HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/17/1998, 10 - ANNEXATION, LONG-RANGE PLAN AMENDMENTS, AND ZONING IN THE VICINITY OF FULLER ROAD AND AERO DRIVE council _ q
j acenaa aepout
CITYOF SAN LUIS O B 1 S P 0
FROM: Arnold B. Jor�;.Qommunity Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Annexation,long-range plan amendments, and zoning in the vicinity of Fuller
Road and Aero Drive
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Actions concerning entire nronosed annexation area
A.1 Adopt a resolution to approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact that covers
all of the following items(Attachment#1).
A.2 Direct staff to complete, and bring to Council for approval, annexation agreements with all
owners of land to be annexed.
A.3 Direct staff to complete, and bring to Council for approval, tax-sharing agreements with the
County for all land to be annexed.
B. Actions concerning the Fuller Road (Edna-Islay secondary planning)area
B.1. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve
annexation of about 75 acres east of Broad Street, from El Capitan Way to and including the
vicinity of Wisberg Lumber(Attachment#2,with map).
B.2 Adopt a resolution to amend the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, to show as Service Commercial
areas that it has shown as Retail Commercial and as Rural Industrial, for consistency with
the adopted General Plan(Attachment#3, with map).
B.3 Introduce an ordinance to prezone the annexation area east of Broad Street R-1-SP, R-2-SP,
C-S, and C/OS (Attachment#4, with map).
C. Actions concerning the Aero Drive area
C.I. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve
annexation of about nine acres west of Broad Street and north of Aero Drive, including the
Aero Drive right-of-way (Attachment#5,with map).
C.2 Conceptually approve a General Plan Land Use Element Map amendment to change the
annexation area north of Aero Drive from Tourist Commercial to Services and
Manufacturing, and the County-owned property within the Airport road loop from Tourist
Commercial to Public; direct staff to aggregate the approval resolution with other
conceptually approved General Plan amendments for adoption by a single motion at the end
of this meeting. (Attachment#6, with map).
is-r
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 2
C.3 Introduce an ordinance to prezone the annexation area north of Aero Drive Service
Commercial with Special Considerations (C-S-S) (Attachment#8, with map).
CA Direct staff to finish negotiating a draft agreement with the County concerning special
parking, improvement, and maintenance provisions for the Aero Drive right-of-way, and
bring the agreement to the Council for approval (Attachment#12).
C.5 For the annexation area north of Aero Drive, give direction to the applicant and the
Architectural Review Commission for the development plan to provide: additional
landscaped setback along Broad Street; and emphasizing parking to the side or rear of
buildings rather than between buildings and the street; on-site amenities for workers; space
for truck loading that will allow some articulation of building facades that exceed 100 feet;
landscaped walkways connecting the anticipated bus stop and building entry by a direct
route; and special design consideration as an entry to the city.
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
To the south and east of the city limits are several properties that have been partly developed, or
are being developed, under County jurisdiction and without City services. Most of the subject
parcels are in the Edna-Islay Specific Plan's secondary planning area, while some are in the
Airport Area, for which a specific plan is being prepared. There are advantages for the County,
the City, and the property owners in having these properties within the city limits. County and
City general plans say these areas should be annexed. Owners of some of the property and the
City itself have started the annexation process.
The City must adopt zoning for the areas, which would take effect upon annexation. Determining
proper zoning for the areas raises issues of the most appropriate land use rules, considering the
adopted General Plan and a proposed General Plan amendment. Also, the Edna-Islay Specific
Plan needs to be made consistent with the General Plan. In Planning Commission hearings, the
timing and terms of annexation were discussed, mainly with regard to water service. Jurisdiction
over the Aero Drive right-of-way in relation to airport operations, mainly parking, has become an
issue.
The Planning Commission and City staff recommend that the areas be annexed and that certain
zones be adopted. Staff recommends an agreement to address the County's concerns with the
Aero Drive right-of-way. Completing the annexation requires some initial Council actions,
followed by action of the countywide Local Agency Formation Commission, and then finalizing
actions by the Council.
Consideration of a conceptual development plan for the Aero drive properties provides an
opportunity for Council to provide direction on basic design features at this key entry to the
Airport and the city.
