HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem 2 - ANNX-2030-2018 (East Airport Annexation)PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the proposed annexation of approximately 58.31-acres of property at
Farmhouse Lane (East Airport area) to the City; this action includes consideration of
an Ordinance to address non-conforming uses, and an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration tiered from the Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the
Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans (SCH#2000051062).
PROJECT East Airport BY: David Watson, Contract Planner
ADDRESS: Broad Street bordering Farm House Phone Number: 805-704-8728
Lane, Kendall Rd. and Prospect St. E-mail: dave@watsonplanning.us
Teresa McClish, Special Projects Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
Phone Number: 805-783-7840 Phone Number: 805-781-7176
E-mail: tmcclish@slocity.org E-mail: sscott@slocity.org
FILE
NUMBERS: ANNX-2030-2018, EID-0006-2020 FROM: Tyler Corey, Principal Planner
RECOMMENDATION
Adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment 1) recommending approval of the proposed annexation,
consider a draft Ordinance to address non-conforming uses and adoption of the Initial
Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration, subject to findings and conditions.
SITE DATA
Applicant East Airport Commerce Park Assoc.
Senn/Glick Ownership
Representative Carol Florence, Oasis Associates
General Plan Services and Manufacturing
Airport Area
Specific Plan
Pre‐Zoning
Service‐Commercial Manufacturing
Site Area 48.58 acres (EACP)
9.73 acres (S/G)
58.31 acres
Total East Airport Annexation Area
Environmental Initial Study/ Mitigated Negative
Declaration tiered from the Final
Program Environmental Impact Report
for the Airport Area and Margarita
Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans (SCH#2000051062)
Meeting Date: January 22, 2020
Item Number: 2
Item 2
Packet Page 7
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 2
1.0 BACKGROUND
Site Information/Setting
The proposed East Airport annexation area is comprised of the East Airport Commerce Park
Association that includes 30 parcels and 48.58 acres in area (EACP) and the properties commonly
referred to as the Senn/Glick development including 3 parcels and 9.73 acres of land (S/G)
(Attachment 2 and Figure 1). The overall annexation area is 33 total parcels including 58.31 acres. It
is located immediately east of Broad Street between Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road, including
Allene Way, Morabito Place and Prospect Streets.
Figure 1. East Airport Proposed Annexation Area
The subject annexation area is located within the Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) boundary and
has been identified for annexation under the AASP and City General Plan for many years1, and was
pre-zoned by Ordinance No. 1481 in 2005 upon adoption of the AASP. The East Airport annexation
area is located within the adopted Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) Urban Service
Area for the City.
1 Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5 Annexation in Airport Area; Policy 7.7 City Annexation and Services; Policy 7.14
Growth Management (see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635)
Item 2
Packet Page 8
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 3
The East Airport annexation area is partially developed, and has generally been “master planned”
under two (2) County development entitlements: The EACP (Morabito-Burke Tract 2368) in 2003,
and the Senn-Glick properties (Conditional Use Permit D000336D) also in 2003. Both the AASP
and City Land Use and Circulation Element Update (and associated Environmental Impact Reports
analyses) anticipated an intensity of development for these lands consistent with the County’s prior
approvals for these sites2.
Annexation Description
The EACP, as approved by the County, permits up to 500,000 SF of developed uses generally south
of Farmhouse Lane. At present, developed buildings in the EACP total 367,476 SF. The S/G
properties north of Farmhouse Lane are approved by the County for 180,000 SF of commercial-
service land use. Only about 20,000 SF of S/G uses are developed presently. Recent County approval
for the People’s Self-Help Housing site (DRC2018-00131) includes a 23,665 SF building that
increased the overall development SF allotment/potential for the East Airport Annexation area to
693,367 SF.
2 AASP Chapter 9.1 (see: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294)
Item 2
Packet Page 9
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 4
Figure 2 – Overview of East Airport Annexation Area
Approximately 23 of the 33 parcels comprising the East Airport annexation area are developed. This
includes 20 developed businesses, two storm drainage ponds and one site for water facilities serving
the area. Several of the 10 remaining vacant parcels are in various stages of process with the County,
for example People’s Self-Help Housing has sites (currently two sites undergoing a “merger” to a
single parcel), which will include its corporate headquarters. It has also secured planning
entitlements and is currently moving through the County Building Permit process. According to data
provided by the applicants, a total of 329,003 SF of buildings currently exist within the East Airport
Annexation area; with 25,025 SF under construction and 33,448 SF in building permit review by the
County, for a total of 387,476 SF. A maximum of 693,367 SF of allowable building area is
established under County approvals. Environmental analysis and planning for public services for the
annexation area has taken these buildout densities into account as noted in the following summary
and detailed in the Initial Study for this proposed annexation.
The applicants are proposing annexation that will result in the continuance of existing uses and future
development patterns that reflect City commercial services and to align with a pending annexation
for the West Airport Area (Fiero Lane-Clarion Court) as described below. As the proposed
annexation area was previously pre-zoned, the process now requires a resolution of intent to annex
Senn-Glick
properties
East Airport
Commerce Park
Association
Item 2
Packet Page 10
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 5
the land within the boundaries of the annexation area pursuant to the Cortese-Knox-Hertzberg Act. A
Pre-Annexation Agreement (Agreement) is proposed to address pending development entitlements,
continuation of existing uses, and infrastructure needs and negotiated fees. The Agreement includes
legal descriptions, a table of development information and entitlement allocation, required
improvements, and offer of dedication exhibits (Attachment 3). A Plan For Services for the East
Airport Annexation includes provisions for the interim planning, construction, and service of
proposed projects administered by the County (and/or jointly with the City) until the annexation is
finalized (Attachment 4.) An ordinance is also recommended to address existing non-conforming
“Office-Government” uses that have been approved accordance with the Airport Land Use plan.
Relationship Between East Airport and West Airport (Fiero Lane-Clarion Court) Annexation
Areas
Wastewater service is provided to the East Airport area from the Fiero Lane Water Company (FLWC
- located on the west side of Broad Street-Hwy 227). Recently the Planning Commission reviewed
and recommended approval to Council to proceed with the annexation of the Fiero Lane-Clarion
Court (West Airport area). In November 2019 the Council acted to approve the proposed West
Airport annexation and that process will be moving forward with the LAFCO in 2020.
Throughout the discussions leading to action on the annexation of the West Airport area, it became
clear that various infrastructure improvements and operations of the FLWC (such as the wastewater
treatment plant) were impacted by the timing of the East Airport area annexation. Because of this,
discussions have led to a determination to attempt to bring both annexations forward at the same time.
Should the Planning Commission recommend, and Council approve the East Airport annexation, staff
will be working to consolidate the two annexation requests at LAFCO in order to coordinate the
annexations, and related infrastructure design, construction and financing programs provided by
various governing documents and agreements. This is the preferred option by LAFCO in that it
provides a more cohesive planning approach for the provision of services as both properties are
annexed into the City.
Public Facility Financing and Development Impact Fees
As noted in the in the Pre-Annexation Agreement, and as further detailed in the “Plan For Services”
(Attachments 3 and 4, respectively) the annexation of the subject properties will require various
capital investments in the existing private systems that will be made public under the terms of the
annexations. To complete these improvements, a financing mechanism has been proposed by the
property owners/applicants that will allow capital improvements to be engineered, constructed and
paid for through an assessment option known as Statewide Community Infrastructure Program (SCIP)
financing3. This financing program will allow plans to be developed and bids to be secured, providing
property owners the option of paying their fair share of construction costs upfront or electing to
finance the improvements in an approach very similar to assessment district financing. This SCIP
program has been supported by Council actions on the West Airport (Fiero Lane-Clarion Court)
planning effort and is considered similarly appropriate for use on the East Airport annexation. The
3 For general information about SCIP, see here: http://cscda.org/Infrastructure-Finance-Programs/Statewide-
Community-Infrastructure-Program-(SCIP)
Item 2
Packet Page 11
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 6
SCIP program also allows development impact fee contributions negotiated in the Pre-Annexation
Agreement to be paid or financed in this fashion.
Overview of Required Infrastructure Improvements and Testing
Exhibit E of the Pre-Annexation Agreement provides a complete detail of both the public and private
infrastructure and utility improvements to be completed as part of the proposed annexation.
In addition, a series of inspections and testing of existing improvements will be completed to confirm
the adequacy of these systems, or to identify additional steps and actions to be taken as these
properties are brought into the City. When the East Airport Area development approvals were granted
by the County, it was anticipated these sites would be brought into the City at a future date. For that
reason many of the systems in place within the East Airport Area were to be installed to City
specifications and standards. This testing and inspection program will verify (or define added steps
to insure) the adequacy of those improvements.
The public service systems include water service, recycled water service, wastewater collection,
treatment and disposal, and a variety of street-storm drainage facilities. Additionally, several private
system improvements, such as private water services, sewer laterals, refuse facilities and drainage
will be required to interface between the public systems to be taken over by the City and those that
will connect to the public systems but remain privately owned.
Water Demands and Wastewater Generation from the Proposed Annexation
Because of the partially developed nature of the East Airport Annexation area, information is readily
available to use in identifying current demands and can be used to project buildout demands for each
service to ensure City resources are readily available to support the annexation areas. Year 2017
recorded water use for 329,003 SF of existing development was 14.62 AFY. Demand projections for
the remaining buildout brings future water use to approximately 16.19 AFY, and a combined demand
of just under 31 AFY.
Table 1 - East Airport Annexation Area
Developed Parcels Acres
Building
Area
Existing
Water
Demand (1)
Wastewater
Generated (1)
Projected Total
Building
Area
East Airport Park 39.76 ac 309,003 SF 14.62 AFY 4,470 gpd 513,367 SF Senn/Glick 5.08 ac 20,000 SF
Undeveloped Parcels 13.47 ac 0 SF 16.19 AFY 4,950 gpd 180,000 SF
Totals 58.31 ac 329,003 SF 30.81 AFY 9,420 gpd 693,367 SF
Notes: (1) 2017 Fiero Lane Mutual Water Company record data for developed parcels, existing data used to project buildout demands. Projected
remaining buildout SF = 364,364 SF.
As discussed below and presented in more detail in the Plan For Services for the annexation and the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study, the City has readily available resources
to provide water and wastewater services to the annexation areas. In 2018, the City adopted an
Item 2
Packet Page 12
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 7
updated Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) and associated Initial
Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) (GPA 1454-2018 / EID 1455-2018). The City’s WWME
translated the LUE’s capacity for development, including capacity within the AASP and subject area,
into potential demand for water supply and wastewater services. The WWME outlines how the City
plans to provide adequate water and wastewater services for its citizens, consistent with the goals and
policies of other General Plan elements. The WWME IS/ND evaluated potential impacts of build-out
as identified in the LUE and inclusive of the AASP.4/5
2.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission’s role is to make a recommendation to the City Council regarding the
proposed annexation and adoption of the associated Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration for
the annexation.
3.0 DISCUSSION AND EVALUATION
General Plan Policy Consistency
The 2014 General Plan Land Use Element established a number of community goals, policies and
programs for annexation and development that relate to the proposed annexation areas. These
include:
County Airport Land Use Plan Consistency
Annexations and Growth Management
Airport Area Specific Plan Consistency
Financing of Fair-Share Infrastructure and Development Impacts
SLO County Airport Land Use Plan. General Plan Chapter 7, Policy 7.7 provides that the subject
annexation area would be actively pursued by the City provided the annexation is consistent with the
Airport Area Specific Plan and GP LUE Policy 1.13, and in particular Policy 1.13.5.
The proposed annexation is generally consistent with the standards for land uses, infrastructure and
fair-share cost contributions of the Airport Area Specific Plan. The AASP has been determined to be
consistent with the County’s ALUP. Further, the uses that exist within the annexation areas were
approved by the County under findings of consistency with their ALUP. As proposed, the
annexations would result in a continuation of the previously permitted uses and can be presumed to
be consistent with the County ALUP standards. A complete listing of the parcels and uses comprising
the proposed annexation is included in the Pre-Annexation Agreement as exhibit E of Attachment 3.
One note regarding City land use “consistency”. Several existing businesses within the EACP include
general office and governmental facilities. Some of these office uses also include businesses that are
of a non-profit nature. Under the Area Plan, stand-alone Business and service, Government or
Professional “office” uses would not be permitted in the proposed “Service Commercial (SC)”
4 2018 Water Resources Status Report available online: https://www.slocity.org/Home/ShowDocument?id=22442
5 Water & Wastewater Element (May 15, 2018), available online:
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=19965
Item 2
Packet Page 13
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 8
designation (aka “non-conforming land uses”) due to the identification of these uses to be potentially
noise-sensitive and noise-sensitive sound attenuation requirements may apply in accordance with the
Airport Land Use Plan. However, the existing office uses in the EACP have been approved by the
County in accordance with these regulations Offices providing support to manufacturing,
warehousing and similar uses that are located on the same site as the noted uses within the East Airport
Area are consistent with the SC designation.
In the case of the proposed annexation, it is not the City’s intent to disrupt or preclude these existing
(otherwise “non-conforming”) businesses from continuing, or to restrict replacement uses of a similar
nature. To address this, Section 12.1 of the Pre-Annexation Agreement includes a provision that an
Ordinance would be considered concurrently by Council to address allowing the otherwise non-
conforming uses to remain and/or be replaced by similar uses, at the discretion of the Community
Development Director. Conditions under which this discretion may be exercised includes (i) waiving
the municipal code provision that ceasing such uses for periods of 12 months or more would not
automatically invoke prohibitions on reestablishing the prior use or similar uses, and/or (ii)
substituting new non-conforming office-government uses do not contribute to greater environmental
impacts than the previous use. The provisions of the Ordinance is provided in the draft Resolution
for Commission review and comment.
Annexations and Growth Management. Noted GP LUE Policies include:
1.13.3. Annexation Purpose and Timing
The City may use annexation as a growth management tool, both to enable appropriate urban
development and to protect open space. Areas within the urban reserve line which are to be developed
with urban uses should be annexed before urban development occurs. The City may annex an area long
before such development is to occur, and the City may annex areas which are to remain permanently as
open space. An area may be annexed in phases, consistent with the city‐approved specific plan or
development plan for the area. Phasing of annexation and development will reflect topography, needed
capital facilities and funding, open space objectives, and existing and proposed land uses and roads.
1.13.5. Annexation in Airport Area
Properties in the Airport Area Specific Plan may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria:
A. The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and
B. The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and
C. The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
D. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development; and
E. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies the application
for annexation; and
F. The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and constructing
area‐wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost ‐sharing plan maintained by the City.
Following the adoption of the City’s 2014 AASP, as noted earlier, planning for the Fiero Lane
annexation commenced. As both the Fiero Lane and East Airport areas currently share independent
private infrastructure in the County, the addition of the East Airport area to this annexation process
results in a greater degree of coordination in bringing both areas concurrently into the City. In this
case, the East Airport annexation proposal, including the cost allocations outlined in the pre-
annexation agreement, satisfies all the prerequisites under GP LUE Policy 1.13.5, has already been
pre-zoned by the City, and is now recommended for annexation.
Item 2
Packet Page 14
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 9
Airport Area Specific Plan Consistency. First adopted by the City Council in 2005, the AASP
included a series of goals, policies and programs to comprehensively guide development of the
Planning Area. Ordinance No. 1481 adopted concurrent to the AASP, established Service-
Commercial (C-S) pre-zoning for the area to apply upon annexation. Additional guidelines and
development standards are included in the AASP, as well as infrastructure requirements and a plan
for implementation of the Plan. In 2014 the AASP was updated to reflect current planning standards
for the area.
Overall goals of the Specific Plan include:
Provide a framework to move from County developments primarily focused on heavier
industrial and manufacturing uses to a blend of these established uses, both inside and outside
the City, with new uses focused on lighter industrial and manufacturing uses, professional and
business park developments and employment centers.
Plan for proposed development, including annexations within the Planning Area, so that
public facilities are developed concurrently with new development in a rational and cost-
effective fashion.
Protect and enhance natural resources within the AASP, including emphasis on maintaining
visual qualities of the surrounding hills and open space areas and protection of creek corridors,
wetlands and habitat qualities.
The uses that exist in the annexation area are generally consistent with the uses anticipated by the
City’s AASP. As described herein and in the referenced attachments the financial and infrastructure
planning needed to bring these properties into the City have been completed. In and of itself the
annexation of the subject properties will not change the built environment of the area. Existing uses
will be subject to City development standards. Future planning and development would be managed
under the AASP standards and would result in consistency as new projects are brought forward.
Financing of Fair-Share Infrastructure and Development Impacts. General Plan Policies discussed
previously focus on new development paying it’s fair-share. The proposed annexations will be
responsible under the Pre-Annexation Agreement for financing infrastructure and paying negotiated
development impact fees and contributions to assist in addressing cumulative project impacts, such
as traffic, pedestrian and bicycle paths. These contributions, whether paid up front or financed under
the SCIP approach will ensure adequate contributions are received from the annexation areas.
Plan For Services
The proposed East Airport Annexation area has been carefully analyzed to identify impacts on overall
City services. To document this analysis and the recommendations derived from that analysis, a Plan
For Services has been developed for the annexation area (Attachment 4). A summary of those
conditions and services are noted below.
Current Conditions – East Airport Annexation Area. Broad Street/State Route 227 provides
vehicular access to the area via Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road. Internal circulation is supported
by Allene Way, Morabito Place and Prospect Street.
Item 2
Packet Page 15
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 10
Domestic water is delivered to the East Airport Area by on-site wells and private water distribution
systems. Wastewater is collected within the annexation area by gravity lines to a location near Broad
Street and Farmhouse Lane where a lift station operates, and then is conveyed by force main to the
FLWC private treatment plant at the end of Fiero Lane (within the West Airport Annexation area).
Treated FLWC wastewater is disposed of in a leach field format in the County to the immediate south
(and outside) the West Airport Annexation area.
Emergency services are provided by the County, but these areas are also supported by the City under
mutual aid agreements between the City and County. General government services are provided by
the County. Storm water management, collection and disposal is handled by the private property
owners under County-approved plans. Solid waste services are provided by the County via private
contract with local waste and recycling providers.
Post-Annexation Conditions – East Airport Annexation Area. Roadway rehabilitation and upgrades
are planned to bring the roads, sidewalks and signage up to City standards. Following annexation,
the roads, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be maintained by the City under the Pavement
Management Plan.
Water system upgrades for the annexation area will include connecting to the Terrace Pressure Zone
at Broad and Fuller Streets, installation of pressure reducing valves as appropriate and hydrant
replacements. Valving and backflow prevention will be installed as directed by Utilities staff. City
domestic water service will be provided under the annexation proposal.
Preferred Wastewater Alternative: The gravity wastewater system will be converted to
interconnect with a gravity collection line in Broad Street, and from there is conveyed to the
City’s WWTP. The force main and lift station currently serving the area would be abandoned.
The timing of this work is contingent on the decommissioning of the FLWC wastewater plant
following the connections of the various properties in the Fiero Lane-Clarion Court
Annexation Area.
Interim Wastewater Alternative: If annexation of the East Airport Area is delayed, or
improvements are not completed at the time of the FLWC wastewater plant decommissioning,
it is possible this treatment plant would be moved to the East Airport Annexation Area to
serve those users on an interim basis. In such a case treated wastewater could be conveyed
via the lift station and force main on the East Airport area to the existing disposal field
currently serving the FLWC plant.
Recycled water supplies are also included in the Plan For Services, with extensions made by the
applicants within the annexation area, to facilitate connection to this supply when it can be made
available.
Police and Fire emergency services would be provided by the City. It is expected the mutual aid
agreements would remain between the City and County. General government services would be
assumed by the City. Storm water management and solid waste services would continue as presently
exist.
Conclusion
Based on the above evaluation, the proposed annexation would be consistent with the stated goals of
Item 2
Packet Page 16
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 11
the City’ General Plan, AASP and long-term interest in bringing this area into the City. The planned
public and private infrastructure improvements are consistent with the AASP. Timing of
improvements and financial contributions by the applicants/property owners are adequate to address
a coordinated transition of the land from County control to the City.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Analysis of the proposed annexation has been guided by previous work in the form of the Airport
Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans Final EIR (2005), FEIR Addendum for the Airport Area and
Margarita Area Specific Plans (2015), and the City of SLO General Plan Land Use and Circulation
Elements (LUCE) FEIR (2014).
An Initial Study of environmental impact (Attachment 5) was prepared for the proposed annexation
to document whether there have been changed circumstances since those EIRs were completed, to
analyze consistency of the annexations with the General Plan and Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP),
and to identify any potentially necessary mitigation measures that should be applied to the annexation
process, as well as the completion of needed infrastructure (new or rehabilitation) to support City
services to the areas.
The Pre-Annexation Agreement and Plan For Services were relied on to identify the needed
infrastructure that is incorporated into the Project Description for the annexation. The conclusion of
the IS completed for the proposed East Airport annexation is that by incorporating the needed
infrastructure features of the Pre-annexation Agreement and Plan For Services, in addition to and as
a direct result of the analysis of the noted EIRs, any significant effects of the annexation and provision
of infrastructure services to the area constitute a less than significant effect on the environment with
the incorporation of identified mitigation measures. Therefore, an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative
Declaration is recommended for adoption in association with the proposed East Airport area
annexation.
5.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
The Fire, Utilities and Public Works Departments have reviewed the project and have provided
comments that are incorporated into the staff report and referenced attachments.
6.0 ALTERNATIVES
6.1 Continue the item. An action to continue the annexation request should include a detailed
list of additional information or analysis needed to make a recommendation to the City
Council.
6.2 Deny the proposed annexation based on findings of inconsistency with the AASP and/or
General Plan. This action is not recommended because the analysis indicates the project is
consistent with the General Plan and AASP.
