ' 4- , ° `oma a, ass N4 O. as
Cl
0 cU. d pp r0 '_ > .0 p 'm .0 N :: .T a) '�..0 rCr �' to U O
u c� U m �' O U .� _ = O y v 'O L/J 'L O -p
v > o mas U v .� ai =-a 0a�iGt. ,E 3 � . .
C . .•
Cm h
No m = oo - o s = pq o N r >'
CU C' es O c O Cl A' ` :� G 'U a) 0 hO'DO 0U'�+ C, C `+ p R.
.0 .70. m h a) 0 ' �' "3 a) 0 O 0'
m ti a •� a �? os° � a 0 .- os E m aE 3 ib �'b °"oL
2 40-
w o> _ � _ vLa°i �'— v •E ti' > 3p = o Piso EE 'os
Cr os c CrN � ._ •° CZ W) En
� 3w>.
r "" LL ee .�.. ¢ 0 z 3 L ee V G.' G .""-� eVC .w. V E L° j �'+ "= 0 F" C,
C: ai O
00 >
x 04 Ca � L ::
a-�3
Attach„gentLO
4
T
z
O
m C y C OA y C
R C U R � C U R
dC d 'O � '�. U 'fl
4.
F” i Qa GO'O h FQ bD'O tUC Qa
C i
rz
CS y y
.o Mo I h w y � LUL v] :"T' •� .O LOc.
� Q IaA `00 A0U � 0 A
c � i
a
C6 � � .o C:6
i
pp i
c e
C U U C U C U
d .•Ui
c CL. a
I
O 'C v o
h 71 O CO (A O gyp+.. 4• 0 > O I
� � oa� E v Iia :: yE
y. Cl.-O N �, •... ' -
�E to.c o :° F m 'oma a �. > = a 3
o ' o w L s �` a C w V y .LZ Qjcam a d
s � •E � o � o � o - E y i h E � m ° � c c
e ooy o v. n E
C6 •� R 3 3 Ca 3 vOi a •� a
ea p o aei h w E R
yL rpn aei is E
E a O C
y3o c9n °
Ev Q
.rmC
it
° •moo
Cc
O c0 'C p y O t ] ! >> .�+ p O Cg) CIJ CC G O
R c N 3 r y e 'ro o f •o o. = o L o o '� p
ai
E 'o 0— 2 'D E 'u ca ca0. m .0 -Q.•E a oo o n o y o ori
s E ac . «. y C I .+ L? gO w, yQ o c �
C
E_ c Ws aQi = 9O
W �' (� •—� 'C � L O p N � 4p. •a' v t .. •3 E N OCC
'c i � Lo C 3 p y .? o `.o ° D ° 2 a e v 0
_ I A .... CL. = L ,
ei tp 0 p � c E �, ? 'a s a °3 .. a c4 ti ° E > '> y
C C E w 4. 'p o .+ H C S cti ea y cC i
L 4-w ^ c7 .� OQ U .� O d C O N N
9 m `a mw ? o u � F � � o :: c Ora « = ° ti �
d.: s ti r .O w " ' ++ � O r0 N R C
0 �Li� .E o > c n y =° ^ � y � o 0Q � � '� N 3 � '5 0 h •E
L y^ C o E E s b y -10 0o 'o ., p�j y eC ed
ti G y y U C i = . En � � U � :+ I p :C � � p N O '� y
> y. p = 9 p _ y y oy .?�, C U
0 `y, N L O 7 �? N y [/� �. V] •+.a •• :. n-i O p y y L• y
o .° N 3 eF � U 3 Eot ; .. p � epi L
x eu ei •a�_oo n a ■ a ® = CU U
0 o C � t oGQ m
r _
E a L a s p E- p CO cc W Cw 3 -E
Attachment 4
LO
i
o
c c 3 U
0
N m O c o
F a`n'o n 0.1 00o um 0.t o`no Im, A v .5 3 ct
ao c c c c
c m ca W m
_ T cn W ti r o
.y
Uo 0
o aci � >.._ o. 3 o n. r, 3 a o a
C N y V y = N V >�.� N �.�. h
A � Ua0 IAau30 U .j0
C
E c c c
aEa 0a` 0.