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 3
DISCUSSION
Situation
In the last two years the City Council has approved the El Capitan and Goldenrod annexations,
which are within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan's secondary planning area The Council, following
a survey of owners and anticipating more individual annexation requests in this area, directed
staff to prepare an annexation of the rest of the secondary planning area. At about the same time,
private applicants proposed an annexation encompassing a relatively small part of the Edna-Islay
secondary planning area along with land north of Aero Drive, which is in the Airport Area. The
City previously had initiated annexation of the entire Airport Area The City is preparing the
required specific plan for the Airport Area, which is to be completed early next year. Also, the
City has revised the General Plan to allow annexations of parts of the Airport Area that meet
certain criteria, before the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted.
Evaluating the annexation revealed some discrepancies between the 15-year-old Edna-Islay
Specific Plan and the current General Plan, which need to be resolved before completing the
annexation. In addition, the Aero Drive private applicants have requested an amendment of the
General Plan Land Use Element Map, which would result in Service Commercial zoning rather
than Tourist Commercial zoning. In looking at this area, the Planning Commission identified a
minor change which would make the City's General Plan better reflect the County's intended use
for its parcel inside the Airport loop road.
The San Luis Obispo County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) authorizes
annexations. City and LAFCo policies require that the City determine the appropriate zoning for
the area to be annexed. LAFCo review will begin once the City Council introduces ordinances
for prezoning and begins tax revenue negotiations with the County.
This package of items has been structured so the annexation of the Edna-Islay secondary area
(the"Fuller Road area') can proceed independently of the proposed Aero Drive area annexation.
Data Summary
Owners: about 23 parties, as shown in the attached table(attachment#13)
Applicants: City of San Luis Obispo;R. Porter and others(representative: John French)
City General Plan Land Use Map:
East of Broad Street: Low-density Residential, Medium-density Residential, Services and
Manufacturing, and creek corridors covered by Open Space policies
North of Aero Drive: Tourist Commercial; Services and Manufacturing requested
South of Aero Drive: Tourist Commercial;no change requested by owners
City Zoning:
East of Broad Street: currently outside City zoning jurisdiction; R-1-SP, R-2-SP, C-S, and
C/OS proposed
North of Aero Drive: currently outside City zoning jurisdiction; C-S-S recommended
South of Aero Drive: currently outside City zoning jurisdiction; no zoning proposed
A-3
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 4
County Area Plan, Land Use Element map:
East of Broad Street: Residential Single Family; Commercial Service; Public Facility
North of Aero Drive: Commercial Service/Business Park
South of Aero Drive: Commercial Retail -Visitor Serving; Public Facility
Environmental determination: On December 27, 1997, the Community Development Director
published a notice for the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact.
No public comments have been received, and on January 28 the Planning
Commission concurred with the determination.
Action Deadline: This legislative action is not subject to State Permit Streamlining Act time
limits.
Site Description
The site and immediate surroundings are level to gently sloping land, with three main tributaries
of the east fork of San Luis Obispo Creek flowing through the area. The area east of Broad Street
is bordered on the north and east by developed.or developing residential land within the city.
Land to the southeast is mostly large-lot rural residential and grazing land. The County Airport is
to the south. To the west of Broad Street is a mix of vacant and developed land designated for
industrial and commercial uses.
Project Description
The proposed annexations contain about 84 acres in 29 parcels, and about 12 acres of road right-
of-way (maps contained in attachments #2 and #5). Upon annexation, the area would be zoned
consistent with the City's General Plan (maps contained in attachments#4 and#8).
The parcels north of Aero Drive are vacant, though the western parcel has been used for parking
and light servicing of rental cars. The Edna-Islay secondary planning area is partly developed,
containing a mix of dwellings, indoor and outdoor commercial uses, a church, and vacant land.
Development includes 48 existing dwellings and about 143,000 square feet of nonresidential
building area. With typical citywide household sizes, the dwellings would be expected to have
about 110 occupants. (Since 12 registered voters live in the area, it is considered an "inhabited
annexation,"requiring a public hearing step that may lead to an election on the annexation.) The
existing development is served by private, on-site wells and septic disposal systems. Under.City
jurisdiction, all new development and eventually nearly all existing development would connect
with City water service(at least for fire protection)and sewer service.