Item 2
Packet Page 17
EID-0006-2020, ANNX-2030-2018, EAST AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA (Farmhouse Lane)
Page 12
7.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Draft Planning Commission Resolution
2. Annexation Map
3. East Airport Pre-Annexation Agreement (including Legal Descriptions, Development Information
and Allocation, Required Improvements, and Offer of Dedication exhibits)
4. East Airport Plan For Services
5. Initial Study-Mitigated Negative Declaration
Item 2
Packet Page 18
R _____
RESOLUTION NO. PC- _____-2020
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO RECOMMENDING THE CITY
COUNCIL ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION, INTRODUCE AND ADOPT AN ORDIANCE
AMENDING TITLE 17 (ZONING REGULATIONS) OF THE
MUNICIPAL CODE CONCERNING NON-CONFORMING
USES, AND APPROVE THE ANNEXATION OF THE EAST
AIRPORT ANNEXATION AREA PROPERTIES (EAST
AIRPORT COMMERCE PARK ASSOCIATION, SENN-GLICK)
TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO (PL-ANNX-2030-2018,
EID-0006-2020)
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo’s (City) General Plan and Airport Area Specific
Plan call for annexation of the area commonly referred to as the East Airport Annexation Area; and
WHEREAS, the City is actively working with the applicants and their consultants on
detailing the various improvements and implementation of the financing plans to complete said
improvements; and
WHEREAS, a Pre-Annexation Agreement has been prepared that considers existing “Office
– Government” uses that have been approved and exist consistent with the San Luis Obispo County
Airport Land Use plan, outlines the responsibilities of the applicants for the improvement of public
and private infrastructure to serve the annexation area, and a financing plan to fund those
improvements and the payment of fair-share traffic impact fees to the City; and
WHEREAS, a “Plan For Services” has been developed that include details on the studies,
analysis, scheduling and financing of the consideration of said annexation and the needed public and
private infrastructure improvements to be completed as part of any annexation; and
WHEREAS, a duly noticed Public Hearing before the Planning Commission was held on
January 22, 2020, to consider testimony and input on the proposed annexation, needed public and
private infrastructure improvements, development impact fees and charges to be paid to the City,
environmental considerations for the annexation, and review of the timing and implementation of said
fees and improvements; and
WHEREAS, environmental analysis of the proposed annexation has been guided by
previous work in the form of the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans Final EIR (2005),
FEIR Addendum for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans (2015), and the City of
SLO General Plan Land Use and Circulation Elements (LUCE) FEIR (2014); and
WHEREAS, an Initial Study of environmental impact was prepared for the proposed
annexation, which tiers from the certified Final EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans, documents whether there have been changed circumstances since those referenced
EIRs were completed, analyzes consistency of the annexation with the General Plan and Airport
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 19
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 2
R _____
Area Specific Plan, and identifies mitigation measures that would be required to mitigate
potentially significant impacts resulting from the annexation process and the construction of
needed infrastructure (new or rehabilitation) to support City services to the areas; and
WHEREAS, the conclusion of the Initial Study of environmental impact is that by
incorporating the needed infrastructure features of the Pre-Annexation Agreement as well as the
Plan For Services, in addition to and as a direct result of the analysis of the noted EIRs, and
implementing noted mitigation measures, any significant effects of the annexation and provision
of infrastructure services to the area would result in a less than significant effect on the
environment.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Planning Commission of the City of San
Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. CEQA Findings, Mitigation Measures, and Mitigation Monitoring
Program. Based upon all the evidence, the Planning Commission recommends that the City
Council adopt the following California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) findings in support of
the project:
a) The proposed project, as conditioned herein, is consistent with the requirements of
the certified Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) (SCH# 2000051062), and
this action incorporates those FEIR mitigation measures as detailed herein.
b) A supplemental, tiered, initial study has been prepared for the project, which
addresses potential environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project, and
the Community Development Director has recommended that the results of that
additional analysis be incorporated into a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND)
of environmental impacts, and recommends adoption of identified mitigation
measures, all of which are incorporated below.
c) All potentially significant effects were analyzed adequately in the referenced FEIRs
and IS/MND, subject to the following mitigation measures being incorporated into
the project and the mitigation monitoring program:
Air Quality
AQ-1: Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as
a toxic air contaminant by the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics
Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading, Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations,
prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation shall be conducted to determine if NOA is
present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be
filed with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements
outlined in the Asbestos ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation
Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for approval by the APCD. More information on
NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 20
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 3
R _____
AQ-2: Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air
quality impacts, including issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of
asbestos containing material (ACM). Asbestos containing materials could be encountered during
demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility
pipes/pipelines (transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal
or relocation or a building(s) is proposed to be removed or renovated, various regulatory
requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National Emission Standard
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements
include but are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a
Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3) applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified
ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-3: Developmental Burning. APCD regulations prohibit developmental burning of vegetative
material within San Luis Obispo County.
AQ-4: Permits. Portable equipment and engines 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during
construction activities will require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by
the ARB) or an Air District permit. The following list is provided as a guide to equipment and
operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as exclusive: power
screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; portable generators and equipment with
engines that are 50 hp or greater; internal combustion engines; unconfined abrasive blasting
operations; concrete batch plants; rock and pavement crushing; tub grinders; and, trommel screens.
AQ-5: Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment. The standard mitigation
measures for reducing nitrogen oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate
matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s
specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle
diesel fuel (non-taxed version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road
heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for
on-road heavy-duty diesel engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that
meet the engine standards identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt
area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative compliance;
f. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be
posted in the designated queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the
5 minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible;
k. Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site; and,
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 21
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 4
R _____
l. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed
natural gas (CNG), liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
AQ-6: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. If the estimated
ozone precursor emissions from the actual fleet for a given construction phase are expected to
exceed the APCD threshold of significance after the standard mitigation measures are factored into
the estimation, then BACT needs to be implemented to further reduce these impacts. The BACT
measures can include:
a. Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road
compliant engines;
b. Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
c. Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These strategies are listed
at: http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-7: Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures. Projects with grading areas that are less than 4-acres
and that are not within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation
measures to minimize nuisance impacts and to significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems, in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from
leaving the site and from exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3
minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering frequency would be required whenever
wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used whenever
possible. Please note that during drought conditions, water use may be a concern and the
contractor or builder shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where
feasible to reduce the amount of water used for dust control (contact the APCD for a list of
potential dust suppressants);
c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible,
and building pads should be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil
binders are used;
e. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans;
and
f. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust
emissions and enhance the implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust
complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity, and to prevent transport of dust
offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be in
progress.
g. Projects with grading areas greater than 4 acres or within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor
shall implement the measures above, in addition to the following additional mitigation
measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that they do not exceed the APCD’s 20%
opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):
1) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and
landscape plans should be implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any
soil disturbing activities;
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 22
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 5
R _____
2) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after
initial grading should be sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered
until vegetation is established;
3) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved
chemical soil binders, jute netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
4) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface
at the construction site;
5) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should
maintain at least two feet of freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and
top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle Code (CVC) Section 23114;
6) “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior
surfaces of motor vehicles and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any
highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113 and California Water Code 13304.
To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all employees, subcontractors,
and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles
enter and exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be
any device or combination of devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at
the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved road. Rumble strips or steel plate
devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate tracked out
soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
7) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved
roads. Water sweepers shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be
pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
Air Quality Monitoring Program: These conditions shall be noted on all project grading and
building plans. The applicant will also be required to comply with existing regulations and secure
necessary permits from the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) before the onset of grading or
demolition activities including, but not limited to additional dust control measures, and evaluation
for Naturally Occurring and Material Containing Asbestos. The applicant shall present evidence
of a plan for complying with these requirements prior to issuance of a grading or building permit
from the City. The applicant shall provide the City with the name and telephone number of the
person responsible for ensuring compliance with these requirements. The Building Inspector and
Community Development and Public Works Inspectors shall conduct field monitoring.
Biological Resources
BR-1 Prior to installation of the recycled water main on the Broad Street bridge, the project
proponent shall prepare and implement a Biological Mitigation Plan that identifies construction-
related staging and maintenance areas and includes construction best management practices
(BMPs) to avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources, including all measures needed to
protect riparian woodland and avoid accidental discharge of fuels and/or materials into the creek.
Such BMPs shall include (but not be limited to) the following:
a. Prior to construction activities associated with the installation of a recycled water line on the
Broad Street bridge, the project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to ensure
implementation of required biological mitigation measures.
b. The Plan shall include the use of debris netting to avoid accidental spill of materials into the
creek corridor. The debris netting shall be installed prior to installation of the recycled water
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 23
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 6
R _____
line on the bridge and shall not be removed until the installation of the recycled water line is
complete.
c. Prior to construction activities, the project area shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the
contractor is aware of the limits of allowable site access, which shall not include areas within
the bed or bank of the creek.
d. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the qualified biologist shall prepare and
deliver a worker orientation and training program for all construction staff. This program
shall include information on the protection of riparian habitat, special-status aquatic species,
and avian species. The training shall also include any applicable regulatory policies and
provisions regarding species protection and minimization measures to be implemented.
e. A biological monitor shall be present during the recycled water line installation on the bridge,
and shall have the authority to stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources.
Prior to initiation of daily construction activities, and periodically during installation of the
recycled water line on the bridge, the biological monitor shall survey the creek within 100
feet of the bridge. In the event any special-status species is present, construction activities
shall cease until the biological monitor has determined that the special-status species is no
longer present within 100 feet of the project site. If nesting birds are present within 500 feet
of the project site, no operation of heavy equipment shall occur until the birds have fledged
and left the nest.
f. Construction shall occur during daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM or sunset, whichever is
sooner) to avoid impacts to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period)
species.
g. No storage or fueling of equipment shall occur within 100 feet of the edge of riparian
vegetation. Pallets or secondary containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged materials
shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials and/or contaminants shall be
cleaned from the Project site and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the Regional
Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
h. All trash and construction debris shall be picked up and properly disposed at the end of each
day.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources
CR-1: Unanticipated cultural resource discovery. In the event archaeological, historic, or
paleontological resources are unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the
following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the Community Development Director shall be
notified so that the extent and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified
archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be accomplished in accordance with state and
federal law, and in consultation with local Native American tribal organizations.
b. In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other
case where human remains are discovered during construction, the County Coroner is to be
notified in addition to the Community Development Director so that proper disposition may
be accomplished.
Cultural Resources and Tribal Cultural Resources Monitoring Program: Requirements for
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 24
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 7
R _____
cultural resource mitigation, in the event of unforeseen encounter of materials during the potential
relocation of the wastewater treatment facility, shall be clearly noted on all plans for project
grading and construction. Compliance will be verified by the Community Development Director.
SECTION 2. Action and Findings. The Planning Commission hereby recommends the City Council
1) introduce and adopt an Ordinance amending Title 17 (Zoning Regulations) of the
Municipal Code concerning “Non-Conforming Uses” pursuant to the Pre-Annexation Agreement
for the East Airport Annexation by amending Municipal Code Section 17.94.020 as follows:
Addition of Subsection D.
D. For uses located in the East Airport Annexation Area of the Airport Area Specific
Plan, “Office-Government” will not be subject to the provisions of Section 17.94.020.B.1.”
2) approve the filing of an application for annexation of the East Airport Annexation Area and
direct the City’s Community Development Director to process the application with San Luis Obispo
Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO); and
3) authorize the City Manager to execute any documents in a form approved by the City
Attorney related to the annexation of the subject lands to the City of San Luis Obispo, based on the
following findings:
Findings:
1. The proposed amendment to Title 17 concerning non-conforming uses is consistent with
State law and will not significantly alter the character of the City or cause significant
health, safety or welfare concerns, since the uses are in conformance with the San Luis
Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan and the General Plan;
2. The project area is identified in the Airport Area Specific Plan as a future annexation area.
The proposed annexation is consistent with the Airport Area Specific Plan, which was
determined to be consistent with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan.
3. The proposed annexation is consistent with the General Plan, including Policies 1.13.3
(Annexation Purpose and Timing) and 1.13.5 (Annexation in Airport Area) because the
proposed project satisfies all the prerequisites identified under 1.13.5 and pre-zoning was
established upon adoption of the Airport Area Specific Plan, which is a prerequisite for
allowing development on the site under the City’s General Plan.
4. The East Airport Annexation area is within the City’s Sphere of Influence as defined by
LAFCO, which is an area designated for eventual annexation, provided that City services
can be provided, and that annexation is otherwise consistent with LAFCO policies.
5. The Pre-Annexation Agreement and Plan For Services provides a framework for
providing the necessary City services to adequately serve the annexation area.
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 25
Resolution No. (2020 Series) Page 8
R _____
Upon motion of _______________________, seconded by _______________________,
and on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this _____ day of _____________________ 2020.
____________________________________
Tyler Corey, Secretary
Planning Commission
ATTACHMENT 1Item 2
Packet Page 26
Proposed
East Airport Park Association
& Senn/ Glick
Annexation Area
Zoning
0 300 600
B
R
O
A
D
S
T
R
E
E
T
S
.R
.
2
2
7
Annexation Area
City of San Luis Obispo California
Zoning Map
East Airport Park
Association (EAPA)
Senn/Glick Area
Source: SLO City Parcel Viewer
A B
C
N
T
S
R
Q PO
Y
M
LK
J
I
HGFED
BB
CC AA
Z
W
U
V
DD
X
EE
FFGG
KENDALL
R
O
A
D
PROSPECT STREETMO
R
A
B
I
T
O
P
L
A
C
E
FARMHOUSE LANE
ALLENE WAY
ATTACHMENT 2Item 2
Packet Page 27
Item 2
Packet Page 28
1
DRAFT PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT
This Pre-Annexation Agreement (“Agreement”) is made and entered this __ day of
____________, 2019 (“Effective Date”), by and among the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered
municipal corporation (“City”), the members of the East Airport Park Association, a California
nonprofit corporation (the “Association,” with each member an “Association Member”) and
____________________ (“Senn-Glick”). Association Members, and Senn-Glick are hereinafter
collectively referenced as “Owners.” City and Owners are hereinafter referred to individually as
a “Party” and collectively as the “Parties.”
Recitals
WHEREAS, the Association is made up of 33 legal parcels, including common area, as
more particularly identified on Exhibit A (the “Association Property”).
WHEREAS, Senn-Glick are the owners of that certain real property consisting of three
parcels identified on Exhibit B hereto and hereinafter referenced as the (“Senn-Glick Property”);
WHEREAS, the Association Property and the Senn-Glick Property are hereinafter
referenced collectively as the “Annexation Property” (Exhibit C) .
WHEREAS, the Annexation Property is currently located in the County of San Luis Obispo
(“County”) but is within the San Luis Obispo Airport Area Specific Plan (“Area Plan”) and the
City has contemplated annexing the Annexation Property into the City, as stated in the City’s
General Plan, Land Use Element, Policy 7.7;
WHEREAS, the Area Plan was adopted by the City in August, 2005, and revised in
September, 2014, for the purposes of identifying appropriate land uses and zoning pursuant to
Ordinance 1481 (adopted September 6, 2005) for the Annexation Property and other properties
located within the Area Plan;
WHEREAS, the County of San Luis Obispo has allocated specific square footage
development limits for (i) each lot within the Association Property (for a cumulative square
footage of 500,000); and (ii) the Senn Glick Lots (a cumulative total of 180,000 square feet) as
reflected on Exhibit D attached hereto.
WHEREAS, upon annexation and completion of all conditions of approval and
requirements of this Agreement, the Annexation Property will be entitled to the same level of water
service, sewer service, police protection, fire protection, and other services generally provided by
the City for property owners, residents, and occupants within the City and is subject to the same
laws, rules, regulations, and fees;
WHEREAS, this Agreement is made pursuant to the authority of the City Charter and
California Government Code Section 56000, et. seq.
WHEREAS, to provide for the City’s orderly growth and development, consistent with the
City’s General Plan, the Parties anticipate that the Annexation Property will be annexed into the
City pursuant to the terms and procedures of the California Government Code, Sections 56000 et
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 29
2
seq., and in accordance with the Annexation Application filed by the Owners with the City, File
No. ANNX-2030-2018;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements
stated herein, the Parties agree as follows:
1. Annexation Application. Subject to the terms and conditions of this Agreement
and all applicable laws, the City will hold a public hearing for the consideration of the Annexation
Application, and, if authorized by the City Council, the City will file an application with the San
Luis Obispo Local Agency Formation Commission (“LAFCO”) to annex the Annexation Property
into the City’s municipal boundaries (the “Annexation”). Owners further acknowledge that the
Annexation is subject to LAFCO review, environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act, and potentially certain conditions of approval and mitigation
measures.
2. Required Improvements. Prior to Annexation of the Annexation Property into the
City and City’s permanent provision of water and sewer services to the Annexation Property,
Owners shall upgrade the potable water, recycled water, sewer, and roadway and
curb/gutter/sidewalk infrastructure (roadway and curb/gutter/sidewalk infrastructure are
collectively referenced herein as “roadway infrastructure”) to City standards, as required and
agreed upon by both parties, and/or at the point of connection to the City’s infrastructure as
identified in Exhibit D attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. The potable
water, recycled water, sewer, and roadway infrastructure improvements described on Exhibit D,
are collectively referenced herein as Required Improvements.
3. Transfer/Destruction of Wells. Each Owner with an existing groundwater well
upon their property may retain the use of that well for irrigation purposes only and shall, upon
Annexation, execute and record a covenant and agreement with the City, in a form approved by
the City Attorney, setting forth the requirements of this Section of the Agreement. If an Owner
does not elect to continue using an existing groundwater well on its property for irrigation purposes
only, then, upon Annexation, said Owner shall first offer to transfer ownership of the groundwater
well on their property to the City, subject to the City’s approval and in a form approved by the
City Attorney, and, if the City elects to not accept the well, Owner shall either destroy or cap the
groundwater well in accordance with City and applicable County Environmental Health standards
and requirements and to the satisfaction of the City Utilities Director and the County
Environmental Health Department. Future use of any groundwater wells that are capped pursuant
to this Section of the Agreement is subject to the City’s approval.
4. Removal of Package Plant and Other Infrastructure. After Annexation and
following connection to City services, Owners shall remove the package plant and other related
infrastructure existing within the Annexation Property and operated by the Fiero Lane Water
Company, as set forth in Exhibit E, in accordance with all applicable laws, regulations, and rules.
Upon Annexation and completion of removal of the package plant and related infrastructure, the
Fiero Lane Water Company will no longer operate or provide water or wastewater services within
the Annexation Property.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 30
3
5. Urban Services. Upon Annexation and upon City’s acceptance of the Required
Improvements and the Owners’ satisfactory completion of all conditions of approval of the
Annexation, the Annexation Property shall be entitled to the full range of City services, including
without limitation, water service, sewer service, police and fire protection, and general government
services, some of which are described below in more detail, and the Association shall cease
operating within the Annexation Property except as to any improvements not accepted by the City.
For example, the Association may, but is not obligated to, remain in existence in the form of an
architectural review committee, though any such committee would not in any way supersede or
replace the authority of the City’s Architectural Review Committee. Except as expressly provided
in this Agreement, future development within the Annexation Property shall be subject to all laws,
policies, rules, and regulations of the City, including but not limited to the payment of development
impact fees and any policies, rules, or regulations contained in the Area Plan. Existing
development within the Annexation Property as of the effective date of this Agreement shall not
be obligated to pay any development impact or connection fees except as expressly provided
herein.
6. Water Services. Upon Annexation and upon City’s acceptance of the Required
Improvements, not to be arbitrarily withheld, and the Owners’ satisfactory completion of all
conditions of approval of the Annexation, the Fiero Lane Water Company shall cease providing
water service to the Annexation Property and the City shall provide water services, including
without limitation fire protection services, subject to the same laws, rules, and fees applicable to
other new users in the City under similar circumstances. The Owners shall be responsible for the
costs of connection to the City water system.
7. Sewer Service. Upon Annexation and upon City’s acceptance of the Required
Improvements, not to be arbitrarily withheld, and the Owners’ satisfactory completion of all
conditions of approval of the Annexation, the Fiero Lane Water Company shall cease providing
sewer service to the Annexation Property and the City shall provide sanitary sewer service to the
Annexation Property upon request of the Association subject to the same laws, rules, regulations
and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances. The Owners shall
pay the costs of connection to the City sewer system.
8. Acceptance of Offers of Dedication and Easements. The Owners shall offer for
dedication to the City (i) all streets, roadways, sidewalks, curbs, gutter, drainage improvements,
water lines, and sewer lines and other similar improvements as depicted on Exhibits E and F
attached hereto (“Public Improvements”); and (ii) all Required Improvements. Concurrent with
Annexation, the City will accept said offers of dedication and shall thereafter be responsible for
the maintenance, repair, and replacement of the accepted Public Improvements and Required
Improvements. Concurrent with Annexation, Owners shall grant easements to the City, in a form
approved by the City Attorney, for the sewer mains not included within the offers of dedication as
identified in Exhibit E and shall extinguish any easements, rights, or title to said sewer mains that
may be held by any other parties, such as the Fiero Lane Water Company.
9. Traffic Impact Fees. Owners shall make a payment of $1,000,000 to fulfill the
Annexation Property’s participation in the City’s Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program
(TIF) and/or other area transportation improvement reimbursement obligations (“Traffic Impact
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 31
4
Fee Payment”). The Traffic Impact Fee Payment is based upon the existing and future buildable
development area and intensity on each of the lots within the Annexation Property as approved by
the County, up to a total of 680,000 square feet of building floor area within the Annexation
Property as depicted in Exhibit D attached hereto, which describes the maximum square footage
of building floor area for each lot within the Annexation Property, as previously approved by the
County as of the date of this Agreement. The Traffic Impact Fee Payment does not include
development of the PSHH Property. There shall be no additional traffic impact fees or fees or
requirements for off-site traffic improvements, except for the Required Improvements, required
for new development on any lot within the Annexation Property, so long as development remains
within the building floor area and development intensity approved by the County for each lot as
depicted in Exhibit D, up to a cumulative total of 680,000 square feet. Additional building floor
area or intensities proposed beyond that approved by the County for each lot, as depicted in Exhibit
D would be subject to the then applicable TIF.
10. Development Impact Fees. Subject to the terms and conditions herein, Owners shall
pay, at the time of Annexation, the water and sewer development impact fees in effect at the time
of Annexation for all properties within the Annexation Property that are developed as of the
effective date of the Annexation. For properties within the Annexation Property that are
undeveloped at the time of Annexation, as more particularly described in Exhibit I, Owners shall
pay all development impact fees, as defined in the City’s Municipal Code, that are in effect at the
time of development and in accordance with the applicable City fee schedules and ordinance
requirements in effect at that time, except as specifically provided in Section 9 above. These fees
may be financed through land-based financing or other equivalent means under terms outlined and
negotiated during the financing of said fees.
11. General Plan/Area Plan/Zoning. Upon Annexation, (i) the General Plan
designation for the Annexation Property will be Services and Manufacturing; (ii) the Annexation
Property will be subject to the Area Plan; and (iii) the City Zoning designation for the Annexation
Property will be Service-Commercial Specific Plan (C-S-SP) .
12. Existing and Future Development. Upon Annexation, the Annexation Property
may be developed subject to the same policies and property development standards applied to
other properties in the City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to, the General
Plan, the Area Plan, and other applicable provisions of the City Municipal Code and state laws.
Existing legal uses on the Annexation Property shall be allowed to continue in accordance
with Chapter 17.10 of the City Zoning Regulations. Change of ownership, tenancy, or
management of a nonconforming use shall not affect its legal, nonconforming status unless the use
is discontinued pursuant to the aforementioned Chapter 17.10.
Addition of new structures within the Annexation Property requiring new connection to
City water or sewer service, or modification to or conversion of use of structures existing as of the
date of Annexation, that exceed the capacity of existing wastewater and water systems, shall be
considered new development. In all events, the Annexation Property and each lot therein shall be
maintained in compliance with the applicable rules of the Area Plan and other laws or regulations
as provided in the City Municipal Code under similar circumstances.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 32
5
12.1 Non-Conforming Use (Government). Pursuant to the Area Plan, after
annexation into the City, the Zoning District for the Annexation Property will be Commercial
Services (C-S). Under the Area Plan, an Office-Government use is not an allowed use in the C-S
zoning. Lots ___ (“Non-Conforming Lots”) of the Annexation Property are currently operating
with a use that fall under the City’s Office-Government land use type and, therefore, such use upon
annexation shall be considered a non-conforming use as defined in Chapter 17.94 of the City
Municipal Code. As part of the annexation process and as a condition of this Agreement, the City
Council shall concurrently consider an Ordinance pertaining to the Annexation Property
authorizing the Community Development Director to support the continuation of this non-
conforming use by enabling the Community Development Director to make the following
determinations, as may be requested by the Owners in the future:
(i) that the ceasing of an “Office-Government” use on the Non-Conforming Lots for “a
continuous 12 months” shall not be deemed to prohibit another non-conforming use on the Non-
Conforming Lots so long as such non-conforming use is an “Office-Government” use; and/or
(ii) that the existing use or subsequent non-conforming uses may be replaced with an
“Office-Government” use as long as the new use has similar or less severe impacts on its
surroundings in terms of noise, traffic, parking demand, hours of operation, and visual
incompatibility compared to the immediate prior use, as determined by the Director pursuant to
Chapter 17.108 of the City Municipal Code, with the exception of Section 17.108.020 which shall
not limit the application of this Section of this Agreement.