6
a- n ca
as
co
C C I C C
C UC U C' U C U C
9 0. °; on.Q c
c
w' v°, a 9L.
I
1 ul C y 1 vOi
o ° c = ^yv3� o oT—� s
r e EF � •� a—°s � _� C >' E -m t' p -6
0.
oc
5 a)
p_mELnc .� o
u"f sss.o 0s o o M=�M o 31
.2c0 '6 ¢ s0 b
E mc
y 'o m c
on = o .c — o° EE > o 3 E
O N A m 0tu
° _
a°� o
0 `ea
E r- tn
• • a� ib cR e .30o '=O rr�
O. O y .LCN�cm EO bc,q •`E �?N
9n
e � w ° a — ' .` yaa0s sN o d . o ono
° r- 0 afEs o _ w
c o f ° :9 2E c . 0 x N
� � Q. 0 � 000� co
? 3 oc —
u 0 E o c o o 0 c_ .p o"cao.G = 3 c L a"i
..l a°� a y R e o s `" y o s •o I v_� a 3 E c = € c° s s 3 3 m
d
to) n > CO' o c y a; R E ° a� E co aci F" H e
�s
C y y O •3 0 v .0 C aci. d C v0i 'c O F m .� s rOn E y 0 . Y
a L v� m o 'E °�' ° c c °' E 3 o a—Ei > •° •E s 'r° asi
U�imi °'L° aA^.W'OOO�.�� .�Vcvao."as"OEc 's.�yc_ Oao�.'opi{ stc9 EcvOi Co> cI •r'CwbO"Oy •F7Gy..L".L.
ro ON�A 1�� ry�OO> ...E°Q+�. m"EL�� 'e�na�.W Qa�h� .CAdcO7� �.d°N3°,�Vo�oi •coVN_EE =La°O�� ii'' �aaAey
va „ aE
C s = E
w
•U
o ul
D " 0 voECEOE a cd r
03 E91. wsQ u � $-d o. cO ? —
O C bA �0 C N . ju _ oL .> A - 0 E
u
E ��
m Ow �
en — - E .D m. t U O !ZQa
0V iOx ' mssw m
LU > i _oLONeO_
a-�s
Attachment 4
L
T
00
CD
cm
d = 9 C L b
N _ _U •CC O 'gyp
7
F a 3 .E v 7 .= d y > 'N 3 O w V 3 G 0
N
•C = L i
a=i 7
u U
00
C
C . N
U A R
En u U
N N
C C C
U d O C
O U N 'II •II 'p O
U. v°� 04 a
3 L y R F O V
cC y L N U NCc
a+ U
'17. y, U w y 'p U = y = N y y ti
y O N O to
O C c 7 y ^p U t: y
0
D o h N o L e p
ec E
p N QUp U N N cC M) K N E Q .�w b
ID u
3 3 s
E 0 N t N c d •' it 3 y ,� cQ p
avrz ? a? � E
ai c DLo
.o E
o
, 0 3
n.,II ._ m
'3 •o E � = E � eYe y a� v a� •� � � � .EQ E
o ° ? A E °�° 'R o es E 9 o = aEi
p a d .= cy a 'N °� m .e E �. N �' m = m N - F 8
U a cNr o o c > = = E oleo ° ; a
_ E.
T -- o Q O � N c yo 3 = N 'C ep L u. a
c.. .+ t U e7 _ L y QO c R
V i o Co �- x 3 0 0 '� E ams 3 = 0 :4 s c
`_° - 7 N w O • •U 7 p i,,,, V R
Z
O c>c •= 3 `� e`� sep — .N :: O L p OAc .E O .7a
t oco O D O N. by
x � E •E c3 � NL
W IF N
Attachment 4
T T � >.
o
O O I O 7
F 0. 0 0. 0 ja` 0 D0
i
Do c
c R N
'C y
o ate' a0
c T >,.= .� y.V
Do i
c i
c �
E I c
?� T I O
n 1 I o c
Via: U U
c c c j c
Ls U O 0. J O U O 115 U O
O C.