For an annexation like this, the project description is mainly a comparison of the amount and
form of development expected under City jurisdiction with what is expected under County
jurisdiction. Also, annexation can affect the timing of development. Both the County and the
City have adopted policies and standards for development and environmental protection. For the
annexation areas, the policies and standards are similar in many ways. Both plans require
annexation and City services for residential development exceeding rural densities. The main
differences between County and City plans are:
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 5
• The County plan does not allow medium-density (multifamily) residential use in the
annexation area, while the City's plan does allow such use for the northeastern comer of the
area. This map difference translates into about seven more dwellings under City jurisdiction.
• The County plan shows the three parcels north of Aero Drive as Commercial Service. This
County designation allows uses similar to those in the City's Services and Manufacturing
designation,mainly repair, wholesaling, sales and rental of vehicles, equipment, and building
materials, light manufacturing, and some types of offices, though the County allows a
somewhat wider range of uses.
In the long term, nonresidential development under City jurisdiction is not likely to differ
substantially from nonresidential development under County jurisdiction. Nonresidential
development probably would be more intensive with City services, especially in the short term.
The City water system provides more fire-fighting capacity, and City sewer service avoids the
need for on-site waste leaching or treatment areas, resulting in the ability to develop more
building area and higher concentrations of workers and customers. Water, sewer, and drainage
facilities operated by the City tend to be more reliable than private facilities, since the City
provides continuing maintenance. Without annexation, in the long-term, these services might be
provided by a special district under County jurisdiction, reducing the differences between
development under the County and under the City. (A special district also could provide services
to residential uses.)
The County's General Plan says that if services are not provided by the City or a special district,
County land-use policies may be revised to reduce the development potential in this area.
Under either County or City jurisdiction, development will be subject to the Airport Land Use
Plan, which is adopted by the independent Airport Land Use Commission. This plan classifies
land uses according to their compatibility with airport safety and noise. The Airport Land Use
Commission and County staff are working on an update of the 1973 Airport Land Use Plan. A
public review draft is expected to be released in the next month or so.
With annexation, the net increase in the number of dwellings in the annexation area is expected
to be roughly 50. With annexation, the net increase in nonresidential floor area is expected to be
none to about 30,000 square-feet, depending on the types of uses and availability of services
outside the city.
For the properties east of Broad Street, no development proposals have been provided to the
City. City policies do not require any at this time. For the parcels north of Aero Drive, the
"interim annexation criteria" require submittal of a development plan. The applicant has
provided a conceptual development plan showing three phases of service-commercial and light
manufacturing development totaling as much as 134,000 square-feet (attachment#10).
�0-5
Council Agenda Report-Faller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 6
Evaluation
Environmental ImRacts
The initial environmental study (attachment #9) concludes that the proposed project may have
significant effects on the environment, but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report, mainly the EIR for the 1994 Land Use
Element/Circulation Element Updates, pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings
of overriding considerations for some potential cumulative impacts, and (2) impacts for which
findings of overriding considerations have not previously been made have been avoided or
mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, or through revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
The City's General Annexation Policies
Both the Fuller Road area and the Aero Drive area annexations are within the urban reserve line
of the City's adopted General Plan and the County's adopted General Plan, meaning they are
eligible for annexation,and should be annexed before urban development occurs. The annexation
area east of Broad Street is within the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, which anticipated annexation of
roughly the northern half of the proposed annexation area that lies east of Broad Street (the
southern half is addressed by the recommended amendment to the specific plan). The primary
issues are the timing and conditions for annexation, and appropriate zoning.
Land Use Element policy 1.13.2 says,"Annexation should be used 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." .
Land Use Element policy 1.13.3 says, "Land in ... annexation areas may be developed only after
the City has adopted a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and
financing of public facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection
consistent with policy 1.13.5. For annexations [such as the Edna-Islay secondary planning area],
the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan under PD zoning, or similar
development plan covering the entire area."
/d"�P
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 7
Land Use Element policy 1.13.5 says. "Each annexation shall help secure permanent protection
for areas designated Open Space, and for the habitat types and wildlife corridors within the
annexation area that are identified in policy 6.1.1.... properties which are both along the urban
reserve line and on hillsides, shall dedicate land or easements for about four times the area to be
developed (developed area includes building lots, roads, parking and other paved areas, and
setbacks required by zoning)."The General Plan does not establish a specific ratio for open space
in annexations like the one being considered. The Edna-Islay Specific Plan establishes open
space requirements for the area, including the secondary planning area, mainly involving creeks.