This Section 12.1 and the Ordinance contemplated herein shall apply only to the Non-Conforming
Lots and not the remainder of the Annexation Property nor to any other uses that may be non-
conforming on any properties within the Annexation Property.
13. Compliance with City Standards. Upon Annexation, the Annexation Property will
be subject to the same rules, regulations, laws, fees, and taxes unless otherwise agreed to herein
that would be applied to other properties, residences, businesses, and customers in the City under
similar circumstances including, but not limited to, the Building Code, Fire Code, Zoning
Regulations, the Area Plan, environmental regulations including the California Environmental
Quality Act, fees, taxes (including business taxes and utility user taxes), and other provisions of
the City Municipal Code and state laws. Existing permits issued by the County of San Luis Obispo
shall not be subject to any additional requirements, conditions, or fees by City except as otherwise
stated herein.
14. Building Limitations. The parties acknowledge that the County of San Luis
Obispo, through conditions of approval or otherwise, has imposed building area limitations on the
Annexation Property and certain portions thereof. Upon Annexation, building standards,
coverage, restrictions and restraints applicable to the Annexation Property shall be as provided by
the City Municipal Code, the Area Plan, the City Charter, and the City General Plan, as may be
amended from time to time, and any County-imposed building area limitations, including without
limitation those imposed by the conditions of approval for subdivision or development within the
Annexation Property, will no longer apply. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the parties
acknowledge that limitations, conditions, and mitigation measures may be imposed on the
Annexation Property and its existing or future development as required by applicable City
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 33
6
ordinances, the Area Plan, the City Charter, the City General Plan, and/or state and federal law,
including but not limited to the California Environmental Quality Act.
15. Property Improvements. At the time of development, it shall be the responsibility
of the Owners to install and/or pay for improvements and fees, which may be required by permit,
law, rule, or regulation.
16. Term of Agreement. The term of this Agreement shall begin upon the Effective
Date. The Agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by mutual consent of the
Parties. In the event that Owners withdraw the Annexation Application or approval of the
Annexation is not granted by LAFCO or the City Council for any reason whatsoever, this
Agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect, as if it had never been entered into by the
Parties, except that obligations contained in Section 18 regarding Defense and Indemnity shall
survive termination.
17. Payment of Costs and Expenses. The Owners agree to pay for any and all
reasonable costs and expenses related to the Annexation of the Annexation Property into the City’s
municipal boundaries, including, but not limited to, all of the City’s administrative fees, consultant
fees, filing fees, planning fees, engineering fees, attorney’s fees, surveying fees, inspection fees,
construction costs, conditions of approval and mitigation measures, and all actions contemplated
herein. The City estimates that the costs and expenses under this Section 17 will be
_________________. Owners acknowledge and agree that this is an estimate only and subject to
change.
18. Defense and Indemnity. Owners agree to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the
City and its officers, officials, agents, employees, and volunteers against any and all liability,
claims, actions, causes of action, or demands whatsoever against any of them arising out of or
connected with the Annexation, the Annexation Application, or this Agreement, including without
limitation the construction or removal of any Required Improvements, whether or not caused in
part by the City, except City’s sole negligence or willful misconduct. The obligations contained
in this Section shall survive termination of this Agreement.
19. Successors, Heirs and Assigns. This Agreement shall bind and inure to the benefit
of the successors, heirs, assigns, and personal representatives of the Parties.
20. Notices. Any notice which any party may or is required to give shall be given by
personal service or by depositing such notice with the U.S. Postal Service, postage pre-paid, to the
mailing address given below the signature line, or at such other place as may be designated by the
party in writing from time to time. Notice shall be effective upon the date of personal delivery or
three (3) days after date of mailing.
21. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed and construed by in accordance
with the laws of the State of California. In the event that suit is brought by a party to this
Agreement, the parties agree that trial of such action shall be vested exclusively in the courts of
the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 34
7
22. Attorney’s Fees. If any of the Parties hereto incurs attorneys’ fees in order to
enforce, defend, or interpret any of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement or
because of a breach of this Agreement by the other Party, the prevailing Party, whether by suit,
negotiation, arbitration, or settlement will be entitled to recover reasonable attorneys’ fees from
the other Party or Parties
23. Waiver. Waiver by one party of any default, breach, or condition precedent shall
not be construed as a waiver of any other default, breach, or condition precedent or any other right
under this Agreement.
24. Counterparts and Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts,
each of which will be deemed an original but together will constitute one agreement. By signature
below, the person or persons executing this Agreement on behalf of the Parties warrants and
represents that they have the authority to execute this Agreement on behalf of the respective Party
and has the authority to bind the Party to the performance of its obligations hereunder.
[Signature Page Follows]
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 35
8
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have executed this Agreement as of the
date first written above.
“CITY”
City of San Luis Obispo
By: ________________________________
Print Name: _________________________
Title: ______________________________
Address: ___________________________
___________________________
“OWNERS”
Association:
East Airport Park Association,
a California nonprofit corporation
By: _______________________________
Print Name: ________________________
Title: ______________________________
Address: ___________________________
___________________________
Senn-Glick:
__________________________________
By: _______________________________
Print Name: ________________________
Title: _____________________________
Address: ___________________________
____________________________
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 36
A
Exhibit A
Association Property
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 37
EXHIBIT A
ANNEXATION NO. __ TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of Annexation No. 78 to the City of San
Luis Obispo being a point on the southeasterly line of Farm House Lane; thence
along the boundary of said Annexation No. 78 the following two courses
1. North 53°13'55" East, 98.84 feet; thence
2. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 370.00 feet,
through a central angle of 20°21'59", for an arc length of 131.52 feet;
thence
3. continuing along the arc of a tangent curve to the right, also being the
southerly right of way of Farm House Lane having a radius of 370.00 feet,
through a central angle of 16°19'22", for an arc length of 105.41 feet;
thence
4. North 89°55'16" East, 418.92 feet; thence
5. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 470.00 feet,
though a central angle of 8°44'18", for an arc length of 71.68 feet; thence
6. South 81°16'57" East, 84.85 feet; thence
7. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 530.00 feet,
though a central angle of 14°22'36", for an arc length of 132.99 feet; thence
8. North 84°20'27" East, 325.78 feet to the east line of Tract 2368 as shown
on the map filed in Book 28 of Maps at Pages 56 through 61, inclusive;
thence along the boundary lines of said Tract 2368
9. South 00°06'06" East, 414.56 feet; thence
10. North 70°17'23" East, 381.55 feet; thence
11. South 59°32'56" East, 901.58 feet; thence
12. South 28°55'47" West, 1349.08 feet; thence
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 38
13. North 61°04'24" West, 551.47 feet; thence
14. North 00°05'03" East, 376.71 feet; thence
15. South 89°44'28" West, 513.98 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way of
State Highway 227; thence along said northeasterly right-of-way
16. North 37°33'31" West, 446.56 feet to the southwesterly corner of the
property described in the deed to the County of San Luis Obispo recorded
December 3, 1991, in Volume 3792 of Official Records of said County at
Page 897; thence continuing along said northeasterly right-of-way
17. North 37°31'48" West, 230.25 feet; thence
18. North 37°34'57" West, 94.52 feet; thence
19. along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of
35945.00 feet, through a central angle of 00°50'01", the radius point of
which bears North 52°26'16" East, for an arc length of 522.90 feet; thence
20. North 36°44'58" West, 55.83 feet to the easterly boundary of Annexation
#53 to the City of San Luis Obispo; thence leaving said Highway 227 right-
of-way and along said easterly boundary
21. North 00°16'34" West, 66.19 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described property contains 56.09 acres of land, more or less.
* * *
_______________________________________________
Michael B. Stanton, PLS5702 Date
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 39
B
Exhibit B
Senn-Glick Property
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 40
EXHIBIT B
ANNEXATION NO. __ TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the most southerly corner of Annexation No. 78 to the City of
San Luis Obispo being a point on the southeasterly line of Farm House Lane;
thence along the boundary of said Annexation No. 78 the following three courses
North 53°13'55" East, 98.84 feet; thence along the arc of a tangent curve to the
right having a radius of 370.00 feet, through a central angle of 20°21'59", for an
arc length of 131.52 feet; thence North 16°24'14" West, 60.00 feet to the
northwest line of Farm House Lane to the Point of Beginning; thence
1. along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 212.00
feet, through a central angle of 24°08'00", the radius point of which bears
South 70°17'17" West, for an arc length of 89.30 feet; thence
2. along the arc of a compound curve to the left having a radius of 15.00 feet,
through a central angle of 37°55'17", for an arc length of 9.93 feet; thence
3. along the arc of a tangent reverse curve to the right having a radius of
70.00 feet, through a central angle of 81°40'54", for an arc length of 99.79
feet; thence
4. North 00°05'05" West, 99.52 feet; thence
5. South 89°54'55" West, 64.22 feet to the easterly boundary line of
Annexation No. 53 to the City of San Luis Obispo; thence along said easterly
line the following two courses
6. North 00°00'08" West, 100.06 feet; thence
7. North 00°20'12" West, 333.92 feet to the northwest corner of Lot E of the
Rodriguez Tract as shown on the Record of Survey filed in Book 78 of
Licensed Surveys at Page 33, Records of said County; thence along the
boundary lines of said Lot E and Lot G of said Rodriguez Tract the following
three courses
8. North 89°49'40" East, 332.99 feet; thence
9. South 89°55’29” East, 332.99 feet; thence
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 41
10. South 00°07'59" East, 665.59 feet to the north line of Tract 2368 also being
the north line of Farm House Lane as shown on the map filed in Book 28 of
Maps at Pages 56 through 61, inclusive; thence along the boundary lines of
said Tract 2368
11. North 89°58'42" West, 365.04 feet; thence
12. along the arc of a tangent curve to the left having a radius of 430.00 feet,
through a central angle of 16°19'23", for an arc length of 122.50 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
The above described property contains 9.69 acres of land, more or less.
* * *
_______________________________________________
Michael B. Stanton, PLS5702 Date
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 42
C
Exhibit C
Annexation Area
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 43
EXHIBIT C
ANNEXATION NO. __ TO THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
That real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, more
particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the most southerly corner of Annexation No. 78 to the City of San
Luis Obispo being a point on the southeasterly line of Farm House Lane; thence
along the boundary of said Annexation No. 78 the following eight courses
1. North 53°13'55" East, 98.84 feet; thence
2. along the arc of a tangent curve to the right having a radius of 370.00
feet, through a central angle of 20°21'59", for an arc length of 131.52
feet; thence
3. North 16°24'14" West, 60.00 feet to the northwest line of Farm House
Lane; thence
4. along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the left having a radius of 212.00
feet, through a central angle of 24°08'00", the radius point of which bears
South 70°17'17" West, for an arc length of 89.30 feet; thence
5. along the arc of a compound curve to the left having a radius of 15.00
feet, through a central angle of 37°55'17", for an arc length of 9.93 feet;
thence
6. along the arc of a tangent reverse curve to the right having a radius of
70.00 feet, through a central angle of 81°40'54", for an arc length of
99.79 feet; thence
7. North 00°05'05" West, 99.52 feet; thence
8. South 89°54'55" West, 64.22 feet to the easterly boundary line of
Annexation No. 53 to the City of San Luis Obispo; thence along said
easterly line the following two courses
9. North 00°00'08" West, 100.06 feet; thence
10. North 00°20'12" West, 333.92 feet to the northwest corner of Lot E of the
Rodriguez Tract as shown on the Record of Survey filed in Book 78 of
Licensed Surveys at Page 33, Records of said County; thence along the
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 44
boundary lines of said Lot E and Lot G of said Rodriguez Tract the
following three courses
11. North 89°49'40" East, 332.99 feet; thence
12. South 89°55’29” East, 332.99 feet; thence
13. South 00°07'59" East, 665.59 feet to the north line of Tract 2368 also
being the north line of Farm House Lane as shown on the map filed in
Book 28 of Maps at Pages 56 through 61, inclusive; thence along the
boundary lines of said Tract 2368
14. South 89°59'12" East, 334.32 feet; thence
15. South 00°06'00" West, 21.78 feet; thence
16. North 84°19'05" East, 221.82 feet; thence
17. North 84°22'29" East, 111.28 feet; thence
18. South 00°52'38" East, 10.49 feet; thence
19. South 00°06'06" East, 464.56 feet; thence
20. North 70°17'23" East, 381.55 feet; thence
21. South 59°32'56" East, 901.58 feet; thence
22. South 28°55'47" West, 1349.08 feet; thence
23. North 61°04'24" West, 551.47 feet; thence
24. North 00°05'03" East, 376.71 feet; thence
25. South 89°44'28" West, 513.98 feet to the northeasterly right-of-way of
State Highway 227; thence along said northeasterly right-of-way
26. North 37°33'31" West, 446.56 feet to the southwesterly corner of the
property described in the deed to the County of San Luis Obispo recorded
December 3, 1991, in Volume 3792 of Official Records of said County at
Page 897; thence continuing along said northeasterly right-of-way
27. North 37°31'48" West, 230.25 feet; thence
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 45
28. North 37°34'57" West, 94.52 feet; thence
29. along the arc of a non-tangent curve to the right having a radius of
35945.00 feet, through a central angle of 00°50'01", the radius point of
which bears North 52°26'16" East, for an arc length of 522.90 feet;
thence
30. North 36°44'58" West, 55.83 feet to the easterly boundary of Annexation
#53 to the City of San Luis Obispo; thence leaving said Highway 227
right-of-way and along said easterly boundary
31. North 00°16'34" West, 66.19 feet to the Point of Beginning.
The above described property contains 67.52 acres of land, more or less.
* * *
_______________________________________________
Michael B. Stanton, PLS5702 Date
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 46
D
Exhibit D
Development Information and Allocation
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 47
Item 2
Packet Page 48
East Airport Commerce Park and Senn Glick Annexation
Property Development Information
Updated January 2020
Exhibit
Lot #
Property
Size (acres)
Assessor Parcel
Number (APN)
Primary Property
Address Property Owner
Building
Development
In Process-
Under
Construction
(SF)
Building
Development
Existing (SF)
Tract/ CUP/
Development
Allotment (SF)
Allotment SF
Remaining
Development Status,
December 2019
A 5.08 076-511-038 1146 Farmhouse Lane Farmhouse Development LLC 20,000 Built
B 2.59 076-511-039 1160 Farmhouse Lane Cagliero Lorraine Tre Etal Undeveloped
C 2.06 076-511-040 1160 Farmhouse Lane Cagliero Lorraine Tre Etal Undeveloped
Senn/Glick 9.73 Totals 0 20,000 180,000 160,000
D 1.11 076-512-001 1025 Farmhouse Lane J & R Properties, LLC 12,472 12,475 3 Built
E 1.01 076-512-002 1051 Farmhouse Lane Salvo Beach, LLC 11,351 11,351 Undeveloped
F 1.01 076-512-003 1075 Farmhouse Lane Onsorc Investments LLC 11,350 11,351 1 Built
G 1.03 076-512-004 4675 Allene Way Dewar Family Trust (Kenneth & Sandra Dewar)11,576 11,576 Undeveloped
H 1.08 076-512-005 1133 Farmhouse Lane Maino Construction 11,932 12,138 206 Built
I 1.19 076-512-006 4720 Allene Way Maino Construction 13,076 13,374 298 Built
J 1.03 076-512-007 4740 Allene Way Allene Way, LLC 9,474 11,576 2,102 Built
K 1.12 076-512-042 1167 Farmhouse Lane Burke Family Trust 12,587 12,587 Undeveloped
L 1.33 076-512-041 1193 Farmhouse Lane Burke Family Trust 14,947 14,947 Undeveloped
M 1.36 076-512-043 none assigned Burke Family Trust 15,284 15,284 Undeveloped
N 0.97 076-512-039 4750 Allene Way SLO, LLC 9,783 10,901 1,118
In bldg. permit review.
County approved use:
DRC2019-00219
O 1.32 076-512-040 1140 Kendall Road Kendall Road, LLC 14,679 14,835 156 Built
P 1.75 076-512-037 1180 Kendall Road Lot 11 EAP, LLC 19,706 19,667 (39)Built
Q 1.28 076-512-038 1220 Kendall Road James Pankey Tre Etal 14,388 14,385 (3)Built
R 2.51 076-512-012 1250 Kendall Road PG&E 10,800 28,209 17,409 Built
S 1.80 076-512-028 1275 Prospect Street NKT Properties, LLC Wastewater facility
T 1.51 076-512-029 1251 Prospect Street Dirt Clod Industries 6,366 16,970 10,604 Built
U 2.26 076-512-015 1201 Prospect Street JLK Commercial, LLC 25,067 25,399 332 Built
W 1.00 076-512-035 4875 Morabito Place Farm Bureau of San Luis Obispo County 2,998 11,238 8,240 Built
V 1.41 076-512-036 1175 Prospect Street Ewing Irrigation Products, Inc.10,500 15,846 5,346 Built
X 2.33 076-512-017 4855 Morabito Place D3KS-elph 25,998 26,186 188 Built
Y 1.32 076-512-031 none assigned Western Trans Logistics LLC 14,835 14,835 Undeveloped
Z 2.54 076-512-032 1255 Kendall Road Family Care Network 28,531 28,546 15 Built
AA 5.26 076-512-030 4800 Morabito Place Marchem Real Estate Group 46,396 59,114 12,718 Built
BB 1.50 076-512-033 4805 Morabito Place L. Gregorio see CC 16,858
CC 2.53 075-512-022, -034 1109 Kendall Road L. Gregorio 45,270 28,433 21
DD 1.01 076-512-023 n/a NKT Properties, LLC stormwater basin
EE 1.65 076-512-024, 511-025 1060 Kendall Road Peoples' Self-Help Housing 23,665 30,000 6,335
In bldg. permit review.
County approved use
DRC2018-00131
FF 2.25 076-512-025 4725 Allene Way Dr. Adam G Nielsen 25,025 25,287 262 Under construction
GG 1.11 076-512-026 n/a NKT Properties, LLC stormwater basin
EACP 48.58 Totals 58,473 309,003 513,367 204,364
County approved:
SUB2016-00009
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 49
Item 2
Packet Page 50
E
Exhibit E
Required Improvements
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 51
1
Exhibit E
Required Improvements
Section 1. Utilities Infrastructure Improvements and Testing Requirements:
System Improvements:
Public Water system:
1. Extend Terrace Pressure Zone from the intersection of Broad and Fuller to the project
area without the use of a booster pump station.
2. Reconstruct the water system piping at the intersection of Broad and Fuller with a new
pressure reducing station, PLC, and telemetry, such that the extension of the Terrace
Zone can be monitored from SCADA for flow rates and pressures on the distribution
system. The existing pressure reducing station can be used, but will need to be
rehabilitated to meet the monitoring objectives for pressures and flow rates.
3. All buildings impacted by the increased pressure as a result of the potable water zone
extension shall be provided with individual pressure reducing valves per the California
Building Code.
4. Separations between water to sewer or recycled water mains shall meet the City
Standards. Undisinfected treated wastewater mains (3-Water) shall be abandoned to meet
the separation criteria where applicable.
5. All fire hydrant outlet dimensions and threading shall comply with City Standards. This
condition can be met by modifying the existing hydrants if feasible
6. Install a temporary double check assembly near the northwest corner to flush the water
mains and transition into the new water supply.
7. Install a permanent reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA) at the point of
connection from the City’s water main along Broad and the existing recycled water
system along Farmhouse Lane, if the potable water is needed to feed the irrigation main
and services.
8. Air-release valves shall meet Engineering Design Standards.
Public Recycled Water system:
9. Provide frontage improvements, per Engineering Standards, along the western edge of
the project frontage using an 8” recycled water main (approximately 1,380-ft of main).
(“Frontage Improvements”) at a cost to Owners not to exceed $300,000. If the Frontage
Improvements provided by Owners do not result in supplying recycled water to the
Annexation Property by January 1, 2026, the City will complete the Frontage
Improvements to provide recycled water to the Annexation Property. In lieu of the
Frontage Improvements, the applicant can choose to build improvements for construction
of an 8” recycled water main along Broad Street from Tank Farm Road to Aerovista
(approximately 2,100-feet) with an alignment to the satisfaction of the Utilities Director
(“Broad Street Line”). If the Owners build the Broad Street Line and spend in excess of
$300,000(i) the City agrees to enter into a reimbursement agreement with all new
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 52
2
development within the Airport Area Specific Plan, except for properties included within
the Annexation Property, to reimburse Owners for all costs incurred in installing the
Broad Street Line; or (ii) if the Owners have not been reimbursed for the cost in excess of
$300,000 of constructing the Broad Street Line by January 1, 2026, the City will
reimburse Owners for such costs as part of its capital improvement program. City
checking and inspection fees will be waived for the construction of the proposed pipeline.
10. Existing recycled water mains need to be Class 350 Ductile Iron Pipe with exterior and
interior coatings.
Public Sewer system:
11. All sewer mains for the collection system shall be in the public roads. Sewer mains
running through easements shall be provided with an all-weather access road. Revisions
to the title documents for easements to be transferred to the City for by the public utilities
shall be made and processed by the applicant, which includes the west 10-feet of Lot 2
(Parcel SS1) and Lot 25 (Parcel SS2) and the south 10-feet of Lot 25 (Parcel SS2) .
12. The five sewer manholes not sealed for root intrusion shall be sealed with a polyurethane
coating per the 2018 Engineering Standards.
13. Applicant shall provide a financial assurance in the event the Fiero Annexation triggers
the need for relocation of the wastewater treatment plant. A relocation plan needs to be
reviewed and approved through the public improvement plan review process if the
infrastructure will be within City limits.
14. Any industrial waste dischargers in the East Airport Annexation Area will be required to
meet all Municipal Code requirements prior to discharging to the City’s wastewater
collection system.
Public Water System Inspections and acceptance testing:
15. Applicant shall reimburse the City for flushing of system, and all bac-t testing for
acceptance.
Public Sewer System Inspections and acceptance testing:
16. Applicant to provide CCTV inspection of sewer mains.
17. Applicant shall make repairs need to be made to any root intrusions or deficiencies
identified by the City in the CCTV inspection in accordance with PACP Sewer
Inspection Standards.
Parcel Improvements:
Private Domestic Water Service:
18. Applicant shall provide service line identification of the lateral extending from the main
and the type of valves provided in the meter box.
19. Fire service lines shall be equipped with RPDA.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 53
3
20. All water meters are to be purchased, replaced, and installed by East Airport per City
Standards after the systems is flushed, disinfected, and approved by the Utilities Director.
The water services shall be equipped with RP-Backflow device per the 2018 Engineering
Standards.
Private Recycled Water Service:
21. All services will be equipped with RP-Backflow device if potable water is used for
irrigation services. After recycled water is available, the RP-Backflow device can be
changed out with an irrigation pressure reducer and wye strainer.
22. Recycled water users will need to apply for a recycled water services in accordance to the
City Standards, and Procedures for Recycled Water Use.
23. Additional signage for non-potable water will need to be installed after recycled water is
available.
24. Any existing graywater systems need to be re-certified through the City’s building permit
to ensure overflow runoffs are not discharged into the sewer system.
Private Sewer Lateral Service:
25. Applicant to provide CCTV inspection of sewer laterals.
26. Repairs need to be made to any root intrusions or deficiencies identified by the City in the
CCTV inspection in accordance with PACP Sewer Inspection Standards.
27. No private lift stations will exist within the annexed parcels.
28. Applicant will identify any sewer easements on the topographic map. Where provide
sewer laterals are crossing parcel boundaries, applicant shall provide a lateral
maintenance agreement between the effected parties.