O O O O O O O
LL Vn O. G. 0. G. G G A. O.-
U C L
�. L U U C O C. Q' O• y 0
c ca
0. O p, Cw
a� u E c Q. ca c °° R d 3 .: ° c 'v °' 3
U w c.: O U
tCV •� O cL 'Ocu
u w u " v y o w 'n
a34.
• y�E g >o,$ Upo, "E U c2 OL ; oOcQio c°c. sac°a.'
ae
Ow z°
o y N
o .N
7OU •n
C U c4 -0 vU =C'4E0 cccOo00
r-
<
Q .sa E n 0 a i ar °
Q6 '
sB m o
O R
E ° o > m
15 U NO v
. 2 U
O
oo —co o U o ai c > U aci o aci o o
U ao 3 � .? pq y �. Us ° _ � a e y ao E .= c > n aci
r ? e? u Q w° w u u > o o a y
y 30 �_ � cr
c � (L � '� °� � o � wU � o `' — � � a`> v ey 7 � aci E.�
m Q > s. I a� �,.., aC u o u ,°� — R 0. a 'ec 3 _, = — E O
0 U U U ww0t E C �. >. 0 C iniC U O ;=
.y U
C U O O y = U I rr .N c0 n. C �, m N.m U 'O U .O L H .0 ca 0. N E
E eQ — p; .? n ;, .� y o �•° 3F cca E o I tiw E � 0
X N cC 'O N y N Q' O y O U Etw
am 0. y
W EL o: F CO �F cua M I Q Z � `m c ° a U .E E
�7�
Attach�e�lt
ui
o
0 0
rn eo
c c
F G U
0o I C.
L6 -
bo
ba
m
c
U C
G _ G
1 •
C 7 O
fY 0 4 d
r.
T� N -
-O U '+- pO bO co
O C w - p •O C C G C s C ca
C N
° T o - y '3 c D i u -o o 0 0 eq E o 0
a
° o E
F e E o > ° � °' a0 a ° 4 row° O 0
o •v •E b eo O L a r = E o
o
� 4. 04. ° 3• L c a� > s
p
y�-- e •o v ° s o .° 0 c E Y y E �
E N y o a=i a 3 e ° y n `° y v
O Q N V L y G ��• ° •D N
a a� y eC. L •V O n y d
6n n = 3 y ° e e°oo o C o >
v m �_ c"Ls e > fl ° co "o >
c
a a — o E
y G. .E t m m °c. o y R y v 'E d E e a
a y y
CUV
N u y O U .D R C y L 7 R .> O C y •Otko OL O C L S �_ �"
,fl C 'D O A a y y R
y O. y C C !?O.� O N V 4- O O N 7
CO C R L O R C p O. y X- C R DO 7 eC 0. O O. �' t�ccz R a�
U ` d V '} y y 7 C� R G ° R L Y
Q
t E avya ambLh0
wE > c L > C E '4 LdO> 'O tL > L - R O
o - u T y° o >
N ti � 0a `4adlea
Q) 7°°oo
E " N oa > O o C TE o
R C6 C., =I R U a o U0 E o =
m O
x
W Q c E c aEi
—7 0
AttachMent
ent
L i
T I =
O U
O
1T
0U U a a U
tm C C 5 i 00
E to DO
ca
0. E 3 c i aL is c
° o a t o o°• o
c
� Q U .10 U .j0 U ..]
tio �.
c p
E U ° o 0 U =
Ea � a iUa � a a
j = o
I � a
eo aci ` :o aci
a ai o o O 5 o
v
v, eso s °
N m
yCU
_ 4 Q�
c os :v °o 'er°- �_ c a°is •E � a = o
p O p+ O N y
cC o >
E 00 N .= O O E
C
cz
j N
m
= t EUS cLU � oL m Ro t °
d ° U
N axi o '� c c Ow 3 cts to -0
•j > c .; ai E e •v U
>+ aci ° o = 3 c v o c ° o
U -0 y ms a ° c 3 r ? 'a o j2
U c v =� � ns s
a ( o
c
CU rr-0v c C L C c o m ti y _ L c a� O o Ct, e`3 c d
41 m y O '� R5' L N d E CSC Lr V •> �,,, U •> Y.. n'
° T 3 3 ° o o ea m o o -
C L Vl 'D � ° fA = Q ° .rL, C `.r �• L' U i +�+ ° � �
° O � o Lo o Nr Loo m L e g `' 3 E enN
E ..c m y i• N O C C N = 'V y... C O � •...