(The "interim annexation criteria" provide for payment of fees in lieu of dedicating land for
annexations such as the Aero Drive parcels.)
The proposed annexation and recommended zoning are consistent with these policies.
General Plan Aimort Area Interim Annexation Policies (Aero Drive area only)
City.policy allows annexation of Airport Area properties which could otherwise develop in the
short term within the County, before the Airport Area Specific Plan is adopted (Land Use
Element policy 1.13.3.A).The criteria allow annexation when:
1. The property is contiguous to existing city limits;
2. The property is within the City's urban reserve line;
3. The property is near existing infrastructure;
4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;
5. A development plan for the applicant's property accompanies the application for
annexation;
6. 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.
The Aero Drive property would be contiguous to the city limits upon annexation of the land east
of Broad Street,though now it is about one-third mile from the city limits. City water and sewer
mains end near the present city limits (El Capitan Way). The lines extending to the Airport (via
Fiero Lane) are owned and maintained by the County for Airport service only. The recommended
action is based on a determination that this criterion of nearness is met.
Subject to compliance with City water and sewer regulations, adequate resources exist to serve
the site upon annexation. The main limitations are water supply (which can support some
additional development but not build-out of all potential annexation areas) and sewage collection
(the Broad Street lift station is nearing capacity). Sewer treatment capacity is adequate, and can
be expanded by adding modules to the City's existing treatment plant, funded by wastewater
impact fees.
By policy, the City reserved 300 acre-feet of water for development of post-1994 annexations
and 302 acre-feet for in-city projects. This amount reflects the difference between safe annual
yield and expected annual water. However, developments still must retrofit to get building
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 8
permits because these water-planning figures assume complete retrofit of city water users with
low-flow fixtures.. The following tables summarize the water amounts likely to be needed for
recent and pending annexations and for General Plan build-out, and the existing and potential
water supplies.
Projected Water Demand
(approximate annual water use in acre-feet)
Post-1994 Annexations Other Potential
Approved' Annexations Pending' Annexations' Urban Area Build-out
EI Capitan 4 DeVaul 101 Dalidio 80 Existing in city 1994 7,052
Goldenrod 13 Fuller Road 66 Froom Ranch : 30 1994 city limits infill and
Prefumo Creek : 17 Margarita : 370 Orcutt : 170 intensification development 602
Homes
Emte BaIVSptoe 11 Aero Drive 6 Madonna(Auto 6 Post-1994 annexations
Hunter Park) i
P.G.&EJThoma 2 Brad /touchstone : 21 McBride(Auto Park) : 3 (approved,pending,potential) 1,442
TK15 R Area [once 426 Other sites" : 101 Subtotal-new development 2,044
Totals: 62 990 390 9.096
Listed order of sites has no significance. Reliability Reserve 2,000
Including LUE mapped sites at Madonna Inn,Foothill,Highway 101,Miossi,Airita. Siltation Reserve 500
= Shaded cells comprise the Airport Areaes mapped in 1994 Total Supply Requirement 11,596
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, February 1998
Water Supplies
(approximate safe annual yield in acre-feet)
Existing Proposed lantici ated year available] Total
Salinas&Whale Rock Coordinated Water Reclamation, nonpotable 2000 1,200"
Use, potable 7,235 Salinas Expansion, potable [20021 1,650a
Groundwater, potable&nonpotable 500 Nacimiento, potable 2002 3,380°
Totals: 7,735 1 6,230 13,965
Notes: A-Subject to State approvals. B-Subject to transfer from Federal to local ownership.
C - Tentative subscription request subject to County approval; to be reduced if other sources are
obtained.
Source: City of San Luis Obispo, February 1998
Transportation impacts can be mitigated as development occurs, by typically required
dedications and improvements and payment of transportation impact fees,.
The General Plan requires Airport Area annexations to contribute to the protection of open space.
An interim policy establishes a fee of$2,500 per undeveloped acre at the time of annexation.
Compliance with the annexation policies and criteria would be assured through a formal written
"pre-annexation agreement" between the City and each owner of land to be annexed. Funding of
public facilities and other development issues will be addressed in these agreements, before final
City Council action on the annexation.