Private Refuse Service:
29. New trash enclosures need to have space for three waste streams: trash, recycling, and
organics.
30. Trash enclosures surface runoff that drains into the sewer system shall be disconnected
and drained into a bioswale.
Section 2. Public Works Infrastructure Improvements:
31. Street name signs to be upgraded from private to City Engineering Standard color, font,
block references, etc. Confirm whether any private street names will exist and will
require the public/private sign interface. Review whether an upgrade to punch posts will
be required.
32. Hydrants shall be upgraded to City Engineering Standards to accommodate the current
Fire Department standard hose connection of 4 ½”. Utilities to confirm whether an
alteration is acceptable or if replacement hydrants will be required. Hydrants with
inadequate clearances above the sidewalk will require an additional spool to provide
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 54
4
minimum clearances. Shear bolts need to be verified with correct inverted placement at
all hydrant locations.
33. Repainting of red curbs at all hydrant locations is required where existing red curbs are
deficient. Red curb painting is required for a 30 linear feet (15 feet on either side of the
hydrant). Transportation shall clarify whether red curb painting will be required at any
intersections as needed to maintain adequate sight lines. Final verification of hydrant
reflectors will be required.
34. Type 2 slurry shall be applied to all existing roadways. Following application of Type 2
slurry, placement of signing, striping, pavement stop bar marking, and in-street hydrant
reflectors shall be completed. .
35. Portions of the existing private storm drain system will become public upon annexation.
Publicly owned storm drain system lie within the roadways. Private storm drain systems
on private property will remain private. The existing basin will remain private.
36. The City completed a sidewalk and curb ramp infrastructure evaluation (Exhibit E,
Attachment 1 Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Evaluation). The applicant is required to replace
curb ramps identified as 6, 7 and 11 and provide truncated domes for all existing curb
ramps prior to annexation. The applicant is required replace sidewalks identified in
Exhibit E, Attachment 1 (Sidewalk and Curb Ramp Evaluation) excluding identified
minor cracking.
37. Existing access roadways into the County are dirt or gravel and appear to be the main
generator of silt and mud into the roadway. Provide and maintain stormwater BMP that
eliminates silt and mud track out into the roadway.
38. The existing Food Bank building drainage system encroaches into the future public right
of way. The applicant shall remove the private storm drain systems within the future
public right of way or enter into an Encroachment Agreement with the City.
39. An Encroachment Agreement for the automatic gate push button pedestal located within
the sidewalk and serving Flying Caballos Ranch shall be required.
40. An upgrade to any street end barricades with reflectors will be required.
41. Existing BMPs located on back of sidewalk at 1251 Prospect and 1250 Kendall shall be
maintained to mitigate potential tripping hazards due to the elevation of the sidewalk
above the BMPs. This may be accomplished by installing a barrier at the back of
sidewalk, or similar effective measures as approved by the Public Works Director.
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 55
F
Exhibit F
Offer of Dedication
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 56
ATTACHMENT 3Item 2
Packet Page 57
East Airport Commerce Park – Senn/Glick –
Annexation Plan for Services
January 2020
Contents:
1.Law Enforcement
2.Fire Protection (Including Paramedic and Ambulance)
3.Parks and Recreation
4.Public Facilities Maintenance
5.Streets Maintenance and Improvements
6.Public Transit
7.Solid Waste and Recycling
8.Municipal Services, Development Review and Code Enforcement
9.Traffic and Circulation
10.Water and Wastewater
11.Storm Water Facilities
12.Affordable Housing
1.Law Enforcement
The San Luis Obispo Police Department provides a variety of law enforcement and community
services and will serve the East Airport Commerce Park-Senn/Glick (“EACP-S/G” or “East
Airport”) annexation area. Police services are based at the City’s main police station at 1042
Walnut Street at the intersection of Santa Rosa (Highway 1) and Highway 101. As of 2018,
the Department consists of 85.5 full-time employees, 60 of which are sworn police officers.
This results in a ratio of about 1.4 officers-per-1000 residents. However, the City of San Luis
Obispo is an employment center, so the daytime population of the City’s urban area increases
by about 30,000 people per day over its resident population. Thus, the officers-per resident
ratio can be a misleading descriptor of service level.
The Department is divided into two police bureaus, with a Police Captain commanding each.
The Operations Bureau consists of a Patrol Services Division, a Traffic Safety Unit, and a
Situation Oriented Response Team, and Neighborhood Services. The majority of the
Operations Bureau resources are devoted to patrol services and traffic safety. The
Administrative Services Bureau consists of Administrative Services Division, Investigative
Division, Communications Division, Records Unit, and Information Services Unit. This
bureau provides services essential to law enforcement in the City and the effective use of the
Operations Bureau resources. According to the Safety Element of the City’s General Plan, the
Department has a 30% available-time objective for patrol officers. Available time is the portion
of time that a patrol unit is not already on call or otherwise unavailable to respond to a new
emergency call for service.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 58
The level of service in the annexed territory is the same as in the rest of the city. The Airport
Area Specific Plan indicates that the proposed annexation will drive the need for additional
personnel and equipment to maintain the current level of service and meet the available-time
objective for patrol response. The Specific Plan also indicates the potential need for a police
substation/work area with urbanization of the area.
Resources are allocated to the Police Department through the City’s 2-year budget and
financial plan process. Requests for additional resources are weighed against other potential
uses of the City’s general fund. The City expected that service demands and revenues both
would increase upon annexation of the Airport Area. Increased service demands will continue
approximately in proportion to the amount of new development in the area at a gradual pace
over several years.
The level of service provided to the EACP-S/G Annexation Area will be the same as provided
to the rest of the Specific Plan Area.
2. Fire Protection (Including Paramedic and Ambulance)
The City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department (SLOFD) provides emergency and non-
emergency fire protection services in the City with support from CALFIRE through mutual
aid agreements. Emergency services include fire response, emergency medical response,
advanced life support (“paramedic”) emergency medical response, hazardous materials
response, technical rescue response and public assistance. Non-emergency services include
fire and life safety inspections, building inspections, building plan checks, fire code
investigations, arson investigations, and public education. Additionally, the SLOFD is a
member of a countywide team that responds to hazardous materials incidents throughout the
County.
The Fire Department currently operates 4 fire stations and has 54 full-time employees with 42
firefighters resulting in a firefighter/population ratio of approximately 1 firefighter per 1,000
residents. Headquarters (Fire Station #1) is located on the corner of Broad Street and South
Street, Fire Station #3 is located at 1280 Laurel Lane, and Fire Station #4 is located at the
corner of Madonna and Los Osos Valley Road. County Fire Station #21, which is located on
the runway, provides for airport crash fire rescue services. This station also provides
emergency response services for a rather large rural area. The City currently maintains a mutual
aid agreement with CALFIRE to allow this station to respond to matters within the airport area.
According to the City of San Luis Obispo’s General Plan Safety Element, sufficient Fire
Department resources should be deployed to facilitate a travel time of emergency response
apparatus to all City emergencies requiring the use of lights and siren of 4 minutes or less, 95
percent of the time. In 2016, the City Council directed staff to adopt the more recognized
standard of a travel time of 4 Minutes or less 90 percent of the time.
The proximity of these stations to the Airport Area provide for emergency response times of 4
minutes or less. All SLOFD engine companies (first responders during an emergency call)
include at least one paramedic
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 59
In 2013, the Chevron EIR evaluated development and annexation of the Chevron property and
therefore evaluated the potential for fire department operational needs. The EIR concluded
that the majority of the Airport area is not within the City’s desired 4- minute response
time. However, this response time may be enhanced by the completion of circulation
improvements including the completion of Prado Road, Santa Fe Road, and the widening of
Tank Farm Road. Even with these improvements planned for the future, the EIR concluded
mitigation is necessary to achieve the City’s policy objectives for response time (Safety
Element Policy 10.3).
These mitigation measures are incorporated into the AASP as follows:
Policy 7.9.1: Adequate Fire Suppression Services and Facilities
The City shall provide adequate fire suppression services and facilities to the Airport Area, consistent
with the Safety Element of the General Plan, by completing area transportation improvements, co-
locating City fire services with existing CAL-Fire facilities located on Broad Street, and/or establishing
a permanent facility within the Airport Area.
Policy 7.9.2: Fire Station Location and Site Dedication
During the first phase of development of the Chevron Tank Farm site, property that is suitable for the
development of a new fire station shall be deeded to the City, to the approval of the Fire Chief.
Policy 7.9.3: Interim Safety Improvements
Until a permanent facility is developed that enables the City to achieve its response time objectives, new
development in the Airport Area may be required to finance other improvements that will contribute to
alleviating current deficiencies, as identified in the San Luis Obispo Fire Department Master Plan (2009).
This policy will be implemented on a case by case basis through conditions of approval when project
specific fire and life safety impacts are identified.
The proposed annexation was anticipated by the Airport Area Specific Plan. The Specific Plan
indicates that development of the plan will drive the need for additional personnel, including
firefighters and inspectors, to maintain the current level of service.
Resources are allocated to the Fire Department through the City’s 2-year budget and financial
plan process. Requests for additional resources are weighed against other potential uses of the
City’s general fund. The City expects that service demands and revenues both will increase
upon annexation. Increased service demands will continue approximately in proportion to the
amount of new development in the area at a gradual pace over several years.
The level of service provided to the Fiero Lane/Clarion Court Annexation Area will be the
same as provided to the rest of the Specific Plan Area.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 60
3. Parks and Recreation
The proposed annexation area is nearly built out, with about 75% of the property developed with
commercial and industrial businesses. No additional development is proposed at this time, but
future buildout will follow City standards for parks and recreation contributions as appropriate. The
area does not include parkland because no residential neighborhoods are proposed.
4. Public Facilities Maintenance
The City will maintain public facilities in the annexation area for which it accepts title and
maintenance responsibility, including public streets and appropriate utility infrastructure. As
described in detail in Exhibit “E” of the Pre-Annexation Agreement (PAA) for the EACP-S/G
Annexation, public infrastructure to be accepted by the City will include water, recycled water and
wastewater system improvements, and street paving and right-of-way improvements including
signage, striping and stormwater drainage improvements in said streets. Private improvements
described in the PAA shall be maintained by private property owners and/or an Association of
owners organized for such responsibilities.
Improvements to the infrastructure systems noted in the PAA that are to be completed by the private
property owners within the annexation area will be completed under a SCIP (Statewide Community
Infrastructure Program) financing district established under the terms of the PAA. The Pre-
Annexation Agreement also describes the timing of inspections and completion of needed system
improvements subject to City review and approval of construction plans for this work.
5. Streets Maintenance and Improvements
The proposed annexation boundaries have been created in consideration of the City’s ability to
maintain public infrastructure within the annexation area. The City’s Pavement Management Plan
was originally adopted in 1998 and provides the framework for the City’s maintenance program.
The heart of the program is computer software that analyzes the conditions of various street
segments via special algorithms and then makes maintenance recommendations according to the
available budget. The City has purchased MicroPaver, a program originally written by the Army
Corps of Engineers to maintain military bases. This program is made available to the public via the
American Public Works Department and the University of Illinois. It is continually updated and
maintained by the Corps and is in use throughout the United States and worldwide.
Within the annexation area, existing public streets will be upgraded to City standards by the
applicant and accepted by the City for maintenance upon completion of the upgrades. Maintenance
of existing streets within the annexed territory will be accomplished by incorporating the streets
into the pavement management program. Funds are also being contributed by the owners that have
previously developed their properties subject to the City’s Traffic Impact Fee programs. These
provide contributions to be used for future city-wide roads maintenance and improvements
commensurate with existing uses.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 61
6. Public Transit
Currently the nearest bus route (Route 3) is located about 1,500 feet north of the annexation area
and the City’s Transportation Division is in the process of expanding said route in this portion of
the community. The potential for new or expanded bus routes will be evaluated in accordance with
the potential routes identified in future specific development plans as applications are submitted to
the City. New development is responsible for providing transit facilities, such as turnouts, shelters
and in some cases, smart signs that indicate how soon the next bus will arrive.
7. Solid Waste and Recycling
The City of San Luis Obispo contracts with San Luis Garbage Company for garbage, green waste
and recycling services. San Luis Garbage disposes of solid waste at the Cold Canyon Landfill,
which is a regional facility. San Luis Garbage also serves commercial and residential properties
within the City’s urban reserve and no change in service is expected for annexed properties.
The City also runs a construction and demolition debris recycling program (Municipal Code
Chapter 8.05). The goal of the program is to divert the bulk of the materials generated from projects
within the City of San Luis Obispo from the landfill and thus, extend the landfill’s lifespan.
Construction and demolition debris materials represent a significant percentage of the City’s solid
waste stream, with current estimates at 25 percent of the total tonnage. The program helps the City
meet State-mandated requirements for solid waste reduction.
The level of service provided to the annexation territory will be the same as that provided to the
remainder of the City.
8. Municipal Services, Development Review and Code Enforcement
The City of San Luis Obispo will provide for municipal services within the annexed territory such
as elections, public notices, development review, building permits and inspections, subdivision
review, permitting and inspecting public improvements, and code enforcement.
San Luis Obispo City government will provide for development review of all new development
projects in accordance with the Airport Area Specific Plan and will coordinate with the County of
San Luis Obispo with respect to on-going construction projects and active construction permits.
Code enforcement activities are provided by full-time staff in the Community Development
Department, in coordination with the Police Department and the City Attorney’s Office.
Government services are based at City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo.
9. Traffic and Circulation
The City of San Luis Obispo operates and maintains a comprehensive multi--‐modal
transportation network. The City’s General Plan Circulation Element describes how the City plans
to provide for the transportation of people and materials within San Luis Obispo with connections
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 62
to county areas and beyond. While the Land Use Element describes the City's desired character and
size, the Circulation Element describes how transportation will be provided in the community
envisioned by the Land Use Element. The vision of San Luis Obispo described by the Land Use
Element is influenced by the layout and capacity of streets and the location of other transportation
facilities described in the Circulation Element. Transportation facilities and programs influence the
character of neighborhoods, the location of specific land uses, and the overall form of the city.
The Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP) takes planning for traffic and circulation systems to a
greater level of detail by defining localized area circulation patterns and promoting connectivity to
existing City street networks. The AASP promotes integrating these multi-modal facilities:
pedestrian paths, bicycle, transit, into the existing and planned circulation systems of the area.
For the most part, previous work on the Land Use and Circulation Element updates (LUCE) and
more recent implementation of these plans under the City-wide Traffic Improvement Fee program
have identified ongoing maintenance and new capital projects to be accomplished in the City. The
AASP and the subject annexation area have been included in those plans and fees and will be
addressing their prerequisite contributions to City fee programs as part of the Pre-Annexation
Agreement.
10. Water and Wastewater
According to water metering records from the Fiero Lane Water Company (FLWC), 2017 water
use for the EACP-S/G annexation area was 636,836 cubic feet or about 14.62 acre feet per year for
both indoor domestic use and outdoor landscape use.
Table 1 – 2017 Water Use and Projected Build‐out Water Use
2017 Water Use Domestic
(cu ft/yr)
Irrigation
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(acre ft/yr)
East Airport Commerce Park‐ 218,134 418,702 636,836 14.62 Senn/Glick
2017 Water Use Totals
Buildout Water Use Domestic
(cu ft/yr)
Irrigation
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(acre ft/yr)
East Airport Commerce Park‐ 392,400 710,700 1,103,100 25.33 Senn/Glick
Buildout Water Use Totals
The People’s Self-Help Housing site that is part of this annexation (recently added within the
EACP) is vacant land at this time, but has been entitled for up to 23,665 SF of development by the
County. PSHH is currently undergoing building plan processing with the County and is expected
to pull permits before annexation is completed.
Projected water use at buildout of the annexation area as detailed in Table 1 shows a total water
demand projected at just under 31 acre feet annually. The possibility of reducing this demand by
use of recycled water and on-site wells for irrigation purposes is included with the annexation.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 63
The Airport Area Specific Plan and the City’s General Plan anticipated the water demand to serve
this annexation and adequate water supplies are available to serve the build out of the City’s General
Plan.
The annexation area is in the City’s Water Reuse Master Plan area and will be served with recycled
water for landscape irrigation in the future when the recycled water distribution system is extended
south on Broad Street. This will dramatically reduce potable water demands for the area. The Pre-
Annexation Agreement (PAA) anticipates the possibility of using on-site water wells for irrigation
purposes on an interim basis, reducing potable City water demands as well.
Wastewater generation for the presently developed annexation area (2017), including 365,491
square feet of developed area, is approximately 4,470 gallons per day. Connection to the City’s
wastewater system is proposed to be located at Broad Street near the project frontage, and would
be conveyed by gravity into the City’s collection system.
Table 2 – 2017 Wastewater Generation and
Projected Build‐out Wastewater Demand
2017 Wastewater
Generated
Domestic
Water Use
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(gallons
per day)
East Airport Commerce Park‐ 218,134 4,470 Senn/Glick
2017 Wastewater Totals 218,134 4,470
Buildout Wastewater
Demand
Domestic
Water Use
(cu ft/yr)
Total
(gallons
per day)
East Airport Commerce Park‐ 392,400 8,043 Senn/Glick
Buildout Wastewater Totals
All parcels within the proposed annexation area are served by the Fiero Lane Water Company (west
side of Broad Street at Fiero Lane/Clarion Court). At the time of annexation and completion of the
wastewater system improvements noted herein and in the PAA, those properties will be connected
to the City’s wastewater system.
In 2015, average flow to the City’s Water Resource Recovery Facility was 3.5 million gallons per
day (mgd). Design capacity of the WRRF is 5.1 mgd and the planned upgrade to the facility will
increase its capacity to 5.4 mgd (projected to be completed in 2020). Adequate capacity is available
at the facility to serve the proposed annexation.
11. Storm Drainage
On-site flooding and the potential for increased downstream flooding have restricted development
potential in the Airport area. When considering how to address storm drainage in the area, a number
of objectives are identified in the Airport Area Specific Plan. These include:
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 64
Use the City’s Drainage Design Manual and Waterways Management Plan as the basis for
all detention requirements in the Specific Plan area.
Provide a method for flood protection consistent with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention
Regulations.
Maximize the opportunity for environmental enhancement of stream corridors and
stormwater detention and conveyance facilities.
Minimize capital expenditures.
Provide opportunities for multiple-use of storm drainage facilities.
Initially, an area-wide drainage solution was envisioned for the Airport Area. This solution was
referred to as the Storm Drain Master Plan and relied on significant creek channel modifications to
keep storm flows within existing creek channels, modified natural channels, and in man-made by-
pass channels. A regional detention basin south of Buckley Road was proposed to detain water and
prevent downstream flooding. After this solution was developed, the City’s Waterways
Management Plan was approved, which includes a Drainage Design Manual with standards for on-
site storm water detention. Once it became evident that the costs of the original Storm Drain Master
Plan were prohibitive, the Storm Drain Master Plan was revised to allow for on-site detention of
storm flows, consistent with the Drainage Design Manual.
The following proposed improvements and development requirements comprise the revised Storm
Drain Master Plan for the Airport Area, and also improve the upstream situation in the Margarita
Area:
1. Remove and replace existing Acacia Creek Bridge at Tank Farm Road with a standard
Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge.
2. Remove and replace existing East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek Bridge at Santa Fe Road
with a standard Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge.
3. Remove and replace the existing Tank Farm Creek culvert facilities at Tank Farm Road
with a standard Caltrans 2-span concrete slab bridge.
4. Apply the requirements of the City’s Floodplain Management Regulations to proposed
development within the Airport Area.
5. Apply the requirements of the City’s Waterways Management Plan, Drainage Design
Manual to proposed development within the Airport Area.
These proposed improvements, along with implementation of existing City-wide ordinances and
requirements are expected to provide 100-year flood protection and provide for environmental
enhancement of stream corridors. The analytical methods outlined in the Waterway Management
Plan, Drainage Design Manual will be used to assist in the future design of flood control
improvements.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 65
12. Affordable Housing
The proposed annexation area is currently developed with commercial structures/existing
commercial uses and no new development is proposed as part of this application. Affordable
housing would be required if new development is proposed in the future. Per the City’s
Inclusionary Housing Requirement (Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.91), any new commercial
projects that include over 2,500 square feet of floor area must provide affordable housing or pay
in-lieu fees. The requirement is two affordable dwelling units per acre of land, or payment of an
in-lieu fee equal to 5% of building valuation. The City uses the fees collected for affordable
housing projects that meet eligibility criteria as specified by Council resolution.
ATTACHMENT 4Item 2
Packet Page 66
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
1
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ANNX-2030-2018 / EID-0006-2020
1. Project Title:
East Airport Pre-Annexation Agreement and Annexation of Lands to the City of San Luis
Obispo
2. Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
919 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3. Contact Persons and Phone Number:
David Watson, Contract Planner Shawna Scott, Senior Planner
dave@watsonplanning.us (805) 704-8728 sscott@slocity.org (805) 781-7176
4. Project Location:
Approximately 59 acres located immediately east of Broad Street between Farmhouse Lane and
Kendall Road, including Allene Way, Morabito Place and Prospect Streets.
5. Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
East Airport Commerce Park / Senn-Glick
c/o C. M. Florence, AICP - Oasis Associates
3427 Miguelito Court, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
Services and Manufacturing Land Use Designation (Airport Area Specific Plan)
7. Zoning:
Current County of San Luis Obispo General Plan Designation: Commercial Service
Proposed Service Commercial zoning (Airport Area Specific Plan)
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 67
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
2
Project location
Figure 1: Regional Location
Figure 2:
Vicinity Map
and
Proposed
Annexation
Boundary
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 68
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
3
8. Description of the Project:
The East Airport annexation area consists of thirty-three (33) properties comprising
approximately 59 acres located just outside the southern San Luis Obispo city limits, between
Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road just east of Broad Street (State Route 227) and located within
the City’s Urban Reserve Line (URL) (Attachment 1, Proposed Annexation Boundary Map).
The East Airport annexation area is located within the City’s Airport Area Specific Plan (AASP)
boundary, and is identified for annexation under the AASP1 and City General Plan.2 The East
Airport annexation area is located within the adopted Local Agency Formation Commission
(LAFCO) Urban Service Area for the City.
The East Airport annexation area includes 30 parcels totaling 48.58 acres within the area known
as the East Airport Commerce Park (EACP) and the Peoples’ Self-help Housing property (which
was recently incorporated into the EACP), and three parcels totaling 9.73 acres within the area
known as the Senn-Glick properties (S/G). The EACP was approved by the County of San Luis
Obispo (County) in 2003 as the Morabito-Burke Tract Map (Tract 2368), permitting up to
500,000 SF of developed uses generally south of Farmhouse Lane;3 the County’s approval
included adoption of an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). The S/G
properties north of Farmhouse Lane were approved in 2003 by the County for 180,000 SF of
commercial-service land use (Senn/Glick Conditional Use Permit D000336D and associated
IS/MND). In 2018, the County approved Conditional Use Permit DRC2018-00131 (and an
associated Addendum to the Tract 2368 IS/MND) for a 23,665 SF office building on the
People’s Self-help Housing property. The People’s Self-help Housing property consisted of two
lots, one included in Tract 2368 and the second outside of the tract boundary; the County Use
Permit was conditioned such that the 23,665 SF of development counted towards the 500,000 SF
limitation imposed by the County.
At present, developed buildings in the EACP totals 309,003 SF, and an additional 25,025 SF is
currently under construction. In addition to existing development, two parcels have active
entitlements issued and building permits under review by the County, which will result in an
additional 9,783 SF and 23,665 SF of development within the EACP. 20,000 SF of development
is present in the S/G area. Of the 33 parcels comprising the East Airport annexation area, 21
parcels are developed with a mix of office, business park, industrial and manufacturing uses, two
stormwater basins, and the Fiero Lane Water Company (FLWC) facilities. As noted above, two
properties (three parcels) have building permits under review by the County. Nine parcels are
vacant.