m U y Y ai O L Co. F '= O ° C O O L Q U m
U o m o L o a � ao U oEo 2 s G7 ° EE
_ 3 E yy ei E c� 0 E E '� op j •• y x o
U 2 O L C C. L 4. C O L Gp Um s O U N .y C ac O F -�
Fw •v+ .� 3 m 7 p, C �`cisw
Wy OL F a' O 'N �E 7 O Z U ay' *= .0
issaHcyo � C � s .y � i � svp 0
m o c e L o o � sw $ �. a� > E s U m A.
.. M 0 cnm3 �o C6a� ai :� tia?
T j a y y E
W Q 5 •oo o f o.u Q Q 9:6 Z Gz]
C7-�(
Attachment 4
t
T
°
N
CD
0.
T
G
E
O v O
O
Q �
00
C
N
E.
U T
E c
A
rz
N
7 �
7 O
v v v
y 7 y i = 'O C •p OA C y L.. F=H
E
E t a 3 0
10
v v v .D = ... N •.: w y 7 i 'O ti w
E 'y ro tors ° 3 =° amici c �, 3 ° o `m A
T� yv :E _ ° vo EL .. � >, Cd L � Cc ah °vto e°
ca
co
3 -°0 c — U
p v s n p r > 3 L
s E ami a = :o c e U aaj o oNF y e=u = e� L a � E
� E ,ov E $ � .S o2 Eg = U ° U _ = o «. O $
a�aT.••"o� .cz af ° >npe Qoy vo
` oa L`v
'Ehn_
.2P
0 yOC EE c
LaE E v o >a °=
0 � a o0 'CU no e, � = � cay y U a
0 r- CZ
o ° L
m Fe ° CD. FF.. w °'oF °crCv F E FZ ie = FES = FCd Ey ._ hs ;
L % = N 'FUOO toN O � ca E 'OCM
W-4 tuO � r
0 N d _ T N 'X OL N .N vi N .E N 'O L .0 O N = .E O N = 000 a w 'fl ri
V4 E
E L. € 0 O3mi
= =
Cl
=� w ,; •= ._ i �, ., � E � L � vcaov2E E
o: ooyo a°. a '� a°, :.C. � = G. ° y o: 3 � a ° C°. N � = C. � a Hca as
to
E- .+ aU .+' � • cc
E � C .r'S7 w -° �� y O U L O
m o° U .00F o `o v U aXi c 'U (LI v U � .�L. �
t ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ bEE
.; `L° ■
x R o
LU 5 c c
a- �o
T
AtiacA
LO
°
T O >> tW
H = 1 = y
F I m U � Qa dD'D R
Op C C
a `o_ ao
om E. -: .6
2a ox ra Io Uao R
•C C C'
O
N d
U U
C C"
n•t. O O O
E a n`. a a s
e c
C u U CO rj a0�.