/0-8
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 9
Development Plan(Aero Drive area only)
The development plan provides adequate information as a conceptual indication of the
applicant's intent. The Council is not being asked to act on the development plan. Future
development in the City would be subject to approval by the zoning hearing officer or the
Planning Commission (due to the "S" zone), and by the Architectural Review Commission.
However, it would be desirable for the Council to give direction now on any basic site plan
features which could be made more consistent with the desired character for development at this
entry to the city. The Planning Commission's direction regarding the proposed development plan
is reflected in the staff recommendation.
Parking quantity is in line with office and light manufacturing requirements. Truck loading
areas are not shown, but the sides of the buildings adjacent to the aisles having parking on one
side could accommodate parallel-parked truck loading.
Building form, at least on the truck-loading sides just referred to, does not provide the
"articulated" surface which the City's architectural guidelines generally favor.
Street setbacks to parking lots appear to be slightly more than the minimum five feet required
by zoning (five to seven feet along Broad Street, seven to ten feet along Aero Drive, and about
seven feet along Airport Drive). A more generous landscape setback along Broad Street would be
desirable. The Circulation Element designates this part of Highway 227 as a scenic roadway.
Parking location in part does not conform with anticipated business park standards, which
would encourage parking to be behind or to the side of buildings, rather than between buildings
and the street (especially along Broad Street). While the City's General Plan does not designate
this site as a Business Park, it may be desirable to follow the design principle of making the
building rather than the parking lot the foreground feature as seen from the street.
On-site amenities, such as outdoor employee eating or recreation areas, are not shown. The
previous development plan had substantial space for such uses in the first phase. In the current
development plan, nearly all the space around and between buildings is occupied by parking and
drives.
Utility service details remain to be resolved (water and sewer main sizes, locations, and any
necessary on-site easements).
Uses could be reviewed through the "S" zone's use-permit requirement, to maintain a focus on
research and development or light manufacturing, rather than uses that otherwise would be
allowed by right in the C-S zone. These uses include auto repair, amusement arcades, animal
hospitals, equipment rental and repair, indoor and outdoor sales of building and landscape
materials, and sales of furnishings and appliances. To avoid each new tenant needing to obtain a
use permit, an initial blanket use permit could be processed as each phase is built, establishing
lists of allowed, conditionally allowed, and not allowed uses as a modification of the basic C-S
zone.
Access from the County property to the western parcel will require approval by the County.
�a-9
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 10
Annexation Boundaries
For the Fuller Road area, annexation boundaries follow the existing city limits and parcel
boundaries, and the western side of Broad Street. The Fuller Road area annexation extends to the
urban reserve line on the south. These boundaries have not been questioned.
Annexing the Aero Drive parcels raises the issues of whether the Aero Drive right-of-way should
be annexed. City staff recommends that it be annexed, and the attachments to this report have
been prepared accordingly. Aero Drive is a dedicated street, not simply a part of the Airport
property. When the City annexes land adjacent to a street or road,usually the whole right-of-way
is annexed. Doing so puts responsibility for road maintenance and traffic enforcement under one
local agency. There are also advantages for signal activators, utility lines, and meter reading to
have all or part of the right-of-way in the City.
However, annexing the street is not a legal requirement. The County prefers that it not be
annexed(letters in attachment group#11-B). The County is opposed to annexation of the Airport
property itself, and the County sees Aero Drive as the front door to the Airport. The County's
primary concern is Airport management's ability to regulate parking along the road. Ultimately,
the decision on whether the road is annexed will be made by LAFCo. County staff have indicated
that annexation of the road may be acceptable if the County's concerns can be addressed by the
City. To address the County's concerns (and the City's), City and County staff have drafted an
agreement between the two agencies(attachment#12).
Prezonine
The recommended zoning follows directly from the Land Use Element (as recommended to be
amended) and Open Space Element maps and policies, from the Zoning Regulations statements
of purpose for the zones, and from the Edna-Islay Specific Plan (as recommended for
amendment).