The Project includes the following actions for consideration:
1. Adoption of a “Pre-annexation Agreement” detailing the infrastructure for the area in place,
the needed infrastructure to be provided by the annexation area, the infrastructure to be
1 AASP Chapter 9.1: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
2 Land Use Element Policy 1.13.5 Annexation in Airport Area; Policy 7.7 City Annexation and Services; Policy 7.14
Growth Management: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=6635
3 Tract 2368 originally included 26 parcels; subsequent subdivisions approved by the County have resulted in a total of 30
parcels within the original tract boundary.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 69
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
4
provided by the City, phasing information outlining the schedule under which needed
infrastructure would be provided, a plan for converting existing private services to City
services, and a financing plan with appropriate guarantees to address the costs of the
annexation, infrastructure and services called for in the Pre-Annexation Agreement
(Attachment 2).
2. Adoption of a “Plan For Services” for the East Airport annexation area, including provisions
for the interim planning, construction, and service of proposed projects administered by the
County (and/or jointly with the City) until such time as the annexation is finalized
(Attachment 3).
3. Adoption of a Request for Annexation of the subject properties to be submitted and
processed with the LAFCO and State of California to finalize the incorporation of the subject
properties within the City of San Luis Obispo.
4. A proposed Ordinance to address allowing non-conforming uses to remain and/or be replaced
by similar uses, at the discretion of the Community Development Director. Conditions under
which this discretion may be exercised includes (i) waiving the municipal code provision that
ceasing such uses for periods of 12 months or more would not automatically invoke
prohibitions on reestablishing the prior use or similar uses, and/or (ii) substituting new non-
conforming office-government uses do not contribute to greater environmental impacts than
the previous use (Attachment 4).
Following final approval of the annexation, City and AASP map amendments would show the
updated City limit line and implement the pre-zoning that was approved by Ordinance No. 1481
upon adoption of the AASP in 2005.
The Project evaluated in this Initial Study consists of the proposed annexation of the East Airport
area, and the physical infrastructure improvements that have been identified by the City’s
Community Development, Public Works, Utilities, and Fire Departments. The Project does not
entitle or approve new development or expansion of existing uses, and future build-out of the
East Airport annexation area would be subject to additional review pursuant to the City’s
Municipal Code, Zoning Regulations, AASP, and CEQA.
Overview of Required Infrastructure Improvements. Annexation of the East Airport area
would involve the provision of full public services to an area that has been partially developed
under County regulations. Necessarily, the annexation proposal includes a “Pre-Annexation
Agreement” (Attachment 2) and “Plan For Services” (Attachment 3), both incorporated into this
Project Description by reference, that identify current and needed infrastructure to support the
annexation, and outlines how City services and needed infrastructure would be provided to the
annexation area.
Exhibit D of the Pre-Annexation Agreement (Attachment 2) provides a complete detail of both
the public and private infrastructure and utility improvements to be completed as part of the
proposed annexation. The public service systems include water service, recycled water service,
wastewater collection, treatment and disposal, and a variety of street-storm drainage facilities.
Additionally, several private system improvements, such as private water services, sewer
laterals, refuse facilities and drainage will be required to interface between the public systems to
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 70
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
5
be taken over by the City and those that will connect to the public systems but remain privately
owned.
Infrastructure improvements identified in the Pre-Annexation Agreement and Plan For Services
are addressed under this Initial Study and generally include: resurfacing existing streets,
replacing cracked sidewalk sections, upgrading curb ramps pursuant to the Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA); upgrading the public water and recycled water systems pursuant to City
Standards; extending the Terrace Pressure Zone from the intersection of Broad and Fuller to the
project area and reconstructing the water system piping at the intersection of Broad and Fuller
with a new pressure reducing station, programmable logic controller, and telemetry; installation
of approximately 2,100 feet of eight-inch recycled water main in Broad Street from Tank Farm
Road to Aerovista (including a portion suspended from the bridge crossing the Upper Fork East
Branch, San Luis Obispo Creek); replacement of fire hydrants; extension of main line recycled
water service to the annexation area in two (2) stages (Stage 1 from Tank Farm to Aerovista,
Stage 2 from Aerovista along property frontage); repairing the public sewer system as necessary;
and installation of water meters, backflow devices, and recycled water signage (refer to
Attachment 2 for a complete list of infrastructure improvements). Identified improvements
would be located within existing streets, sidewalks, utility corridors, bridge, and areas previously
disturbed with existing infrastructure.
Plan For Services. The proposed annexation area has been carefully analyzed to identify
impacts on overall City services. To document this analysis and the recommendations derived
from that analysis, a Plan For Services has been developed for the annexation area (Attachment
3). A summary of those conditions and services are noted below.
Current Conditions – East Airport Annexation Area. Broad Street/State Route 227 provides
vehicular access to the area via Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road. Internal circulation is
supported by Allene Way, Morabito Place and Prospect Street.
Domestic water is delivered to the East Airport Area by on-site wells and private water
distribution systems. Wastewater is collected within the annexation area by gravity lines to a
location near Broad Street and Farmhouse Lane where a lift station operates, and then is
conveyed by force main to the FLWC private treatment plant at the end of Fiero Lane (within the
West Airport annexation area). Treated FLWC wastewater is disposed of in a leach field format
in the County to the immediate south (and outside) the West Airport annexation area.
Emergency services are provided by the County, but these areas are also supported by the City
under mutual aid agreements between the City and County. General government services are
provided by the County. Storm water management, collection and disposal is handled by the
private property owners under County-approved plans. Solid waste services are provided by the
County via private contract with local waste and recycling providers.
Post-Annexation Conditions – East Airport Annexation Area. Roadway rehabilitation and
upgrades are planned to bring the roads, sidewalks and signage up to City standards. Following
annexation, the roads, curbs, gutters and sidewalks will be maintained by the City under the
Pavement Management Plan.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 71
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
6
Water system upgrades for the annexation area will include connecting to the Terrace Pressure
Zone at Broad and Fuller Streets, installation of pressure reducing valves as appropriate and
hydrant replacements. Valving and backflow prevention will be installed as directed by Utilities
staff. City domestic water service will be provided under the annexation proposal.
The gravity wastewater system will be converted to interconnect with a gravity collection line in
Broad Street, and from there wastewater is conveyed to the City’s Water Resource Recovery
Facility (WRRF). The force main and lift station currently serving the area would be abandoned.
The timing of this work is contingent on the decommissioning of the FLWC wastewater
treatment plant following the connections of the various properties in the West Airport
annexation area.
Recycled water supplies are also included in the Plan For Services, with extensions made by the
applicants within the annexation area, to facilitate connection to this supply when it can be made
available.
Police and Fire emergency services would be provided by the City. It is expected the mutual aid
agreements would remain between the City and County. General government services would be
assumed by the City. Storm water management and solid waste services would continue as
presently exist.
Relationship Between East Airport and West Airport (Fiero Lane-Clarion Court)
Annexation Areas. On November 19, 2019, the City Council authorized proceeding with the
West Airport annexation, which will be moving forward with the LAFCO in 2020. Annexation
of the West Airport area would require removal of the FLWC wastewater treatment plant, which
currently serves the East Airport area. Evaluation of the West Airport annexation included the
potential relocation of the FLWC wastewater treatment plant to the East Airport area, which
would only be necessary if the East Airport annexation is not approved and completed.
Based on the proximity of the East and West Airport annexation areas, and the connection of
these areas related to the FLWC wastewater treatment plant, it is intended to bring both
annexations forward at the same time. Should the City Council approve the East Airport
annexation, staff will be working to consolidate the two annexation requests at LAFCO in order
to coordinate the annexations, and related infrastructure design, construction and financing
programs provided by various governing documents and agreements.
9. Planning Documents and Previous Environmental Documents Incorporated by Reference:
The City’s General Plan addresses build-out of the City, including annexation areas (including
the subject site). Land Use Element (LUE) Figure 2 (Urban Reserve), shows the East Airport
annexation area located within the Urban Reserve Line (URL). LUE Figure 3 (Land Use
Diagram) shows the properties within the City’s Sphere of Influence (SOI) and identifies the
land use designation for the subject parcels (Services and Manufacturing). Following annexation,
development within the East Airport annexation area would be subject to the City’s General Plan
policies and additional documents including, but not limited to, the Zoning Regulations, the
Airport Area Specific Plan, and Community Design Guidelines.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 72
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
7
The Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update (LUCE EIR) (State Clearinghouse [SCH] No. 2013121019) Table 2.3-3 shows that
buildout capacity of the AASP includes 3,604,649 square feet of non-residential development,
and 9,585 jobs (Final EIR Page 3-5). LUCE EIR Table 2.4-3 shows non-residential capacity
within the AASP is 1,791,815 square feet (excluding Avila Ranch, which was evaluated as a
“Special Focus Area” in the EIR); future build-out of the East Airport annexation area would
contribute to build-out of non-residential floor area, and would contribute to jobs. The LUCE
EIR states that “annexations of properties in the Airport Area Specific Plan would not change
existing physical conditions. Future development on land still to be annexed within the Airport
Area Specific Plan has been planned for and addressed through the Specific Plan process and
determined by the ALUC [Airport Land Use Commission] to be consistent with the County
Airport Land Use Plan” (LUCE Draft EIR, Page 4-246).
Subsequent to adoption of the LUCE Update and certification of the LUCE EIR, the City
adopted an updated Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) and associated
Initial Study/Negative Declaration (IS/ND) (GPA 1454-2018 / EID 1455-2018). The City’s
WWME translated the LUE’s capacity for development (including capacity within the AASP
and subject area) into potential demand for water supply and wastewater services. The WWME
outlines how the City plans to provide adequate water and wastewater services for its citizens,
consistent with the goals and policies of other General Plan elements. The WWME IS/ND
evaluated potential impacts of build-out as identified in the LUE. The AASP identifies the land
use designation (Services and Manufacturing) and pre-zoning (Service Commercial) for the
proposed annexation area. Following annexation, development within the East Airport
annexation area would be subject to the guidelines, standards, and policies identified in the
AASP and the City’s Municipal Code, including the Zoning Regulations.
The Final Program EIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related
Facilities Master Plans (AASP/MASP FEIR, SCH No. 2000051062) evaluated future build-out
of the AASP, including the subject area. As anticipated in the AASP Program EIR, this Initial
Study tiers from the AASP Program EIR and addresses the physical changes that would occur as
a result of implementation of the Pre-annexation Agreement and Plan for Services (infrastructure
improvements). Following annexation, development within the East Airport annexation area
would be subject to mitigation measures included in the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting
Program (MMRP) adopted by the City Council upon adoption of the AASP (Attachment 5,
Resolution 9726) or as amended to reflect new information. Future development would also be
subject to environmental analysis pursuant to CEQA,4 including consideration of the IS/MNDs
and MMRPs adopted by the County for the Tract 2368 and the Senn/Glick properties.
City resources available online:
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and LUCE EIR:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/planning-zoning/general-plan
4 CEQA Guidelines Section 15162 (Subsequent EIRs and Negative Declarations) and Section 15164 (Addendum to an EIR or
Negative Declaration)
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 73
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
8
WWME IS/ND: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=19127
Airport Area Specific Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area
Specific Plans and Related Facilities Master Plans:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-
development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-719
In addition to the documents identified above, this Initial Study incorporates by reference the
following environmental documents adopted by the County upon approval of projects within the
East Airport annexation area:
Morabito-Burke Tract Map 2368 (EACP) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (County
ED01-322): https://agenda.slocounty.ca.gov/IIP/sanluisobispo/file/getfile/82528
Senn/Glick Conditional Use Permit D000336D MND (County ED01-273): Refer to
document uploaded on the City website: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-review-documents
People’s Self-help Housing Development Permit DRC2018-00131 (County ED18-077):
https://agenda.slocounty.ca.gov/IIP/sanluisobispo/agendaitem/details/9294
Where applicable, this Initial Study references these previously-adopted environmental
documents and associated MMRPs. Mitigation measures applicable to infrastructure
improvements are incorporated into the MMRP for the proposed Project.
Annexation and build-out of the East Airport area is anticipated in the AASP and the City’s Land
Use, Circulation Element, and Water and Wastewater Management Element, and was evaluated
in the associated environmental documents certified and adopted by the City Council. The
proposed annexation is consistent with the City’s General Plan, LUCE EIR, WWME IS/ND,
AASP, AASP EIR, and does not include any changes to the land use designation, zoning, or
development standards identified in the AASP. The proposed annexation does not include any
development proposals or actions that would result in a physical change to the environment, with
the exception of identified infrastructure improvements that are required as a part of the
annexation. The physical changes that would occur as a result of identified infrastructure
improvements are addressed in this Initial Study, which is a tiered document that incorporates by
reference the noted certified EIRs, adopted IS/MNDs, and focuses on the physical changes
resulting from the infrastructure improvements.
10. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) – interim services
agreement and annexation (Responsible Agency), Air Pollution Control District (APCD)
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 74
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
9
11.Have California Native American tribes traditionally and culturally affiliated with the
project area requested consultation pursuant to Public Resources code section 21080.3.1? If
so, has consultation begun?
Native American Tribes have been notified about the project consistent with City and State
regulations. The Northern Chumash Tribal Council (February 8, 2019) noted that the existence
of development and infrastructure within the annexation area does not preclude the presence of
cultural resources.
Attachments
1.Proposed Annexation Boundary Map (refer to Planning Commission Agenda Report)
2.Draft Pre-Annexation Agreement (refer to Planning Commission Agenda Report)
3.Draft “Plan For Services” (refer to Planning Commission Agenda Report)
4.Draft Ordinance (refer to Planning Commission Agenda Report)
5.AASP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
6.Project Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 75
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
10
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population and Housing
Agricultural Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials Public Services
X Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Recreation
X Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Transportation & Traffic
X Cultural Resources Energy & Mineral Resources Utilities and Service
Systems
Geology/Soils Noise X Tribal Cultural Resources
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish
and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. As such, the project qualifies for a
de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees.
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has
been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 76
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet( s) have been added and X
agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially
significant unless mitigated" impact( s) on the environment, but at least one effect ( 1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a si gnificant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date / I
David Watson, Contract Planner
For: Michael Codron
Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
12
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 77
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
12
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is
adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects
like the one involved (e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained
where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive
receptors to pollutants, based on a project-specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3. Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If
there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4. “Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact."
The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than
significant level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-
referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief
discussion should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of
and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether
such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,”
describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the
extent to which they addressed site-specific conditions for the project.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential
impacts (e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should,
where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8. This is only a suggested form, and lead agencies are free to use different formats; however, lead agencies should
normally address the questions from this checklist that are relevant to a project’s environmental effects in whatever
format is selected.
9. The explanation of each issue should identify:
a) The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b) The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 78
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
13
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? 1,3,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1,3,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1,3,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1,3,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
Evaluation
The proposed annexation area is currently developed with a mix of light industrial and service manufacturing uses along with
contractor and professional services. Views include the Santa Lucia Range, Islay Hill, and the hills located at the north end
of the Margarita area that separate it from the city to the north. Views along Broad Street include existing development, Islay
Hill to the northeast, with longer range views of the Santa Lucia Mountains towards the east. Views beyond the annexation
area to the east include Edna Valley, and to the west is San Luis Obispo County Regional Airport and the southern limits of
San Luis Obispo along Buckley Road. The developed properties in the annexation area inhibit most ground level views and
the views noted above are of the general vicinity over and around the annexation area when traveling along Broad Street in
either direction.
a) Based on City General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element Figure 11: Scenic Roadways and Vistas, there are no
designed Scenic Cones of View within or facing towards the proposed annexation area, although the section of Broad Street
fronting the annexation area is designated as having high or moderate scenic value. The AASP notes that the Santa Lucia
Mountains and foothills are important features in establishing the character of the Airport Area, and AASP Chapter 5
(Community Design) includes design guidelines and performance standards, which are in place to protect views and the
area’s unique sense of place. Based on the presence of existing development and mature trees within and adjacent to the
annexation area, views of surrounding hills and ridgelines are limited. The annexation action would not result in physical
impacts on the environment, with the exception of infrastructure improvements identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement.
Infrastructure improvements would occur within existing developed areas and do not include any facilities that would be
visually different than existing above ground facilities (e.g. backflow preventors, fire hydrants, recycled water signage). The
proposed annexation and associated infrastructure improvements support implementation of goals and policies contained
within the AASP and would be fully consistent with both the AASP and the analysis contained in the AASP Final EIR.
Therefore, this impact is considered less than significant.
The AASP Final EIR analyzed impacts related to aesthetics as a result of development of the AASP area, including the
Project site. Regarding future build-out of the annexation area, future development subject to the AASP and City Zoning
Regulations may result in more square-footage of development than what is currently allowed under County jurisdiction;
however, implementation of the proposed annexation would not significantly change the existing visual character of the
project area, as the area currently supports commercial, office, and light industrial uses, and the zoning designations under the
AASP (Service Commercial) allow or conditionally allow for similar uses. Future development would require compliance
with the AASP and previously adopted environmental determinations and associated mitigation measures applicable to the
subject properties (AASP FEIR, Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and PSSH MND Addendum).
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 79
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
14
b) The affected section of Broad Street (State Route 227) is not designated a scenic route by the California Department of
Transportation or the County of San Luis Obispo. As noted above, the City’s Conservation and Open Space Element
identifies the section of Broad Street fronting the annexation area designated as having high or moderate scenic value.
Implementation of the proposed annexation and associated infrastructure improvements would not result in the removal of
any substantial trees, rock outcroppings, or buildings of historical significance, and future development would be subject to
the adopted guidelines and performance standards identified in the AASP. Therefore, there is a less than significant impact.
c) The AASP Final EIR identified a significant and unavoidable impact (Impact LU-6: Change in Views) as a result of
buildout of the AASP area and urbanization of the south end of the City. A Statement of Overriding Considerations was
adopted upon certification of the AASP Final EIR and adoption of the AASP. As noted above, the proposed annexation area
is currently urbanized and developed with commercial, office, and light industrial uses. Infrastructure improvements would
occur within existing developed areas and do not include any facilities that would result in significant visual impacts or
change the visual character of this urbanized area. Therefore, this is considered a less than significant impact.
Future development of the annexation area would be subject to adopted AASP design guidelines and performance standards,
the City’s Community Design Guidelines, and mitigation measures adopted as part of the Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and
PSSH MND Addendum, which address visual impacts resulting from structural development. For reference, previously
adopted mitigation measures associated with the subject properties include providing view corridors for State Route
227/Broad Street southbound traffic, provision of trees along State Route 227; providing 50 percent vegetative screening of
structures as seen from State Route 227 and railroad; parking and outdoor storage areas would be 100 percent screened;
exterior colors would include a mix of darker exterior colors; and exterior lighting would be minimized.
d) Consistent with the analysis in the AASP Final EIR (Impact LU-7: Potential Increase in Daytime/Nighttime Light and
Glare), future development within the proposed annexation area would contribute to an increase in light and glare from
exterior lighting and materials. Pursuant to the AASP Final EIR and adopted AASP, future development shall comply with
lighting guidelines and standards, consistent with AASP Final EIR Mitigation Measure LU-7.1 (Incorporate Lighting Design
Standards into Margarita and Airport Area Specific Plans). In addition, future projects would comply with AASP guidelines
that discourage reflective or shiny exterior finishes (see AASP Materials and Colors, Goal 5.14, Guideline C). Future projects
would also be subject to Zoning Regulations Section 17.70.100 (Lighting and Night Sky Preservation), which requires
shielding and other methods to minimize light intrusion. No additional street lighting is proposed as a component of
infrastructure improvements. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
The Proposed Project addressed by this Initial Study is the adoption of a “Plan For Services”, “Pre-Annexation Agreement”
and an annexation to the City of a largely developed business and industrial area in the County (East Airport Annexation
Area), between Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road, east of Broad Street (State Route 227). Continued existing uses in the
County, infrastructure improvements, and the future annexation of those existing uses, do not result in changes to existing
aesthetic conditions in the area. The area is designated for Service Manufacturing uses under the General Plan, and Service
Commercial under the AASP. Future development would be subject to AASP guidelines, City Community Design
Guidelines, and performance measures and standards identified in the Zoning Regulations that address aesthetics, and
previously adopted mitigation measures associated with the subject parcels. Based on the scope of the proposed annexation
project, no additional mitigation measures beyond these existing identified requirements are necessary.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
1, 3,
4,5,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a
Williamson Act contract?
1,3,
4,5, X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 80
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
15
11,12,
13,14,
25
c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland,
to non-agricultural use or conversion of forest land to non-forest
use?
1,4,5,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
Evaluation
The project site consists of developed and undeveloped land, existing roads, and infrastructure. Based on review of the San
Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 2016 Map (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource
Protection, 2018), a mix of Urban and Build-up Land, Other Land, and Farmland of Local Potential is present within the
project area. The proposed annexation area does not include any lands currently supporting agricultural uses, there is no
agricultural zoning or Williamson Act Contract in effect over the subject properties, and no grazing exists on the subject site.
a, b, c) The proposed project does not affect any existing or future agricultural activities within or proximate to the site. The
subject annexation area and areas identified for infrastructure improvements are not in agricultural use, and are not located on
lands considered prime agricultural soils. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
The subject site is in an area long designated for annexation and infill development. Regarding future build-out of the project
site, subdivision of the EACP and approval of existing uses (and uses currently entitled by the County) within the East
Airport annexation area required environmental review, which addressed potential impacts to agricultural resources as a
result of future development, including potential conflicts with existing agricultural uses to the south and east of the project
area. For reference, previously adopted mitigation measures that would be applicable to future development include
establishment of evergreen vegetation, incorporation of buffers when a conflict may occur, and provision of the County’s
Right-to-Farm Ordinance to future landowners.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
The proposed project addressed by this Initial Study is the adoption of a “Plan For Services”, “Pre-Annexation Agreement”
and an Annexation to the City of a largely developed business and industrial area in the County (East Airport Annexation
Area), between Farmhouse Lane and Kendall Road, east of Broad Street (State Route 227). Continued existing uses in the
County, infrastructure improvements, and the future annexation of those existing uses, do not result in changes to existing
agricultural resources outside of the annexation area.
The area is designated for Service Manufacturing uses under the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, and AASP. Future
development that may be proposed following annexation of the area to the City would be subject to review consistent with
the policies and regulations included in these adopted documents, and previously adopted mitigation measures associated
with the subject parcels. Based on the scope of the proposed annexation project, no additional mitigation measures beyond
these existing identified requirements are necessary.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air
quality plan?
3,8,9,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3,8,7,
9,11,
12,13,
14,15,
X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 81
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
16
25
c) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any
criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment
under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3,7,8,
9,11,
12,13,
14,15,
25
X
d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3,7,8,
9,11,
12,13,
14,25
X
e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3,8,9,
11,12,
13,14,
25
X
Evaluation
As discussed in the AASP FEIR, local climate conditions are generally characterized by warm, dry summers and cooler,
rainy winters. The Edna Valley in which the annexation area is located is generally affected by offshore cooling conditions
and airflow through the valley from Morro Bay to the north. These wind patterns change frequently, but inversion conditions
have a tendency to restrict dispersion of pollutants for a matter of days which has led to periodic higher ozone level readings.
To address this, the City relies on San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District (APCD) Federal-State-County air
quality standards and monitoring, as well as a robust Climate Action Plan adopted by the City, which is currently being
updated.