0 0 0 0
I.T. rA
>, m. >1 > e u u
r c U .° 3 0 0 C -M o a o u H 3 is
y U M M.9 U E == c=a p c es '3 E 3 3 c a� °�' ° a
7 L_ m C O 2 'O O = ° w >, �L ..+ c0 c7 a ti r _ d•o cQ
C d vi O (� 7 a w 7 ran N = y 0 c=O R O y E ;+ '�T`� ,p N Y N 0' 'U'
r O
> � 9:6 u o q o = " N
" o •
N O•.D n O b n' O > rOn rn R 'D H ¢ O a C6
= C .T. .L y N
d 0 bo
> a C0) ba . a y y U -= d E N N •O.0 " :e u 3 = cNO C i' N
O. ° o y . cz
� o y y _ m y c i =
y
m g a • _ �a c u •v two
H c ono c m = C .a� a� o •_ 5 -5 = o v
uN y
y t D v 0 = N L. O O C y
> � � ? may ? � E y '.c F" uy
uo c E ._ i s o.�° c 3 = co = o ! 0 —
Cl. o n °
3 h vi w V v O �. O y "� L C` G O O N Qn a� w ti
u Z v ° a H a-.0 u ., e d 3 c. .. ° =
_ � N � eEy > � ? = ooa) sua ;; fl °_'
o E F m u E• _ E- es °' ac o = u w i n - T E y E u
O > N N •p M E ° yj ° z c� `y n W 'oq U U w 'W.0 G..0 •= L y p =
U 2W r; _ s m O E e7 ao = _ y = toy - C�4 c. 0 2
o w .° a .; :° ,�: ° '".•o ° `° - m 'u = y 3 F. V >
0 E � E � � Eya=i .° E � v .?: 0: a. = arp .LO
~ i cc `� i � u a ? no ° aEi no.00 nom0.; i EM.� ms 'h 'E u °I ° �°' s E
1:6 = o . o . _ c o v h o = s o •o ° p EEF o p E
m c44 0. p 3 C. a 0. °= U u C. U 0. aci - G. n n :; a y •o ° y N a=i =
v
t ao ■ ■ ■ ■ ■ N o
iC Q CQ N p
W ' :Z 4 s a `a6 o E c3 r S ° $ .y
Attachment 4
T T
q Y �
U c U y c i U y
T
rJ
M = 0 ' y R � V { y a :=
t w y E I y E t m y
4) U F ° >C 0 0 ' c> aa. E a > d WU
"
F W e H o a W o m v a LC M.
a v
i
to c a a
c a
° o I o 0
c b H d O a o a o a
o
to aai o3 �•� I o .3 � �.�
a UUa -u40
- i
E c c c
o ; mo o
Ea
I
I
to aai d
•o � •'; °a � •� n. •gin.
CL ri a a a` n. cL a
i
C47
3 is > y ob w a y - _ +- -- 3
`? °U' �y^ v O ; .5 `3 0 � •u E a o = � ; � 3 ° = R aoa
acic ° 0a a. E �- aci0 > opou n � yU �.� o'� Eay � s
eq E o N a N �a ° ca °: K O v v C E � O E �. T; > � c3 0 o a ..
M c 3 0 .` o m ° ro ce ao h n m n 3 w
T o o N O a� E y COD -
= > E R to ° o ca c � 3 = `o a >;s o .S N ; � s am to a i� c^
o `9 yc .cEo 30opg30. aE Tu ° -oioa " c 'o3 c °3s
7 U ca .U.� .� -p O U u, N �- d O
o` C u ►.r 'c U — c = 00wCY0 d
$R O .`". .� 3 U a •_ '0 '00 L 7 r i4. N n'
oa 3 a os o = Xv = 30 cy � = y or � aos c es 13U
to"o - " Y •° a .= o o o E a '3 ai" e c ,o
C = = O O p N ca N U bA y 'O H C ''y ca '' = O y p 3 E., 0
° .3 ° -• u 3 0 c m � :� m `O `a 6 o �= � c 3 X14° °
E° o •°-° E a °' c c ? G � U 0 m "a v"mQ M.im-0 E as o
U o �, a enm ° c N � = O 1:1.