ZONING CONSISTENCY SUMMARY
LAND USE ELEMENT MAP SPECIFIC PLAN DESIGNATION RECONAVIENDED ZONING
Low Density Residential Low Density Residential R-1-SP
Medium Density Residential Medium Density Residential R-2-SP
Any Improved Waterways C/OS
Any nondesignated creeks C/OS
Services&Manufacturing Service Commercial C-S
Services&Manufacturing Retail Commercial - amend to Service C-S
Commercial
Seryices&Manufacturing Rural Industrial - amend ,to Service C-S
Commercial
Services&Manufacturing none in Aero Drive area C-S-S
/o -/d
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 11
Where the General Plan shows Services and Manufacturing,the City can apply one of two zones:
C-S or M. According to the Zoning Regulations, "The C-S zone is intended to provide for
storage,transportation and wholesaling as well as certain retail sales and.business services .... It
will be applied to areas designated "service-commercial/light industrial' [now Services and
Manufacturing]..., typically those areas with more public exposure along arterial streets than
places reserved for manufacturing."The Broad Street frontage is such an area.
According to Housing Element program 6.3.5, "The Edna-Islay Specific Plan ... includes only
low- and medium-density housing. About two-thirds of the area has been developed. By
amending the specific plan to include a mix of residential zoning that approximates the mix of
residential densities citywide, additional housing units are possible in the Edna-Islay specific
planning area. The City should initiate amendments to designate a portion of the specific
planning area for medium-high density [R-3] housing." The City has not initiated such an
amendment. The specific plan is now nearly 90 percent developed. However, this program
directs at least consideration of R-3 zoning for part of this annexation. No R-3 zoning is
recommended because:
• The Council considered R-3 density in the secondary planning area during the 1994 Land
Use Element update, and did not support the change.
• When this area was discussed by the County Airport Land Use Commission, commissioners
expressed strong doubts if the potential for multifamily development is appropriate, even
though the small part shown as R-2 is compatible with the adopted airport land use zone.
• When discussing the Annual Report on the General Plan on February 17, Council supported
reconsideration of the program after dealing with this annexation.
• Owners have not requested higher density.
General Plan Amendment Request
The owner the three parcels on the north side of Aero Drive has applied for an amendment to the
General Plan Land Use Map, to designate the property Services and Manufacturing rather than
Tourist Commercial. A significant change in the 1994 Land Use Element update was to
designate about 11 acres within the Aero Drive/Airport Drive loop and north of Aero Drive as
Tourist Commercial. In the update, Council decided that it would be appropriate to have space at
this location for uses such as hotels, restaurants, meeting facilities, and tour staging. At the time,
some people questioned whether this designated area would be sufficient. Others thought such
uses should instead be accommodated in more central locations already designated Tourist
Commercial or General Retail. Either the adopted designation or the requested designation can
be found consistent with General Plan text policies.
There has not been a market assessment of how much Tourist Commercial land is enough, an
issue discussed during the Planning Commission hearing. Even with a study, reaching a widely
accepted conclusion could be difficult, because this type of analysis depends on the assumptions
used. The applicant has provided a letter from a hotel investment specialist observing that a
stand-alone hotel at this location would not be economically feasible for the immediate future
(Attachment#I I-A).
to-it
Council Agenda Report- Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 12
The parcel within the loop road that would remain in a Tourist Commercial designation appears
to be adequate for visitor-serving facilities likely to be developed in the Airport vicinity but not
on Airport property. The proximity of the Airport to "in town" services is a persuasive argument
for having less land designated for such uses near the Airport. At this time the draft Airport
Master Plan update does not identify a need for private visitor-serving facilities in the area at
issue.
The Planning Commission initiated consideration of changing the County-owned parcel in the
loop road to Public. This change would make the City's land use map consistent with the
County's.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal study for the last General Plan update (Mundie & Associates,.1991) and a preliminary
fiscal study for the Airport Area annexation (Angus McDonald & Associates, 1994) concluded
that, in general, annexing to encompass a balance of residential and commercial development
would not be fiscally harmful, and could be beneficial. Separate studies have not been done for
the Fuller Road area and the Aero Drive area annexations.
Fiscal impacts depend on the type of uses to be developed, service levels, State rules governing
revenue and spending, and tax sharing between the City and the County. Recent agreements
provide for the County to receive all property taxes (except those going to the school district or
special districts) and the City to receive all sales taxes(except those going to the State).
ADVISORY BODY REVIEW
The Planning Commission took the following actions at a public hearing on January 28, 1998.