The Air Quality impacts and mitigation measures developed for the AASP FEIR identified thresholds for ground disturbance
(such as 1,950 cu/yds per day or 4.0 acres of grading or larger) that would trigger additional environmental review. No new
private development is permitted by this annexation, and any future development post-annexation would be subject to the
AASP and the City’s Municipal Code and Zoning Regulations, which stipulate required levels of review, in addition to
CEQA and air quality mitigation measures incorporated into adopted MMRPs for the Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and
PSSH MND Addendum. Infrastructure improvements identified for the proposed annexation, including infrastructure
conversions and connections to bring private users into the City’s utility system are located within previously disturbed street
rights-of-way.
To address these factors, several protocols have been imposed to address both short-term quality concerns (generally
construction-oriented emission mitigations) as well as longer-term emission reduction targets that rely on site design, traffic
management, alternative energy techniques and similar options to minimize overall air quality impacts. Annexation of the
East Airport area will not materially change these existing conditions. Future development proposed within the subject area
would be required to address these requirements as individual projects are evaluated.
a) Annexation of the existing East Airport area would occur as anticipated in the AASP and will not materially change
existing conditions. Infrastructure improvements would occur within developed roadways and utility corridors that currently
serve urban development, and would not result in an expansion of urban areas beyond what was anticipated and analyzed in
the AASP FEIR, which determined that implementation of the AASP would be consistent with the APCD’s 1998 Clean Air
Plan. While the Clean Air Plan was updated in 2001, the proposed annexation and associated pre-annexation infrastructure
improvements would be consistent with this plan because the Transportation and Land Use Control Measures recommended
in the 1998 plan to reduce emissions were incorporated into the attainment strategy for the 2001 Clean Air Plan. In addition,
the proposed annexation would not change the anticipated zoning and land use designations identified in the AASP for the
subject area. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the adopted Clean Air Plan.
b), c) Based on the APCD’s San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status table (APCD, 2019), the County is in non-attainment
with California standards for ozone and respirable particulate matter. Potential short-term impacts resulting from build-out of
the AASP area (including the proposed annexation area) were determined to be less than significant based on implementation
of APCD construction emission mitigations identified in the AASP FEIR (AASP FEIR: Impact AIR-1: Short-term
Construction Impacts; Mitigation Measure AIR-1.1 Construction-related Combustion Emissions Mitigation; Mitigation
Measure AIR-1.2 Construction-Related Fugitive Dust (PM10) Mitigation; Mitigation Measure AIR-1.3 Construction-Related
Activity Management Techniques). Long-term operational emissions were determined to be less than significant (AASP
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 82
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
17
FEIR: Impact AIR-2 Long-term Operation Emissions; Mitigation Measure AIR-2.1 Implement Growth-Phasing Schedule). In
addition, the Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND and PSHH MND Addendum each determined that build-out of the subject area,
including infrastructure, would result in less than significant short-term, long-term, and cumulative impacts based on
compliance with mitigation measures included in the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality Handbook.
Construction of infrastructure improvements identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement would result in the short-term
generation of air emissions, including ozone precursors, reactive organic gasses, and diesel and dust particulates, as identified
in the analysis of tract improvements associated with the development of the EACP, S/G, and PSSH properties and build-out
of the AASP area. In addition, ground disturbing activities and improvements to utility infrastructure has the potential to
result in exposure to naturally occurring and materials containing asbestos. Land uses in the affected area consist of
commercial, office, and light industrial uses, none of which are considered sensitive uses as defined by the APCD’s CEQA
Handbook. Infrastructure construction is subject to APCD mitigation measures, and consistent with the AASP FEIR and
adopted MNDs, and Addendum, for the existing subdivision, and S/G and PSSH developments, compliance with these
measures would reduce potential impacts to less than significant. Based on updates to the APCD’s CEQA Air Quality
Handbook in 2012 and 2017, mitigation measures applicable to the infrastructure improvements are identified below, and
these measures are equal or more effective than the air quality measures previously-adopted in association with the AASP
FEIR and Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND and PSHH MND Addendum:
Mitigation Measures
AQ-1: Naturally Occurring Asbestos. Naturally Occurring Asbestos (NOA) has been identified as a toxic air contaminant by
the California Air Resources Board (ARB). Under the ARB Air Toxics Control Measure (ATCM) for Construction, Grading,
Quarrying, and Surface Mining Operations, prior to any grading activities a geologic evaluation shall be conducted to
determine if NOA is present within the area that will be disturbed. If NOA is not present, an exemption request must be filed
with the District. If NOA is found at the site, the applicant must comply with all requirements outlined in the Asbestos
ATCM. This may include development of an Asbestos Dust Mitigation Plan and an Asbestos Health and Safety Program for
approval by the APCD. More information on NOA can be found at http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.asp.
AQ-2: Asbestos Material in Demolition. Demolition activities can have potential negative air quality impacts, including
issues surrounding proper handling, demolition, and disposal of asbestos containing material (ACM). ACMs could be
encountered during demolition or remodeling of existing buildings. Asbestos can also be found in utility pipes/pipelines
(transite pipes or insulation on pipes). If utility pipelines are scheduled for removal or relocation or a building(s) is proposed
to be removed or renovated, various regulatory requirements may apply, including the requirements stipulated in the National
Emission Standard for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40CFR61, Subpart M - asbestos NESHAP). These requirements include but
are not limited to: 1) notification to the APCD, 2) an asbestos survey conducted by a Certified Asbestos Inspector, and, 3)
applicable removal and disposal requirements of identified ACM. More information on Asbestos can be found at
http://www.slocleanair.org/business/asbestos.php.
AQ-3: Developmental Burning. APCD regulations prohibit developmental burning of vegetative material within San Luis
Obispo County.
AQ-4: Permits. Portable equipment and engines 50 horsepower (hp) or greater, used during construction activities will
require California statewide portable equipment registration (issued by the ARB) or an Air District permit. The following list
is provided as a guide to equipment and operations that may have permitting requirements, but should not be viewed as
exclusive: power screens, conveyors, diesel engines, and/or crushers; portable generators and equipment with engines that are
50 hp or greater; internal combustion engines; unconfined abrasive blasting operations; concrete batch plants; rock and
pavement crushing; tub grinders; and, trommel screens.
AQ-5: Standard Mitigation Measures for Construction Equipment. The standard mitigation measures for reducing nitrogen
oxides (NOx), reactive organic gases (ROG), and diesel particulate matter (DPM) emissions from construction equipment are
listed below:
a. Maintain all construction equipment in proper tune according to manufacturer’s specifications;
b. Fuel all off-road and portable diesel powered equipment with ARB certified motor vehicle diesel fuel (non-taxed
version suitable for use off-road);
c. Use diesel construction equipment meeting ARB's Tier 2 certified engines or cleaner off-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State off-Road Regulation;
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 83
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
18
d. Use on-road heavy-duty trucks that meet the ARB’s 2007 or cleaner certification standard for on-road heavy-duty diesel
engines, and comply with the State On-Road Regulation;
e. Construction or trucking companies with fleets that that do not have engines in their fleet that meet the engine standards
identified in the above two measures (e.g. captive or NOx exempt area fleets) may be eligible by proving alternative
compliance;
f. All on and off-road diesel equipment shall not idle for more than 5 minutes. Signs shall be posted in the designated
queuing areas and or job sites to remind drivers and operators of the 5 minute idling limit;
g. Diesel idling within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors is not permitted;
h. Staging and queuing areas shall not be located within 1,000 feet of sensitive receptors;
i. Electrify equipment when feasible;
j. Substitute gasoline-powered in place of diesel-powered equipment, where feasible;
k. Signs that specify no idling areas must be posted and enforced at the site; and,
l. Use alternatively fueled construction equipment on-site where feasible, such as compressed natural gas (CNG),
liquefied natural gas (LNG), propane or biodiesel.
AQ-6: Best Available Control Technology (BACT) for Construction Equipment. If the estimated ozone precursor emissions
from the actual fleet for a given construction phase are expected to exceed the APCD threshold of significance after the
standard mitigation measures are factored into the estimation, then BACT needs to be implemented to further reduce these
impacts. The BACT measures can include:
a. Further reducing emissions by expanding use of Tier 3 and Tier 4 off-road and 2010 on-road compliant engines;
b. Repowering equipment with the cleanest engines available; and
c. Installing California Verified Diesel Emission Control Strategies. These strategies are listed at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/diesel/verdev/vt/cvt.htm
AQ-7: Fugitive Dust Mitigation Measures. Projects with grading areas that are less than 4-acres and that are not within 1,000
feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the following mitigation measures to minimize nuisance impacts and to
significantly reduce fugitive dust emissions:
a. Reduce the amount of the disturbed area where possible;
b. Use of water trucks or sprinkler systems, in sufficient quantities to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site and from
exceeding the APCD’s limit of 20% opacity for greater than 3 minutes in any 60-minute period. Increased watering
frequency would be required whenever wind speeds exceed 15 mph. Reclaimed (non-potable) water should be used
whenever possible. Please note that during drought conditions, water use may be a concern and the contractor or builder
shall consider the use of an APCD-approved dust suppressant where feasible to reduce the amount of water used for
dust control (contact the APCD for a list of potential dust suppressants);
c. All dirt stock-pile areas should be sprayed daily as needed;
d. All roadways, driveways, sidewalks, etc. to be paved should be completed as soon as possible, and building pads should
be laid as soon as possible after grading unless seeding or soil binders are used;
e. All of these fugitive dust mitigation measures shall be shown on grading and building plans; and
f. The contractor or builder shall designate a person or persons to monitor the fugitive dust emissions and enhance the
implementation of the measures as necessary to minimize dust complaints, reduce visible emissions below 20% opacity,
and to prevent transport of dust offsite. Their duties shall include holidays and weekend periods when work may not be
in progress.
g. Projects with grading areas greater than 4 acres or within 1,000 feet of any sensitive receptor shall implement the
measures above, in addition to the following additional mitigation measures to manage fugitive dust emissions such that
they do not exceed the APCD’s 20% opacity limit (APCD Rule 401) or prompt nuisance violations (APCD Rule 402):
1) Permanent dust control measures identified in the approved project revegetation and landscape plans should be
implemented as soon as possible, following completion of any soil disturbing activities;
2) Exposed ground areas that are planned to be reworked at dates greater than one month after initial grading should be
sown with a fast germinating, non-invasive grass seed and watered until vegetation is established;
3) All disturbed soil areas not subject to revegetation should be stabilized using approved chemical soil binders, jute
netting, or other methods approved in advance by the APCD;
4) Vehicle speed for all construction vehicles shall not exceed 15 mph on any unpaved surface at the construction site;
5) All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered or should maintain at least two feet of
freeboard (minimum vertical distance between top of load and top of trailer) in accordance with California Vehicle
Code (CVC) Section 23114;
6) “Track-Out” is defined as sand or soil that adheres to and/or agglomerates on the exterior surfaces of motor vehicles
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 84
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
19
and/or equipment (including tires) that may then fall onto any highway or street as described in CVC Section 23113
and California Water Code 13304. To prevent ‘track out’, designate access points and require all employees,
subcontractors, and others to use them. Install and operate a ‘track-out prevention device’ where vehicles enter and
exit unpaved roads onto paved streets. The ‘track-out prevention device’ can be any device or combination of
devices that are effective at preventing track out, located at the point of intersection of an unpaved area and a paved
road. Rumble strips or steel plate devices need periodic cleaning to be effective. If paved roadways accumulate
tracked out soils, the track-out prevention device may need to be modified;
7) Sweep streets at the end of each day if visible soil material is carried onto adjacent paved roads. Water sweepers
shall be used with reclaimed water where feasible. Roads shall be pre-wetted prior to sweeping when feasible.
d, e) The AASP FEIR, Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and PSSH MND Addendum did not identify any sensitive receptors in
the subject annexation area nor did these documents find any objectional odors would occur as a result of the annexation of
these lands into the City. Identified infrastructure improvements do not include any actions that would generate objectionable
odors. No new sensitive receptors are present within or adjacent to the subject area and future development would occur
consistent with the adopted AASP. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact Upon Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Annexation of the subject area and service to existing uses will not result in changes in ambient air quality conditions in the
vicinity. No new development is included as part of the contemplated service and annexation proposal, and implementation
of infrastructure improvements is subject to the mitigation measures identified above. Future projects would be required to
have independent CEQA review and requirements would be imposed as needed to comply with City and APCD Plans.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of
Fish and Game or US Fish and Wildlife Service?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
c) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marshes, vernal pools, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
wildlife nursery sites?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
3,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 85
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
20
Evaluation
The larger context Airport Area contains the following natural communities: non-native grasslands, including several large
patches of valley needlegrass grassland; and a matrix of coyote brush scrub, open water, freshwater marsh and seasonal
wetland, riparian woodland and scrub, agricultural fields, and developed and ruderal areas (Figure 3C-1 and Table 3C-2;
AASP FEIR). The larger area analyzed in the FEIR comprised some 404 acres. The subject annexation comprises a smaller
subset of approximately 59 acres. The specific habitat type noted in the FEIR for this area is annual grasslands. As noted in
the FEIR, none of the smaller subset of subject properties represent a significant sensitive resource area. The adopted MNDs
for Tract 2368, S/G, and PSSH note the presence of non-native grassland habitat, and the results of a botanical survey noted
that no sensitive or special-status species are present within the subject area. On and off-site infrastructure improvements are
limited to areas with existing development, infrastructure, and ground disturbance (i.e. sidewalks, roadways, bridge, utility
corridors). Infrastructure improvements associated with the annexation include the installation of approximately 2,100 feet of
eight-inch recycled water main in Broad Street from Tank Farm Road to Aerovista, which includes an approximately 100-
foot section to be suspended from the bridge crossing Upper Fork East Branch, San Luis Obispo Creek, consistent with the
City’s Recycled Water Master Plan. No ground disturbance, vegetation removal, or direct impacts to the creek are proposed.
a, b, d) Based on the results of biological surveys and analysis conducted for previously-adopted MNDs, no modifications to
established habitat areas or direct impacts to special-status species or wildlife corridors would result from the annexation of
the subject properties and implementation of infrastructure improvements within the East Airport area. Infrastructure
improvements would be located within urbanized and developed areas, and a majority of the required infrastructure would
not impact any sensitive habitat or species. No modifications to existing stormwater basins are proposed.
As noted above, the project includes the installation of a recycled water line to be suspended from an existing bridge crossing
the Upper Fork East Branch, San Luis Obispo Creek. This section of the creek supports dense riparian vegetation and is
surrounded by existing development along Broad Street. The creek traverses urban development both up and downstream of
the existing bridge. Species potentially present within the riparian corridor include: Coast range newt, California red-legged
frog, Western pond turtle, silvery legless lizard, two-striped garter snake, and steelhead trout. The creek corridor may also
provide nesting and foraging habitat for avian (bird) species adapted to the surrounding urban environment. Based on the
proposed installation method for the recycled water line, which would not require any direct impacts to the riparian corridor,
potential impacts to special-status species would be indirect, and can be mitigated to less than significant through
implementation of the following measures:
Mitigation Measure
BR-1 Prior to installation of the recycled water main on the Broad Street bridge, the project proponent shall prepare and
implement a Biological Mitigation Plan that identifies construction-related staging and maintenance areas and includes
construction best management practices (BMPs) to avoid or minimize impacts to biological resources, including all measures
needed to protect riparian woodland and avoid accidental discharge of fuels and/or materials into the creek. Such BMPs shall
include (but not be limited to) the following:
a. Prior to construction activities associated with the installation of a recycled water line on the Broad Street bridge, the
project proponent shall retain a qualified biologist to ensure implementation of required biological mitigation measures.
b. The Plan shall include the use of debris netting to avoid accidental spill of materials into the creek corridor. The debris
netting shall be installed prior to installation of the recycled water line on the bridge and shall not be removed until the
installation of the recycled water line is complete.
c. Prior to construction activities, the project area shall be clearly flagged or fenced so that the contractor is aware of the
limits of allowable site access, which shall not include areas within the bed or bank of the creek.
d. Prior to the commencement of construction activities, the qualified biologist shall prepare and deliver a worker
orientation and training program for all construction staff. This program shall include information on the protection of
riparian habitat, special-status aquatic species, and avian species. The training shall also include any applicable
regulatory policies and provisions regarding species protection and minimization measures to be implemented.
e. A biological monitor shall be present during the recycled water line installation on the bridge, and shall have the
authority to stop or redirect work as needed to protect biological resources. Prior to initiation of daily construction
activities, and periodically during installation of the recycled water line on the bridge, the biological monitor shall
survey the creek within 100 feet of the bridge. In the event any special-status species is present, construction activities
shall cease until the biological monitor has determined that the special-status species is no longer present within 100
feet of the project site. If nesting birds are present within 500 feet of the project site, no operation of heavy equipment
shall occur until the birds have fledged and left the nest.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 86
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
21
f. Construction shall occur during daylight hours (7:00 AM to 7:00 PM or sunset, whichever is sooner) to avoid impacts
to nocturnal and crepuscular (dawn and dusk activity period) species.
g. No storage or fueling of equipment shall occur within 100 feet of the edge of riparian vegetation. Pallets or secondary
containment areas for chemicals, drums, or bagged materials shall be provided. Should material spills occur, materials
and/or contaminants shall be cleaned from the Project site and recycled or disposed of to the satisfaction of the
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).
h. All trash and construction debris shall be picked up and properly disposed at the end of each day.
c) There are no protected wetlands identified within the subject annexation area by the AASP FEIR, Tract 2368 MND, S/G
MND, or PSSH MND Addendum. No removal, filling, hydrological interruptions or other direct impacts to wetland habitat
are proposed with the annexation and infrastructure improvements noted herein. Therefore, potential impacts would be less
than significant.
e) The AASP FEIR, Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, or PSSH MND Addendum did not identify any significant or sensitive
biological resources located within the subject annexation area. No tree removal or other potentially adverse modifications
to the lands are proposed by the annexation. The proposed infrastructure improvements would be conducted consistent with
the AASP FEIR and the City’s Municipal Code. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant, and no
mitigation measures are required.
f) There are no adopted Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans that identify or address the subject area. Based on
the land use category and zoning identified in the City’s General Plan and AASP (services and manufacturing, service
commercial), lack of sensitive habitat within the project area (with the exception of the Broad Street bridge creek crossing
noted above), and implementation of mitigation (BR-1) to avoid or minimize potential indirect impacts to the creek, the
proposed annexation and implementation of infrastructure improvements would be consistent with the City’s Conservation
and Open Space Element.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures.
As noted in the County Environmental Determinations applicable to the subject annexation area (ref. Sources 12, 13 and 25)
and accompanying Biological Studies for the site, the annexation area does not contain any significant biological
communities. Based on the location of the proposed annexation and associated pre-annexation infrastructure improvements,
and implementation of identified mitigation measures, the project would not adversely affect biological resources.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
3,10
11,12
13,25
X
b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource? (See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5)
3,10
11,12
13,25
X
c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
3,10
11,12
13,25
X
d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
3,10
11,12
13,25
X
Evaluation
The AASP FEIR noted that at that time, multiple field surveys had been conducted within the larger Airport Area and with
the exception of a historic building near Buckley Road, no cultural resources were noted in the area. The AASP FEIR
provides that any work conducted in areas where surveys have not been done shall include such surveys into their project
planning and development. To the extent that road and utility installations occur within previously disturbed areas, it is
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 87
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
22
unlikely that any potential significant impacts to resources may occur. As is the case with all public works projects, in the
event of unforeseen encounter of materials suspected to be of cultural significance, established protocols include suspending
work pending more detailed review and consultation over such finds/findings.
In addition, as documented in the Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and PSSH MND Addendum, previous studies conducted in
the subject area including a Phase I surface survey have not identified the presence of significant historical or cultural
resources in the subject area.
Native American Tribes have been notified about the project consistent with City and State regulations. The Northern
Chumash Tribal Council (February 8, 2019) has noted that the existence of development and infrastructure within the
annexation area does not preclude the presence of cultural resources. No evidence has been provided that would suggest any
known resources are located within the subject annexation area.
a, b, c, d) Based on the certified AASP FEIR and adopted MNDs noted above, no cultural resources were documented within
the subject area. Infrastructure improvements would occur within existing roadways, sidewalks, and utility corridors. In the
unlikely event of resource discovery, City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
Section 4.60.1 requires that all construction activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community
Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. In addition, the conditions
of approval for the People’s Self-help Housing Conditional Use Permit (County Exhibit B-2 Conditional Use Permit
Conditions) includes a mitigation measure requiring that in the event of a discovery, construction activities shall cease, local
agencies shall be contacted, and the resource shall be evaluated (see CR-1, below, with clarification to include historic and
paleontological resources, and to identify the current CEQA lead agency). Based on the results of cultural resource studies
within the subject area, location of infrastructure improvements, and compliance with adopted Guidelines and the adopted
mitigation measure in place to protect cultural resources upon inadvertent and unlikely discovery, potential impacts would be
less than significant.
Mitigation Measure
CR-1: Unanticipated cultural resource discovery. In the event archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources are
unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the Community Development Director shall be notified so that the extent and
location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be
accomplished in accordance with state and federal law, and in consultation with local Native American tribal
organizations.
b. In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are
discovered during construction, the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the Community Development
Director so that proper disposition may be accomplished.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Based on documentation noted above, the annexation area does not contain evidence of cultural resources. Mitigation is
identified, which would be required during implementation of infrastructure improvements. Therefore, potential impacts to
cultural resources as a result of implementation of infrastructure improvements as described in the Pre-annexation Agreement
would be less than significant.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including risk of loss, injury or death involving:
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated in the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area, or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 88
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
23
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. 25
II. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25
X
III. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25
X
IV. Landslides or mudflows? 3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25
X
b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? 3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25,28
X
c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslides, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction, or collapse?
3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25,28
X
d) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the
Uniform Building Code (1994), creating substantial risks to life
or property?
3,10,
11,12,
13,14,
16,17,
25
X
e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of wastewater?
3,10,
11,12,
13,25
X
Evaluation:
San Luis Obispo lies within the southern Coast Range Geomorphic Provence, between the Central California Valley and
Pacific Ocean. Rock types in the San Luis Obispo area are mainly comprised of volcanic, metavolcanics, and melanges of
serpentinite and graywacke sandstone. These rocks are highly fractured and are part of the Mesozoic aged Franciscan
Formation. The predominant northwest-southeast trending structures of the Coast Range Province are related to the San
Andreas Fault Transform Boundary. According to the Geologic Map of California, San Luis Obispo Sheet published by the
California Division of Mines and Geology (CDMG) in 1978, the site vicinity is underlain by the Franciscan Formation and
Tertiary intrusive rocks. The nearest fault mapped in the site vicinity by Jennings (1994) is the Edna Fault, which is actually
a fault zone that lies approximately 1-2 miles to the northwest of the project site. This fault zone generally trends along the
northern flank of the Irish Hills.