=; r o 'E � o = .5 EV E `a'-. � s vF" ' Osi^o N v •E .?' o °' 'ca
a 'F e=a .E �, U 'O qp 3 C .� �. C O .�" 'C �' O N Y lad+ O R ea '^ O �..�
`o -- ° w 3 0 on'- °o D o U ca m a� n o 3 ;� E' on
a '-o c = •� tz. c. E �, c U o dLL • c°oilxm
c 0 a . E U p t� t Ns O T i
.D. 0 N o 'p ULLL rOiA 6 vi :a cLi y .•" `y � w •C 0 .N C "LO is
10
v
o � � wc cce E ja i �'E ° v a •o
m
.=c c � D e °A ° fie � '� .°ao. � $ � a3 .� > u � el � a .- � $ : �
c ° o .E '= u o a c, 'Y p c C c , 4, �a to - im �' E a o E
o = v o f = M t*.a L e " ° E N € c. es y 3 E y v y$ 5
V X30: ° a ° Oa ° U >, i >+.En = eao � ��. m :; a°'is � �; � aR moi "
o y m = vo y ac� � 3 C c ° E ° 3 � c Y ' o iaw- aci
m y E ai - E e aEi '� " m o o a � y o g ! I `EE a iC L a
C9 a ° :° ° 2 ; a°iT. e � rE = v -0aEy � wae, � 3T y •� .o
E > a E fl .y c ;
H •voa3 U -0o � r- to Evy .Y _ a� E ° a� or. >
rA
LO .N V y b C v U to
ca ~ 9:6 L C C yUy 7 4. 3 'C 3 C Y
m o 7 aci C% ._ A a V cNs eOs c°i v Q .c ;:; s oc°n ai e c `a ° j ao c
J2 �'" E rid" ° w :5ao ' :; >. cc ' ofl IeyoU
Q y Q ea = e a a o E = 0 ea eu
X a L HLU a 9L. Cd V1 O
a- �z
Attachmeet 4
LO
16
E c –
�C U
F 'o a C1 •o v
bD C
c � y
` T
O
c
Q I 'V .40
c
d I �
d
E ( c
6 O O
I
0 0
w rn° I a c
I
aci
0
E o a
'LZ Q N v C y "" y O 1.. •G' ld O •V L N
! Rt a+ r y aL.+
3 C C N NC C C,L.•y L O m y E..i L C rL..
a`� � " �� 'o.b �� L ❑ •3 •� cC w O L p at 3 '3,_
3 U o a ° o >
° ° y oq U c ai o U c. c Sy -- c .. a
CC y L -C L E
-
a U U U
E o0 ❑ c
acQ+ L O Q' hU i, •
U ° AV ° •_ p,
p = •y UQ�
fn
ejp 0 C y O N.-•�
3 v E ayi °
o
O
O C O y O Qi b N •�' 7 t U �. w y N 3
wo ¢ eYe a°i a E o c ° c rzy 3
2 M
Q. U -� o a L U '; cu a . �_ en E ° Qn o y y y cTi a x
y; o c�Qia � a 3x or—
T " E ' os u o o ° E
:: v a� v o c
- E = ee cz r
c z c _ a at
tz
Ob
v — p
wo. obro 0
0a opL.ao
C O a 0 b 'O C
d.0 c 0
c E oU o�
O '-, O vi
p O °ecivi. "0L
cc_d
-O O . �
> aoEcw.
Q
° _ a� ao > Lo 7
C 3 E c L cC > O i Y y y E 'O +' > U x
41 �•� V •-�-� N " a Qi U y .•-.w' y CC •y L y U '�" y �-r: m C.' d N, c Z
C y r O� a C w y y O yi y 0 fl y N i w O
ocz
° cC b a a y o cz
a,
' U ca V C. C .> O R m C O O C ! ! ! L N N
c E o4 U ca °�' W cd ° °�' c .w. .S w —
W ` C Oi Qui .0 N a .O
w w� U y v V] w
•
•• I / 'j Al.
SII/�I�• �/-.�/�/�
♦ %P i. ��� //yi ��/�'►ice
EEEii ►�' � �`' i..ii■ .viii_
�-€.,;.,; �
\ 1�!+;�o. / ``:u■.�ev_.
fel
ia—iAreulMMI1.0
ZVI
����/ �,•��i���!•[fl� �� L*I iii MINE
�� ` 7 QEF_•/�C\b1� 111�■i- .■. �
Irl-MENNEN
•��% _ =_
If
.�
Attachment` 5
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 and July 26, 2005,'the City Council field 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.
S�
Attachment 5
Ordinance No. (2005 Series) Page 2
Airport Area Specific Plan
NOW, TftEREFORE, 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:
Jonathan Lowell, City Attorney
L:AASP\aasp_ord[councii].doc
-2
MAWAM gob
AMQ"M
• ANOWAIWAWAVA IM
AW�'AWAIWAWAGM
"AWAVA6 I f r"M
-'erz. AW11AWAWAR111104�1
54,
&lW1AWAWAMWAMVR4M
11 14WWAFAMW�ffll�
�Smm
jr
__I
ANEW
ArAWf
�Z=WEEW1AWZ.7AW1
VIONVIANVINFAW
Jdl�^WAFAOOF
�� AI'ArAMW
hi
A=.Ii�RLIIAMrAr—
,M'Zilll
4EV�!106 - WWAW
20allOWS11Alffin-
MOFdwA ONE low
-//f/tom
AW.7AWAFAr-.0 0 ONE
AllLmrYANFAMIAREEN
AEWDk�WMP t 1 8 5 ONE
stray_,-�tttttt�ttt�
ANOWAS671OWANONFAWNEINEW
522101
OEM
Z
OEM
mom
R&HURIJlrttt
= ffiwndA�,%:tttttt_
III �� �'��� ����� _
• ii
_"Now
im
_ RED,FILE Page 1 of 1
MEETI'j, -,.'AGENDA
SLO Citycouncil -Airport Area Annexation
pATE��ITEM #�Z-
From: Alan Strasbaugh <Alan@Strasbaugh.com>
To: "'sloatycouncil@slocity.org"' <sloatycouncil@slocity.org>
Date: 7/26/2005 12:49 PM
Subject: Airport Area Annexation
Dear Council Members,
I support annexing property near the airport into the city.
Dur business, Strasbaugh, manufactures equipment for the
Semiconductor Industry. We are located in the county on Buckley Road across
from the airport terminal: Since building in 1990 we have survived using
our water wells, leach fields and a storage pond for fire protection. The
wells and leach fields are marginally adequate. The storage pond is filled
by damming a seasonal creek and is seriously silted. Presently, only one
insurance company will sell us fire insurance.
These circumstance were apparent when we made the decision to locate
here and we are responsible for the outcome: Nevertheless in order to stay
here for many more years we may need city services..
Sincerely,
Alan Strasbaugh
COUN IL CDD DIR
CAO E FIN DIR
11 ACAO Ej FIRE.CHIEF'
ATTORNEY 11 PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG POLICE'CHF
DEPTHEADS REC DIR
5 UTIL DIR
=f HR DIR
file://C:\Documents%20and%20Settings\slotiser\Local%2OSettings\Temp\GW}000O1.HTM 7/26/2005
Jul 22 05 11: 02a SLE)'L ! 1105 713- 5703 P. 2
San Luis Obispo Council of Governments
&,"t:rWIM
Regional Tranxportation Planning Agency AtnawcR„
ur, ctrna,
Metropolitan Planning Organi/action K%m nay
Census Dula Affiliate ""'w''-''"
._. Pana 11:;*h
K,n w t_u'i5�i, t:.,, ,.•teen,. Service Authorit For Freeways and ExprRR, w s s=t:bt■tAa
July 22,2005 _
ME TING AGENDA RECEIVED
Dave Romero, Mayor DATE 21p ITEM #_?*a
city of sort Luis ObispoJUL 2 2 205
gg0 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, California 93401 SLO CITY CLERK
Re: Airport Area Specific Plan- Transit Facilities
Dear Mayor Romero and Council members,.
We are encouraged to see the.Airport Area Spec Plan is moving forward.
Congratulations ontKe certification of the related environmental documents and
Margarita Specific Plan. The purpose of this letter is to suggest the City's consideration
of a regional/locallprivate transit maintenance and dispat4h facility in the planning efforts
as the plan moves forward.
As you are aware, SLOGOG hired Majic Consulting to examine she viability of a
Consolidated Maintenance and Dispatch Facility that could one day meet the needs for
the Regional Transit Authority, Ride-On Transportation,SLO Transit and public school
transit. A facility of this nature was presented to the$LOCOG Board in 2002. The
Phase I study recommended a 5 acre parcel and designing the°build out" configuration
for future accommodation of the SLO Transit fleet needs and/or other providers.