Certified FEIRs for the AASP and LUCE Update note that for the general conditions in the subject area, individual geologic
studies are required to consider any proposed development projects. These studies have not identified specific areas within
the AASP that would be prohibited from development due to geologic conditions or significant adverse conditions; this
determination is consistent with the adopted MNDs for Tract 2368 (the East Airport area subdivision) and Senn-Glick
development project, and the People’s Self-help Housing project MND Addendum. Detailed geologic analysis specific to
any future proposed site or development would be provided consistent with city regulations to identify potential impacts and
mitigation measures accordingly as build-out occurs consistent with the AASP.
a) The subject annexation property has not been identified to be subject to significant seismic constraints in the AASP FEIR.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 89
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
24
Based on this, no significant impacts related to seismic activity, landslides, or mudflow would occur during implementation
of infrastructure improvements, and future analysis for project specific development will be conducted to analyze such
potential impacts as appropriate with new development, as required by the California Building Code.
b, c, d, e) The action of annexation will not result in physical impacts on the environment, with the exception of infrastructure
improvements identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement. Based on the location of infrastructure improvements, which
would occur in areas with existing roads, sidewalks, and utility corridors, and compliance with erosion and stormwater
control measures as dictated by the City’s Municipal Code, Waterway Management Plan, and Standard Specifications and
Engineering Standards (May 2018), potential impacts related to soil erosion, expansive soils, or unstable geologic soils
conditions would be less than significant. No septic tanks are proposed as part of the annexation area, as existing and future
development would connect to City sewer infrastructure.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact
Infrastructure improvements would occur within the locations of existing infrastructure, including roadways, sidewalks, and
utility corridors. Based on required compliance with the California Building Code, City’s Municipal Code, and the City’s
Standard Specifications and Engineering Standards, potential impacts related to geology and soils would be less than
significant.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
3,8,9
10,11,
18, 19
X
b) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases.
3,8,9
10,11,
18, 19
X
Evaluation
In response to an increase in man-made greenhouse gas (GHG) concentrations over the past 150 years, California has
implemented legislation to reduce statewide emissions. Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32) codifies the Statewide goal of reducing
emissions to 1990 levels by 2020 (essentially a 15% reduction below 2005 emission levels) and the adoption of regulations to
require reporting and verification of statewide GHG emissions. Senate Bill 32 (SB 32) extends AB 32, requiring the State to
further reduce GHGs to 40 percent below 1990 levels by 2030. On December 14, 2017, the California Air Resources Board
(ARB) adopted the 2017 Scoping Plan, which provides a framework for achieving the 2030 statewide target set by SB 32.
The 2017 Scoping Plan does not provide project-level thresholds for land use development. Instead, it recommends that local
governments adopt policies and locally-appropriate quantitative thresholds consistent with a statewide per capita goal of six
metric tons (MT) CO2e by 2030 and two MT CO2e by 2050 (ARB 2017). As stated in the 2017 Scoping Plan, these goals
may be appropriate for plan-level analyses (city, county, sub-regional, or regional level), but not for specific individual
projects because they include all emissions sectors in the State. The vast majority of individual projects do not generate
sufficient GHG emissions to directly influence climate change. However, physical changes caused by a project can contribute
incrementally to cumulative effects that are significant, even if individual changes resulting from a project are limited. The
issue of climate change typically involves an analysis of whether a project’s contribution towards an impact would be
cumulatively considerable. “Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of an individual project are
significant when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, other current projects, and probable future projects
(CEQA Guidelines, Section 15064[h][1]).
a, b) The action of annexation would not result in the generation of GHGs. Construction-related emissions would occur
during the implementation of infrastructure improvements; however, these emissions would be short-term, and based on the
limited scope of the action, would not have a significant impact on the environment or impair the achievement of GHGs by
2050. Furthermore, compliance with mitigation measures identified in Section 3 (Air Quality) would reduce the project’s
contribution to air emissions during construction of infrastructure improvements. The LUCE EIR, which evaluated build-out
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 90
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
25
of the City, determined that adherence to the City’s General Plan and Climate Action Plan would reduce any GHG impacts,
including build-out of Specific Plan areas (such as the AASP). Regarding future build-out of the annexation area, future
development subject to the AASP and City Zoning Regulations may result in more square-footage of development than what
is currently allowed under County jurisdiction; however, future development would be subject to updated Building Codes
(such as the Green Building Code) that would reduce operational emissions beyond what was originally anticipated in the
AASP and LUCE Update, and noted County MNDs for projects within the subject area.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact
Annexation of the subject area would not result in development exceeding the scope of the AASP, the action will not result in
changes to GHG emissions generated by existing uses, and future development would be subject to the California Building
Code (including the Green Building Code) and further analysis pursuant to the AASP and City’s Climate Action Plan. No
new development is included as part of the annexation proposal, and implementation of infrastructure improvements would
not generate significant levels of greenhouse gas emissions due to the short-term nature of the action, and compliance with
noted air quality mitigation measures.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
22,23,
25
X
b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
20,21,
22,23,
25
X
c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
22,23,
25
X
d) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, it would create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
20,21,
22,23,
25
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
22,25
X
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
22,25
X
g) Impair implementation of, or physically interfere with, the
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
25
X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 91
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
26
h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death, involving wildland fires, including where wildlands
are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are
intermixed with wildlands?
1,2,10
11,12
13,14,
22,25
X
Evaluation
The subject annexation area and area to be affected by infrastructure improvements are located on the eastern edge of the San
Luis Obispo County Regional Airport, on the east side of Broad Street (State Route 227). Previous studies conducted for the
AASP FEIR and LUCE Update FEIR acknowledge significant contamination of soils within the Airport Area as a result of
the Unocal Tank Farm lightning strike and fire, almost 90 years ago (1926). Ongoing remediation efforts and planning have
been actively underway since the late 1980’s along Tank Farm Road. The subject annexation area does not fall within the
documented contaminated areas from these prior studies, and the adopted Tract 2368 MND, S/G MND, and People’s Self-
help Housing MND Addendum for the approved subdivision and development of the area did not document the presence of
hazardous materials. In addition, based on review of the GeoTracker and Envirostor databases, no hazardous material sites
are located within areas proposed for infrastructure improvements or within the annexation area.
The project site is located within the boundaries of the AASP, which was reviewed and approved by the Airport Land Use
Commission. The annexation area is located within Airport Safety Zones S-1a, S-1b, and S-1-c. Following annexation, future
development would be subject to development limitations and standards identified in the AASP and Zoning Regulations
Chapter 17.64 (Airport [AOZ] Overlay Zone), which are required to ensure compatibility with existing and future airport
operations, and to prohibit the establishment of incompatible uses and further expansion of incompatible uses what could
detrimentally affect long-term economic viability of the airport, and to avoid or minimize exposure of persons to potential
hazards associated with current and future airport operations.
a, b) The proposed annexation will not create a hazard to the public as there will be no transport, use or disposal of hazardous
chemicals permitted by the annexation action. Implementation of infrastructure improvements would consist of standard
construction practices and would not involve the use or storage of large quantities of hazardous materials. Small quantities of
potentially hazardous materials such as fuels, lubricants, and solvents would be used during construction of the project.
California Health and Safety Code, Division 20, Chapter 6.5, and California Code of Regulations Title 22 – Hazardous Waste
Management states that waste that is toxic, corrosive, flammable, or reactive when tested in accordance with the California
Code of Regulations, Title 22, Article 11, Section 66693, must be handled, stored, transported, and disposed of in accordance
with these regulations, which are more stringent than federal regulations. The transport of materials during the construction
of the project could pose a threat to residents and people in the area. An accident involving such trucks could potentially
expose nearby people to health hazards. However, U.S. EPA and U.S. Department of Transportation laws and regulations
have been promulgated to track and manage the safe interstate transportation of hazardous materials and waste. U.S. EPA
administers permitting, tracking, reporting, and operations requirements established by the Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act (RCRA). U.S. Department of Transportation regulates the transportation of hazardous materials through
implementation of the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act. This act administers container design, labelling, and driver
training requirements. State and local agencies enforce the application of these acts and provide coordination of safety and
mitigation responses in the case that accidents involving hazardous materials occur. Enforcement of these regulations and
rapid response by local agencies would ensure that hazards to the public or environment through reasonably foreseeable upset
and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment are less than significant. In
addition, the project would be required to adhere to all federal, state, and local regulations, as well as the policies in the City
of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, which discuss safety and reducing the risks of hazardous material exposure. Program 9.6
of the City’s Safety Element states that the City shall ensure that transportation of hazardous materials follows Caltrans-
approved routes, and that all necessary safety precautions are taken to prevent hazardous material spills. Therefore, based on
the limited scope and location of the infrastructure improvements and compliance with existing regulations, potential impacts
would be less than significant.
c) No hazardous emissions would be permitted by the annexation and there is not a school located within ½ mile of the
annexation area or location of infrastructure improvements. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
d) The subject annexation and infrastructure improvement areas are not located on a designated hazardous site nor listed to
include materials that would represent a significant hazard to the public. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 92
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
27
e) The property is located near the Regional Airport but the continued operation of existing uses, and any proposals for new
uses following annexation, must be consistent with City General Plan, Zoning Regulations, and AASP (which was reviewed
and approved by the Airport Land Use Commission). Application of those standards will prevent development within the
subject annexation area from becoming a hazard to airport operations. Implementation of infrastructure improvements would
not result in the creation of any features or involve any activities that would result in a hazard related to air traffic. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
f) The property is not located near a private airstrip; therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
g) The subject annexation area will be subject to San Luis Obispo city emergency response and evacuation plans.
Annexation of this area and implementation of infrastructure improvements will not impair the ability of the city to
implement its designated plans and exercise its public safety responsibilities in the area. Therefore, potential impacts would
be less than significant.
h) The subject annexation area and areas identified for infrastructure improvements are located within a low fire hazard area,
as identified on the City’s Safety Element Wildland Fire Hazard Map, and the area consists of a largely developed industrial
area, which does not contain wildland fuels that could expose persons to significant risk from wildland fires. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact.
Annexation of the subject area would not result in development exceeding the scope of the AASP, and future development
would be subject to existing regulations and limitations identified in the AASP and City Zoning Regulations. No new
development is included as part of the annexation proposal, and implementation of infrastructure improvements would not
result in any significant impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,25,
28
X
b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. The production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses for which permits have been granted)?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,25,
28
X
c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or
siltation onsite or offsite?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,25,
28
X
d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding
onsite or offsite?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,25,
28
X
e) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,25,
28
X
f) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? 1,3,
10,11, X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 93
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
28
12,13,
25,28
g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped
on a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate
Map or other flood hazard delineation map?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,14,
25,28
X
h) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,14,
25,28
X
i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury
or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
1,3,10
11,12,
13,14,
25,28
X
j) Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow? 1,3,10
11,12,
13,25
X
Evaluation
The principal drainage for the Airport Area is the East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek, which joins San Luis Obispo Creek
southwest of the project area. Drainage from the Airport area is collected into Tank Farm Creek and the East Branch San
Luis Obispo Creek approximately two miles west of the East Airport area. Drainage travels through the area on a generally
southwesterly course until the East Branch San Luis Obispo Creek joins San Luis Obispo Creek. The nearest creeks and
tributaries are approximately 600 feet to the north/northeast of the annexation area. The annexation area is not located within
any flood zones. The stormwater basins and associated stormwater infrastructure located within the annexation area would
remain.
a, f) As analyzed in the AASP FEIR and adopted MNDs for Tract 2368, the S/G development, and Addendum for the
People’s Self-help Housing project, potential impacts related to stormwater and water quality concerns are addressed by
imposing established permit activity requirements, such as the State Water Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) construction activity stormwater permit and best management practices (BMPs). The AASP and City
requirements (including the Municipal Code, the Waterway Management Plan, and City Engineering Standards), impose
these analyses and permitting requirements before allowing projects to proceed. Such analysis would be undertaken as
required by the AASP for any future development project within the subject annexation area. As the annexation action does
not include physical development beyond infrastructure improvements, and construction activities associated with
infrastructure improvements would be subject to existing erosion control and water quality regulations, potential impacts
would be less than significant and no mitigation is required.
b) The annexation action and construction of infrastructure improvements as identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement
would not require the use of wells resulting in groundwater extraction; therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
c, d) No alteration of drainage patterns is permitted or proposed by the subject annexation and infrastructure improvements.
No siltation or other alterations of drainage patterns will be permitted with the annexation. Therefore, potential impacts
would be less than significant.
e) The proposed annexation and infrastructure improvements would not create or contribute runoff water which would
exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted
runoff because no new impervious surfaces would be created. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
g, h, i, j) The subject area is not located within a mapped flood zone, or in a location at risk of seiche, tsunami, or mudflows;
therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 94
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
29
The proposed annexation of the existing uses in the East Airport area and implementation of infrastructure improvements
would not result in significant impacts related to hydrology or flood hazards, because no development is associated with the
action, and infrastructure improvements conducted pursuant to City Engineering Standards would be located within existing
roadways, sidewalks, bridge, and utility corridors. Future build-out of the annexation area would be subject to the AASP and
City regulations regarding water quality and stormwater.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Physically divide an established community? 1,3,
10, 11 X
b) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of
an agency with jurisdiction over the project adopted for the
purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1,3,
10, 11 X
c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural
community conservation plans?
1,3,
10,
11,14
X
Evaluation
The area is designated for service and manufacturing uses under the General Plan and AASP. Annexation of the East Airport
area was anticipated in the AASP, which identified pre-zoning for the site (service commercial) at the time the AASP was
adopted. The proposed annexation does not include any changes to the identified land use designation or zoning. The City
LUE notes that the purpose and application of the Services and Manufacturing land use designation is to provide “for a wide
range of service and manufacturing uses to meet the needs of the city and some demands of the region.”
a) The subject annexation area is located within a largely developed area proximate to the Regional Airport, and immediately
southeast of San Luis Obispo City Limits. The subject area is a continuation of development surrounding the general vicinity
and the annexation of the site would bring it officially into the City Limits as anticipated and planned for in the AASP
without modifying any of the current land uses of the area. The annexation will not physically divide this established
community, as it is currently included in the AASP and associated long-term planning maps for the area. Therefore, no
impact would occur.
b) As noted in the AASP FEIR, the subject annexation is consistent with City policies established under the General Plan and
AASP and complies with the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Plan (ALUP). No changes to pre-zoning or land use
categories are proposed. The proposed annexation is consistent with applicable land use planning documents for the area.
Existing uses that are non-conforming would be subject to the City’s Legal Non-conforming regulations in the Zoning Code.
The Pre-annexation Agreement addresses continuation of an existing government office use, and notes that “the existing use
or subsequent non-conforming uses may be replaced with an ‘Office-Government’ use as long as the new use has similar or
less severe impacts on its surroundings in terms of noise, traffic, parking demand, hours of operation, and visual
incompatibility compared to the immediate prior use, as determined by the Director pursuant to Chapter 17.108 of the City
Municipal Code [Director’s Action], with the exception of Section 17.108.020 which shall not limit the application of this
Section of this Agreement.” A proposed Ordinance to address allowing non-conforming uses to remain and/or be replaced by
similar uses, at the discretion of the Community Development Director is a component of the proposed annexation.
Conditions under which this discretion may be exercised includes (i) waiving the municipal code provision that ceasing such
uses for periods of 12 months or more would not automatically invoke prohibitions on reestablishing the prior use or similar
uses, and/or (ii) substituting new non-conforming office-government uses do not contribute to greater environmental impacts
than the previous use (Attachment 4). Therefore, existing uses that would be annexed into the City would not result in any
land use inconsistency resulting in a significant impact.
c) As noted in Section 4 (Biological Resources) there are no Habitat or Natural Community Conservation Plans applicable to
the subject property.
Conclusion: Less than significant Impact.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 95
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
30
The proposed annexation is consistent with the AASP, which anticipated annexation of this area. No changes to approved
pre-zoning or land use categories, as identified in the AASP, are proposed. The proposed annexation is consistent with
adopted plans, and the proposed infrastructure improvements are consistent with City Engineering Standards.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
1,3,
10,11
X
b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
1,3,
10,11
X
Evaluation
The properties subject to the annexation are located in an urbanized area bounded by Farmhouse Lane, Kendall Road and
State Route 227. There are no known mineral resources in the area, and there has not been any mining or mineral extraction
uses of the subject properties.
a, b) Based on the location of the proposed annexation and infrastructure improvements, no impact to mineral resources
would occur.
Conclusion: No Impact.
Based on the lack of mineral resources within the subject area, no impact to mineral resources would occur.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
1,3,
10,11,
12,13,
16,24,
25
X
b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne
vibration or ground-borne noise levels?
1,3,
10,11,
12,13,
1624,
25
X
c) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
1,3,
10,11,
12,13,
16,24,
25
X
d) A substantial temporary, periodic, or permanent increase in
ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing
without the project?
1,3,
10,11,
12,13,
16,24,
25
X
e) For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where 1,3, X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 96
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
31
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise
levels?
10,11,
12,13,
16,24,
25
f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
1,3,
10,11,
12,13,
16,24
X
Evaluation
Noise-sensitive land uses are those land uses that can be adversely affected by elevated or increased noise levels. Sensitive
land uses generally include residences, schools, libraries, nursing homes, and churches. The primary sources of noise within
the subject area include traffic on Broad Street (State Route 227), the Union Pacific Railroad, which carries freight and
passenger trains, and aircraft operating in and out of the Regional Airport. Stationary noise sources include the day-to-day
activities associated with the existing land uses in the proposed annexation area.
The subject annexation area is designated for service and manufacturing uses under the General Plan and AASP. Potentially
sensitive receptors include existing offices in the area. Noise generation occurs most significantly from roadway traffic on
Broad Street (State Route 227). Noise from nearby airport operations occurs on an intermittent basis. Increases in traffic or
airport operations will cause incremental increases in background ambient noise levels. As indicated in Table 3F-3 of the
AASP FEIR, properties within 100 feet of Broad Street (State Route 227) are predicted to be exposed to traffic noise levels
that exceed the planning standard of 60 dBA-Ldn. More current noise contour modeling conducted for the LUCE Update
EIR show that upon City buildout, the noise level 50 feet from the roadway centerline would be 71 decibels.
a, b, c, d) The LUCE Update FEIR models a noise level of approximately 71 dB within 50 feet of the Broad Street centerline
(transportation-related noise). As documented in the LUCE Update EIR Background Report and County Airport Land Use
Plan, the annexation area is located with the 60 dB noise contour. The AASP FEIR identified potential impacts due to
exposure to traffic noise (Impact N-1: Exposure of Land Uses to Traffic Noise in Excess of the Standards for Exterior Noise
Exposure specified in Table 3F-1; Impact N-2: Increase in Permanent or Temporary Ambient Noise Levels as Indicated in
Table 3F-3, Substantial Increases in Noise Would Occur Along Some Roadways) and aircraft noise (Impact N-3: Exposure of
Residential uses to Aircraft Noise). The AASP FEIR determined that implementation of mitigation measures identified in the
City’s Noise Element would mitigate impacts related to noise exposure to less than significant.
Implementation of identified infrastructure improvements would be short-term, and limited to areas within existing roadways,
sidewalks, and utility corridors. Implementation of the annexation would not result in any long-term increase in noise.
Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
While the annexation action does not permit or approve future development, discretionary review of future projects would
occur, and would be subject to the requirements of the City’s Municipal Code, including Chapter 17.74 (Zoning Regulations,
Airport Overlay Zone, Noise) and Chapter 9.12 (Noise Control), consistent with the AASP FEIR. The Tract Map 2368 MND,
S/G MND, and People’s Self-help Housing MND Addendum identify similar potential noise impacts for lots proximate to
Broad Street, and include mitigation that requires a noise study if a sensitive use is proposed that would be affected by
transportation-related noise, or if future uses would include loud, noise generating equipment, similar to what is required by
existing City regulations.
e) Existing background noise conditions include instantaneous increases from airport operations. The County’s ALUP,
AASP, and AASP FEIR recognize the need to minimize noise generation, while balancing the viability of the airport with
local land uses. On-going operations at the County airport consistent with present regulations will continue to minimize
conflicts between nearby and adjoining uses. Increases in noise levels as analyzed by the AASP FEIR, Tract Map 2368
MND, S/G MND, and People’s Self-help Housing MND Addendum did not find these conditions to be adverse and
unavoidable. Instead the AASP FEIR acknowledged various building and site planning techniques, along with land use
restrictions, that have been incorporated into the AASP, and the County MNDs note that acoustical treatment of buildings
would mitigate potential noise exposure from aircraft. While the proposed action does not include development of land uses,
future development would be subject to mitigation requirements identified in the City’s Noise Element and Municipal Code,
which regulate noise exposure. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 97
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
32
f) The subject site is not located in the vicinity of a private airstrip; therefore, impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less than Significant Impact
The proposed annexation is consistent with the AASP, which anticipated annexation of this area. No changes to approved
pre-zoning or land use categories, as identified in the AASP, are proposed. The proposed annexation is consistent with
adopted plans, and future development would be subject to existing regulations regarding noise exposure and noise
attenuation. Implementation of infrastructure improvements would be short-term, and based on compliance with the
Municipal Code, would not result in significant noise impacts.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
1,2,3 X
b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing or people
necessitating the construction of replacement housing
elsewhere?
1,3 X
c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
construction of replacement housing elsewhere? 1,3 X
Evaluation
The AASP and City General Plan designate the subject annexation area for services and manufacturing uses. These uses
would not include residential occupancies of the area. These designations preclude new residential growth, or displacement
of existing housing, within the subject annexation area.
a-c) The proposed annexation will not result in new residential development or the relocation of existing housing within the
annexation area. Only new uses consistent with the AASP and General Plan would be permitted. Implementation of the
annexation would be consistent with the AASP and General Plan, and would therefore not induce substantial population
growth.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
The proposed annexation would be implemented as anticipated in the AASP, and no residential uses exist or are allowed
within the area.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision, or need, of new or physically altered government facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times, or other
performance objectives for any of the public services:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Fire protection? 1,3
6, 10,
11, 14
X
b) Police protection? 1,3
6,10, X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 98
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
33
11,14
c) Schools? 1,3
6,10,
11,14
X
d) Parks? 1,3
6,10,
11,14
X
e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? 1,3
6,10,
11,14
X
f) Other public facilities? 1,3
6,10,
11,14
X
Evaluation
The project area is currently served by the County Sheriff and County Fire/California Department of Forestry (CDF). There
is also a mutual aid agreement between the County and City for fire service response. The project area is within the San Luis
Coastal School District.
a) Fire protection for the subject annexation area would be provided by the nearest staffed City Station #1 located at 2160
Santa Barbara Avenue and the County Fire/CDF Station #21 at the airport runway. Response times to and within the
annexation area are considered four minutes or less, based on LUCE EIR Figure 4.13-1 (Fire Department Four-Minute
Response Times), which meets the City’s Safety Element response time standard of four minutes. The AASP provides that
the City will consider increases to staffing subject to budgetary analysis and overall city needs. The AASP notes that interim
improvements may be provided at the Chevron and Avila Ranch development areas until permanent facilities are available.