Locating a transit facility is important in preparing an operating plan and maximizing
service efficiencies and potential cost savings to the region. Moreover;this study
identified the San Luis Obispo Airport Area as a primary candidate for such a facility. A
more detailed operating plan to assess possible land parcels, costs, and perform a.cost-
benefit
ostbenefit analysis is expected to be completed in June 2005. We encourage you to
consider all possible zoning options and funding mechanisms with this facility in mind.
Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to call me or Peter Rodgers at V-
5712 ii should you have any questions.
Sincerely
Ronald I. DeCarli n
Executive Director r`(1Qx1J
CC Austin 0' Deli, SLO Transit Manager E COUNCIL CDD DIR
CAO 'FIN DIR
David Lilly, Regional Transit Manager ICAO _e.-FIRE CHIEF
Mark Shaffer. Ride On Transportation Ex I-A7TORNEY X,�/PW DIR
2-CLERK/0RIG. L POLICE CHF
DEP-HEADS emFC DIR
T�
8U T IL DIR
„iR DIR
1 150 t) os ti1rtWT.str..202,NAn Luis Qhmpo.CA 9.14010'1W.(M)5)781-4219+ F".(W)5)7X1.3703
Email, xt,+uo�4,n tic+rnK.etr}O Interact. hup://www.st(inct.org/-iF.%Im)g
a Y
San Luis Obi-apo Council of governments
Arroyo Grande
Regional Transportation Planning Agency Atascaderm
Grover Beach
Metropolitan Planning Organization Morro Bay
Paso Robles
Census Data Affiliate Pismo Beach
SiAuthority for Freeways and Expressways san Luis Obispo
Ronald L.DeCarh-Executive u
ve Director Y Y San Luis Obispo County
July 22, 2005 RCD FILE RECEIVED
Dave Romero, Mayor LrZ ING AGENDA A 2 5 2005
City of San Luis Obispo DATEl STEM #r
990 Palm Street SLO CITY COUNCIL
San Luis Obispo, California 93401
Re: Airport Area Specific Plan - Transit Facilities
Dear Mayor Romero and Council members:
We are encouraged to see the Airport Area Specific Plan is moving forward.
Congratulations on the certification of the related environmental documents and
Margarita Specific Plan. The purpose of this letter is to suggest the City's consideration
of a regional/local/private transit maintenance and dispatch facility in the planning efforts
as the plan moves forward.
In June we hired Majic Consulting to examine the viability of a Consolidated
Maintenance and Dispatch Facility that could one day meet the needs for the Regional
Transit Authority, Ride-On Transportation, SLO Transit and SLO Coast School District.
A facility of this nature was presented to the SLOCOG Board in 2002. The initial study
recommended a 5 acre parcel and designing the "build out" configuration for future
accommodation of the SLO Transit fleet needs and/or other providers. Locating a transit
facility is important in preparing an operating plan and maximizing service efficiencies
and potential cost savings to the region. Moreover, this study identified the San Luis
Obispo Airport Area as a primary candidate for such a facility. A more detailed operating
plan to assess possible land parcels, costs, and perform a cost-benefit analysis is
expected to be completed in June 2006. We encourage you to consider all possible
zoning options and funding mechanisms with this facility in mind.
Thank you for your time. Please do not hesitate to call me or Peter Rodgers at 781-
5712 if should you have any questions.
Sincerely
Ic
Ronald I. DeCarli /Ac,ao T CHIEF
Executive Director -/ATTORNEY W DIR
Fe-lcLERKORIG OLICECHF
CC Austin O' Dell, SLO Transit Manager ; D D T H 'EC
EC
David Lilly, Regional Transit Manager ,; r,
Mark Shaffer, Ride On Transportation —
1150 Osos Street, Ste. 202, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Tel. (805)781-4219 Fax. (805)781-5703 `
E-mail. slocog@slonet.org♦ Internet. http://www.slonet.org/-ipsiocou