The City has completed the creation of a Community Facilities District (CFD) in association with the Avila Ranch
development project (also located within the AASP) to facilitate funding for a new fire station in the area, in response to
approval of the Avila Ranch development project. The CFD is limited to the Avila Ranch development area, and does not
include the annexation site. As noted above, the annexation area is located within the four-minute response time range;
therefore, the annexation does not necessitate the need for a new facility. The AASP FEIR, AASP, and the proposed Plan for
Services and Pre-annexation Agreement for this proposed annexation address fire service needs for this area of the City, and
do not identify additional infrastructure needs beyond upgrades to existing fire hydrants and hose connections. Therefore,
implementation of the proposed annexation would not result in a significant impact to fire services, such that construction of
a new facility would be required. Regarding future build-out, development would contribute to the cumulative demand for
fire protection services, and future development would be subject to Citywide Fire impact fees, which will contribute towards
the renovation of existing fire stations, the construction of a new fire station, and replacement of vehicles and equipment
needs to serve the City.
b) The City Police Department currently provides mutual aid response to the proposed annexation area. The LUCE EIR
determined that buildout of the General Plan, including buildout of the AASP, would increase the demand for police
protection services by increasing population and development in the City, resulting in a less than significant impact (Impact
PS-2). The LUCE EIR notes that if a substantial number of officers are hired in the future, reconfiguration, reconstruction, or
new construction of facilities may be needed to accommodate them. Potential changes in needs for the City Police
Department staffing plan are considered as part of overall standard Citywide budget priorities. Implementation of the
annexation would not result in new dwelling units or directly increase the City’s population, and based on the level of
existing and future development, would not warrant construction of a new police facility. Regarding the annexation’s
contribution to a cumulative demand for police services, the City has a system of required developer impact fees and
dedications established to address direct demand for new facilities associated with new development, while potential
increases in property tax revenue associated with valuation of new businesses and other revenues (e.g., sales tax) would help
offset the increased ongoing cost of provision of public services. Regarding future build-out, development would contribute
to the cumulative demand for Police services, and future development would be subject to Citywide Police impact fees,
which will contribute towards the construction of a new Police Department Headquarters and new vehicles to serve the City.
c, d) No direct impacts from the proposed annexation are anticipated for existing schools and parks in the area as no
residential population will occur within the annexation area. The MND adopted by the County for Tract 2368 and the S/G
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 99
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
34
development noted that future development would be subject to Public Facility Fees, of which a portion goes towards the
acquisition and improvement of parks. Regardless of jurisdiction, new residential, commercial, and industrial development
projects require payment of school district developer fees, which address each project’s cumulative contribution towards
impacts on public schools.
Regarding future build-out, future development would result in an increase in the number of jobs in the City, which may
increase demand on parks and potentially on schools if new employees relocate to the City. This potential contribution to a
cumulative impact on parkland and schools would be addressed through the payment of Citywide Parkland In-lieu and
development impact fees, required for new residential development, and school district developer fees, required for both
residential and commercial/industrial projects.
e) Roads and transportation infrastructure are addressed in Section 16 below.
f) Utility services for the annexation areas will be connected to existing City services at multiple locations. Public water
service will be connected to the Terrace Pressure Zone at the intersection of Broad Street and Fuller Road, or at such other
location as may be approved by the Utilities Director following detailed engineering designs by the applicants. Pressure
reducing systems, hydrants, air release valves and other improvements will be completed as provided with the detailed
Project Description under the Pre-Annexation Agreement and Plan For Services attachments to this Initial Study. Recycled
water will be extended to the East Airport Annexation area from Broad at Tank Farm in and along Broad Street. Wastewater
service for the annexation area is presently provided by the FLWC. Upon annexation and completion of the improvements
referred to herein, the gravity wastewater system will be converted to interconnect with a gravity collection line in Broad
Street, and from there is conveyed to the City’s WRRF. The force main and lift station currently serving the area would be
abandoned. The timing of this work is contingent on the decommissioning of the FLWC wastewater treatment plant
following the connections of the various properties in the West Airport annexation area. These extensions will occur within
established streets and rights-of-way and will involve no significant potential for adverse impacts to the Utility systems of the
City.
Other public services, such as transit, solid waste and recycling and general city administrative services are not considered to
be significantly impacted by the addition of the subject annexation area, based on the project’s consistency with the AASP
and General Plan.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Based on the inclusion of the items noted above in the Project Description, and attached Plan For Services, and pursuant to
the direction of the Pre-annexation Agreement, the completion of the identified infrastructure improvements will adequately
address infrastructure needs upon annexation. Any potential effects on the environment as a result of the completion of these
infrastructure improvements are addressed in this Initial Study.
15. RECREATION. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or
other recreational facilities such that substantial physical
deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated?
1,3,
10,11,
14
X
b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or
expansion of recreational facilities, which might have an
adverse physical effect on the environment?
1,3,
10,11,
14
X
Evaluation
a, b) The annexation of the project area and existing uses would result in less than significant impacts from new or increased
residential demands for added parks and recreation services because there are no residential zones within the proposed
annexation area. As noted in Section 14 there will be no significant demands for school or parks and recreation services
based on annexation of the subject properties. The annexation of existing land uses, and implementation of infrastructure
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 100
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
35
improvements would not result in impacts from new or increased residential demands for added parks and recreation
services. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact
As noted above, implementation of the proposed annexation would occur as planned for in the AASP. No new residential
uses would be developed in the area following annexation, and the proposed project would not result in an increased demand
for recreational facilities.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including
but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
1,2,3,
6,10,
11
X
b) Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
1,2,3,
6,10,
11 X
c) Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
1,2,3,
6,10,
11
X
d) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
1,2,3,
6,10,
11
X
e) Result in inadequate emergency access? 1,3 X
f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
1,2,3,
6,10,
11
X
Evaluation
The annexation area is accessed via Broad Street (State Route 227), and internal roads were constructed pursuant to County
standards upon the County’s approval of Tract 2368 and associated public improvement plans. The project area is currently
subject to a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City and County, which allows for the collection and
distribution of development/mitigation fees (including traffic impact fees) needed to offset the impacts from projects within a
specified Sphere of Influence (SOI), including the subject area. As identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement, the East
Airport and Senn/Glick property owners will be required to contribute $1,000,000 (one million dollars) to the City to fulfill
the property’s participation in the City’s Citywide Transportation Impact Fee program (TIF) and/or other area transportation
improvement reimbursement obligations. The TIF Payment is based upon the existing and future buildable development area
and intensity on each of the lots within the East Airport annexation area as approved by the County, up to a total of 680,000
square feet of building floor area. The Pre-annexation agreement requires that additional floor area or intensities proposed
beyond 680,000 square feet (as distributed across each lot within the annexation area) would require contribution to the TIF
program. These fees are specifically designated for transportation-related improvements.
In addition, the Pre-annexation Agreement calls for specific infrastructure improvements within the annexation area prior to
the City’s acceptance of internal roadways and sidewalks. These improvements are for the most part directed at pavement
upgrades and bringing the roadway infrastructure for the annexation area up to City standards. These improvements are noted
as traffic control and striping, sidewalk replacements, accessibility ramps and walks, and pavement maintenance. With these
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 101
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
36
improvements the project will address its needs as a part of the annexation process outlined in the Pre-annexation Agreement.
a, b) Transportation improvements provided under the Pre-annexation Agreement and Plan For Services include upgrading
street signs, striping, sidewalk repairs, American with Disabilities Act (ADA) access features and curb painting to reflect city
standards. The annexation area does not include street lighting that would conflict with City Lighting and Night Sky
Preservation standards identified Zoning Regulations Chapter 17.70.100. The proposed annexation will not conflict with City
Circulation Element policies, the circulation plan identified in the AASP, nor be contrary to established transportation
management, public transit and roadway improvement policies of the City. Furthermore, the Pre-annexation Agreement
identifies payment of a fee that will be applied to City transportation projects, which addresses existing and future
development’s contribution to vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian trips. Therefore, potential impacts would be less than
significant.
Regarding future build-out of the annexation area, the LUCE EIR and AASP EIR evaluated build-out of the City including
the annexation area based on compliance with the approved pre-zones and General Plan land use designations. These
documents evaluated traffic and identify required improvements associated with build-out. Any infrastructure improvements
required as a component of the annexation are identified in the project description and evaluated in the Initial Study. As noted
above, payment of TIF fees as identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement would mitigate both existing and future
transportation impacts.
c) The subject site is a developed subdivision and will not require new public roads to access the subject properties. The
annexation of the subject property does not include changes in traffic patterns for vehicles or aircraft. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
d) No changes in design of existing roadways are required by the proposed annexation; therefore, potential impacts would be
less than significant.
e) The subject site is a developed subdivision and will not require new access to provide for emergency response. Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant.
f) Existing public transit services and bicycle/pedestrian ways will not be changed. Increased improvements to sidewalks,
handicapped accessibility and similar facilities are anticipated as part of the final annexation improvement plan. The
proposed annexation will not conflict with established public transit, bicycle or pedestrian facilities or policies and
regulations governing same.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
The proposed project addressed by this Initial Study is the annexation of a largely developed business and industrial area to
the City. Annexation of those existing uses do not result in changes to traffic generation and circulation conditions in the area
that were not previously considered in the AASP Final EIR the City’s LUCE updates in 2014, and as contemplated by the
proposed Pre-annexation Agreement concerning traffic mitigations and impact fees. The subject annexation area is included
in the City’s Circulation Element and recently updated City-wide TIF Program, designed to mitigate adverse transportation
impacts of any future development beyond 680,000 square feet of development area.
17. TRIBAL CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of
a tribal cultural resource, defined in Public Resources Code section 21074 as either a site, feature, place, cultural
landscape that is geographically defined in terms of the size and scope of the landscape, sacred place, or object
with cultural value to a California Native American tribe, and that is:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Listed or eligible for listing in the California Register of
Historical Resources, or in a local register of historical resources
as defined in Public Resources Code section 5020.1(k), or
1,3,
12,13,
25
X
b) A resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and
supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to
1,3,
12,13,
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 102
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
37
criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Public Resources Code
Section 5024.1. In applying the criteria set forth in subdivision
(c) of Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, the lead agency
shall consider the significance of the resource to a California
Native American tribe.
25 X
Evaluation
On December 21, 2018, local Native American tribal groups were formally noticed that an Initial Study of Environmental
Impact was being completed for the proposed project and invited to provide consultation on the proposed project. The
Northern Chumash Tribal Council engaged in a tribal consultation meeting on February 8, 2019 and noted that the existence
of development and infrastructure within the annexation area does not preclude the presence of cultural resources.
a) Based on the certified AASP FEIR and adopted MNDs noted above, no cultural resources were documented within the
subject area. Infrastructure improvements would occur within existing roadways, sidewalks, and utility corridors. In the
unlikely event of resource discovery, City of San Luis Obispo Archaeological Resource Preservation Program Guidelines
Section 4.60.1 requires that all construction activities that may disrupt those materials shall cease and the Community
Development Director shall be notified immediately of the discovery of archaeological materials. In addition, the adopted
MND for Tract 2368 (the East Airport area subdivision) includes a mitigation measure requiring that in the event of a
discovery, construction activities shall cease, local agencies shall be contacted, and the resource shall be evaluated (see CR-1,
below, with clarification to include historic and paleontological resources, and to identify the current CEQA lead agency).
Based on the results of cultural resource studies within the subject area, location of infrastructure improvements, and
compliance with adopted Guidelines and the adopted mitigation measure in place to protect cultural resources upon
inadvertent and unlikely discovery, potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation.
Mitigation Measure
CR-1: Unanticipated cultural resource discovery. In the event archaeological, historic, or paleontological resources are
unearthed or discovered during any construction activities, the following standards apply:
a. Construction activities shall cease, and the City Community Development Director shall be notified so that the extent
and location of discovered materials may be recorded by a qualified archaeologist, and disposition of artifacts may be
accomplished in accordance with state and federal law, and in consultation with local Native American tribal
organizations.
b. In the event archaeological resources are found to include human remains, or in any other case where human remains are
discovered during construction, the County Coroner is to be notified in addition to the City Community Development
Director so that proper disposition may be accomplished.
b) No tribal cultural resources have been identified in the subject area. In the event of unanticipated discovery, compliance
with the requirements summarized above would be required to protect and assess the resource (see CR-1, above). Therefore,
potential impacts would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
Conclusion: Less Than Significant Impact with Implementation of Mitigation Measures
Based on documentation noted above, the annexation area does not contain evidence of cultural resources. Mitigation is
identified above (CR-1), which would be required during implementation of infrastructure improvements. Therefore,
potential impacts to cultural resources as a result of implementation of infrastructure improvements as described in the Pre-
annexation Agreement would be less than significant with implementation of mitigation measures.
18. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
1,3,6,
10,11 X
b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water 1,3,6, X
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 103
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
38
treatment, wastewater treatment, water quality control, or storm
drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause
significant environmental effects?
10,11
c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
1,3,6,
10,11 X
d) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded water resources needed?
1,3,6,
10,11,
14,26
X
e) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitment?
1,3,6,
10,11,
14,26 X
f) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
1,3,6,
10,11 X
g) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations
related to solid waste?
1,3,6,
10,11 X
Evaluation
The proposed annexation site is currently served by the FLWC, groundwater wells, collection system and a community
wastewater treatment plant. The proposed project involving annexation of the subject properties would require the service of
water, wastewater and recycled water for irrigation from the City. Existing groundwater wells may be retained and used for
irrigation purposes only.
The City adopted the General Plan Water and Wastewater Management Element (WWME) to address water resources and
wastewater services because of the vital role of these resources and the far-reaching impacts of water policies on community
growth and character. The City’s WWME translates the Land Use Element's (LUE) capacity for development into potential
demand for water supply and wastewater services, and outlines how the City plans to provide adequate water and wastewater
services for its citizens, consistent with the goals and policies of other General Plan elements. The 2018 Amendment to the
WWME includes updated water supply information and background information to reflect current conditions within the
City’s wastewater collection system and WRRF. The 2018 WWME concludes that the City has adequate water supply and
wastewater treatment capacity to meet projected water demand upon build-out of the LUE, which includes build-out of the
AASP and the subject annexation area.
Regarding water, the City’s water resource availability (total water supply) consists of 10,130 acre-feet (AF), which includes:
7,496 AF of primary water supply (the amount needed to meet the General Plan build-out of the City, including the
AASP and subject annexation area);
1,209 AF of reliability reserve (to provide a buffer for future unforeseen or unpredictable long-term impacts to the
City’s available water resources); and
1,425 AF of secondary water supply (the amount of water needed to meet peak water demand periods or short-term
loss of City water supply sources).
Regarding wastewater, the annexation area is not located within a wastewater collection system capacity constrained area
(refer to 2018 WWME Figure 3). The WRRF currently treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater daily (mgd), and is designed
for an average dry-weather flow of 5.1 mgd (2018 WWME). The WWRF is currently being upgraded to provide sufficient
capacity (5.4 million gallons per day) to serve the City upon build-out of the LUE (including the AASP and the subject
annexation area).
a, b, e) The Plan for Services and Pre-annexation Agreement identify infrastructure improvements and testing requirements,
to be reviewed and verified by the City Utilities Department and Utilities Director, including but not limited to the following
(refer to Attachment 2, Pre-annexation Agreement and Attachment 3, Plan for Services):
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 104
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
39
The gravity wastewater system will be converted to interconnect with a gravity collection line in Broad Street, and from there
is conveyed to the City’s WRRF. The force main and lift station currently serving the area would be abandoned. The timing
of this work is contingent on the decommissioning of the FLWC wastewater treatment plant following the connections of the
various properties in the West Airport annexation area. Infrastructure improvements include upgrading the public water and
recycled water systems pursuant to City Standards, extending the Terrace Pressure Zone from the intersection of Broad and
Fuller to the project area and reconstructing the water system piping at the intersection of Broad and Fuller with a new
pressure reducing station, programmable logic controller, and telemetry, installation of approximately 2,100 feet of eight-inch
recycled water main in Broad Street from Tank Farm Road to Aerovista (including a portion suspended from the bridge
crossing the Upper Fork East Branch, San Luis Obispo Creek), replacement of fire hydrants, extension of main line recycled
water service to the annexation area in two (2) stages (Stage 1 from Tank Farm to Aerovista, Stage 2 from Aerovista along
property frontage), repairing the public sewer system as necessary, and installation of water meters, backflow devices, and
recycled water signage. Identified improvements would be located within existing streets, sidewalks, utility corridors, and
areas previously disturbed with existing infrastructure.
Regarding future build-out, as noted above, the 2018 WWME concluded that the City has adequate water supply to serve
build-out of the General Plan, which includes build-out of the AASP and subject annexation area. The proposed annexation
does not include any changes to the identified land use designation or zoning designation as identified in the LUE and AASP;
therefore, the City has adequate water supply to serve the annexation area. As noted above, pursuant to the 2018 WWME, the
City’s WWRF will have the capacity to serve build-out of the City, including the AASP and subject annexation area. Based
on consultation with City Utilities staff, the WWRF currently has capacity to serve uses within the annexation area, as the
plant currently treats 4.5 million gallons of wastewater daily (mgd), and is designed for an average dry-weather flow of 5.1
mgd (2018 WWME).
Based on the City’s available capacity to serve the annexation area, and completion of infrastructure improvements and
testing requirements identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement (and incorporated into the Project Description), potential
impacts would be less than significant.
c) The existing subdivision was constructed with storm drain infrastructure, which will continue to function in the same
capacity following annexation. As parcels are developed following annexation, compliance with City Engineering Standards
and the AASP will be required at the time future development proposals are submitted to the City. Therefore, potential
impacts would be less than significant.
d) Water service to the area is included in the City’s Urban Water Management Plan (Source 26) and General Plan
documents. The City Utilities Department has reviewed the proposed annexation proposal, and necessary improvements to
potable and recycled water distribution system infrastructure are identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement, with the
intention of providing recycled water to property owners upon completion of annexation and increasing potable water
pressure in this area. As noted above under (a, b, e), the City has availability and capacity to provide water and wastewater
service to the annexation area under existing and build-out conditions.
Based on the City’s available capacity to serve the annexation area, and completion of infrastructure improvements and
testing requirements identified in the Pre-annexation Agreement (and incorporated into the Project Description), potential
impacts would be less than significant.
f, g) Evidence documented in the AASP FEIR and supplemental contacts with the local waste hauler and landfill operators
reflects sufficient capacity to continue serving the largely developed annexation area (personal contact San Luis Garbage
May, 2019). Therefore, potential impacts would be less than significant.
Conclusion: Less than significant impact.
Annexation of the subject area would not result in development exceeding the scope of the AASP. No new development is
included as part of the annexation proposal, and with the provisions included in the Project Description (which incorporates
the Pre-annexation Agreement), water and wastewater infrastructure conditions will be adequately addressed and can be
found to comply with City infrastructure standards at the time of annexation. As noted above, based on the City’s 2018
WWME, the City has sufficient water availability and wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project under existing
conditions and build-out conditions.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 105
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
40
19. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
Sources
Potentially
Significant
Issues
Potentially
Significant
Unless
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the
environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or
wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop
below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or
animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a
rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history or
prehistory?
X
Based on the findings provided in this Initial Study, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the quality of the
environment. See Sections 3 Air Quality, 4 Biological Resources, 5 Cultural Resources, and 17 Tribal Cultural Resources for
further discussion of the proposed project’s potential impacts on these environmental issue areas and mitigation measures that
reduce those impacts. As noted in the Biological Resources section of the Initial Study, infrastructure improvements include
installation of a recycled water line on a bridge over a creek; mitigation measures are identified that would ensure no
significant impacts to fish or wildlife species would occur.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable"
means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable
when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects,
the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
X
No evidence suggests that impacts of the proposed project are identified that would be considered “individually limited” or
“cumulatively considerable.” The proposed project is consistent with the existing AASP, Land Use Element and Zoning for
the development and the cumulative impacts of developing this site were analyzed as a part of the AASP FEIR and Land Use
and Circulation Element (LUCE) EIR.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
No evidence has been presented or identified that suggests the annexation of the subject area would have a negative effect or
substantial adverse effect directly or indirectly on humans.
20. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Airport Area Specific Plan and Final EIR (2014), City of San Luis Obispo Land Use and Circulation Element (LUCE)
Update EIR (2014), AASP FEIR Addendum (2015), available for review at the City Community Development Department
(919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401), or at the following websites:
City of San Luis Obispo General Plan and LUCE EIR: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/community-development/planning-zoning/general-plan
Airport Area Specific Plan: http://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=4294
Final Program Environmental Impact Report for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans and Related Facilities
Master Plans: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-
online/environmental-review-documents/-folder-719
In addition to the documents identified above, this Initial Study incorporates by reference the following environmental
documents adopted by the County upon approval of projects within the East Airport annexation area:
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 106
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
41
The Morabito-Burke Tract 2368 Environmental Determination (Source 12), the Senn/Glick Conditional Use Permit
Environmental Determination (Source 13), and People’s Self-help Housing Development Permit Environmental
Determination (Source 25) are incorporated herein in their entirety and available on the following websites:
Morabito-Burke Tract Map 2368 (EACP) Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) (County ED01-322):
https://agenda.slocounty.ca.gov/IIP/sanluisobispo/file/getfile/82528
Senn/Glick Conditional Use Permit D000336D MND (County ED01-273): Refer to document uploaded on the City website:
https://www.slocity.org/government/department-directory/community-development/documents-online/environmental-
review-documents
People’s Self-help Housing Development Permit DRC2018-00131 (County ED18-077) and Addendum:
https://agenda.slocounty.ca.gov/IIP/sanluisobispo/agendaitem/details/9294
These documents are available at 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (City of San Luis Obispo Community
Development Department), for review.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Applicable excerpts, analysis and conclusions from the AASP and LUCE Update EIRs and County MNDs as noted above
have been added to each impact issue area discussion.
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated," describe the mitigation
measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-
specific conditions of the project.
Refer to the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, which identifies required mitigation measures as incorporated or
modified to be more efficient and effective at avoiding or reducing potential impacts to less than significant.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 107
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
For the East Airport Annexation EID-0006-2020
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2018
42
21. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1. City of SLO General Plan Land Use Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014
2. City of SLO General Plan Circulation Element, December 2014 and Final EIR, October 2014
3. Airport Area Specific Plan Updated 2014
4. City of San Luis Obispo, Land Use Inventory Database
5. Website of the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency:
http://www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/FMMP/ (2018); accessed June 26, 2019
6. Draft East Airport Commerce Park / Senn-Glick Pre-Annexation Agreement and Plan for Services
7. San Luis Obispo Air Pollution Control District CEQA Handbook
8. City of SLO Climate Action Plan, August 2012
9. Clean Air Plan for San Luis Obispo County, Air Pollution Control District, 2001
10. Addendum to FEIR for the Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans, November 2015
11. FEIR Airport Area and Margarita Area Specific Plans, 2005
12. Morabito-Burke Tract 2368 Environmental Determination ED01-322, Mitigated Negative Declaration, San Luis
Obispo County, May 23, 2003
13. Senn/Glick Conditional Use Permit Environmental Determination ED01-273, Mitigated Negative Declaration,
San Luis Obispo County, May 23, 2003
14. City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (updates through 2018)
15. San Luis Obispo County Attainment Status; APCD, January 29, 2019
16. City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code: https://sanluisobispo.municipal.codes/Code (accessed June 26, 2019)
17. City of San Luis Obispo Standard Specifications & Engineering Standards (May 2018)
18. California Air Resources Board (ARB). Frequently Asked Questions About Executive Order B-30-15.
April 2015. Available at:
http://www.arb.ca.gov/newsrel/2030_carbon_target_adaptation_faq.pdf (accessed June 26, 2019)
19. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2017. California’s 2017 Climate Change Scoping Plan. December 14,
2017.
https://www.arb.ca.gov/cc/scopingplan/scoping_plan_2017.pdf. (accessed June 26, 2019)
20. Geotracker, State Water Resources Control Board, 2015. https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/ (accessed June
26, 2019)
21. Envirostor, Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. https://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/ (accessed
June 26, 2019)
22. City of San Luis Obispo Safety Element, December 2014
23. California Legislative Information. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml. (accessed June 27, 2019)
24. City of San Luis Obispo Noise Element, December 2014
25. People’s Self-Help Housing SLO County Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration Addendum DRC2018-
00131, December 13, 2018
26. City of San Luis Obispo, Urban Water Management Plan, 2016.
https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=13618
27. Recycled Water Master Plan, 2017: https://www.slocity.org/home/showdocument?id=14955
28. City of San Luis Obispo Waterway Management Plan, 2003: https://www.slocity.org/government/department-
directory/public-works/documents-online/waterway-management-plan
Note: All documents listed above are available for review at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California (805) 781-7101.
ATTACHMENT 5Item 2
Packet Page 108