(Numbers correspond with the numbering of recommendations and alternatives in this report.)At
that meeting, several owners expressed support for the annexation east of Broad Street, and none
expressed opposition. There was no general public comment.
A..1 On a vote of four to none (three absent,) concurred with the Initial Study of Environmental
Impact and proposed Negative Declaration for the whole package of related items.
B.1 On a vote of four to none (three absent), recommended that the City Council adopt a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
annexation area east of Broad Street.
B.2 On a vote of four to none (three absent), recommended that the City Council amend the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan to redesignate the "Retail Commercial" area as Service
Commercial and the"Rural Industrial"area as Service Commercial.
B.3 On a vote of four to none (three absent), recommended that the City Council prezone the
annexation area east of Broad Street consistent with the adopted General Plan and the
Edna-Islay Specific Plan as amended, and with all creek corridors to be zoned open space.
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 13
On February 25, 1998,the Planning Commission took the following actions.
C.1 On a vote of five to none (two absent), recommended that the City Council adopt a
resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve the
annexation north of and including Aero Drive.
C.2 On a vote of four to one (two absent), recommended that the City Council approve the
requested General Plan amendment to Services and Manufacturing.
C.2 On a vote of five to none (two absent), recommended that the City Council approve a
General Plan amendment from Tourist Commercial to Public for the County-owned parcel
within the loop road, but to not change the Tourist Commercial designation for the
privately owned parcel in that area.
C.3 On a vote of five to none (two absent), recommended that the City Council prezone the
annexation area Service Commercial with Special Considerations(C-S-S).
C.5 On a vote of five to none (two absent), gave direction to the applicant on the conceptual
development plan, as reflected in the CAO Recommendation.
On February 25, the Aero Drive applicant spoke in support of the requests. The Commission
received a letter (attachment 11-B) from the County, concerning the Aero Drive right-of-way.
There was no general public testimony. Commissioners expressed concern that the private owner
of the parcel within the loop road had not responded to the public notice or staff report that were
provided.
OTHER DEPARTMENT AND AGENCY COMMENTS
Comments of City departments are reflected in the recommendation and the discussion above.
On February 18, 1998, the San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission considered
the annexation, recommended general plan amendment, and prezoning, and found the package of
items consistent with the Airport Land Use Plan. The County Department of General Services
has objected to annexing the Airport Drive right-of-way (attached letters), as discussed above
under"Evaluation-Annexation Boundaries."
ALTERNATIVES
A.1 Concerning environmental review, the Council may determine that the initial study and
negative declaration, relying largely on previous evaluation and findings, are not adequate,
and identify additional information that is needed. This action would require continuance of
all the following items.
fo-�3
Council Agenda Report- Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 14
A.2 and A.3 Concerning the annexation agreements with land owners and the County, the
Council could postpone action, or give direction on items to be negotiated.
B.I. Concerning the annexation east of Broad Street, the Council may decide to not approve it.
This action would result in no action being taken on items B.3, C.1, C.3, CA, and C.5
below,because the annexation area west of Broad Street would not be contiguous to the city
and because no prezoning action would be needed.
B.2 Concerning the Edna-Islay Specific Plan amendment, the only alternative to achieve
consistency with the General Plan is to amend the Land Use Element to show the subject
areas as Rural Commercial (defined in that element, but not now a map feature) and as
Retail Commercial, which would require text changes as well.
B.3 Concerning zoning east of Broad Street:
• The M zone could be used instead of the C-S zone.
• The Special Considerations "S" zone or the Specific Plan "SP" zone could be added to
the C-S (or M) zone. (The specific plan has no policies applying directly to the subject
areas, and no "special considerations" have been identified that cannot be addressed
through code requirements or architectural review.)
C.1. Concerning the annexation west of Broad Street, the Council may decide to not approve it.
This action would result in no action being taken on items C.3, CA,and C.5.
C.2 Concerning potential General Plan Land Use Map amendments west of Broad Street near
Aero Drive,the Council may:
• For the property north of Aero Drive, not approve the requested change from Tourist
Commercial to Services and Manufacturing.
• For the County-owned parcel inside the loop road, not approve the recommended
change from Tourist Commercial to Public.
• For the privately owned parcel inside the loop road, change from Tourist Commercial
to Services and Manufacturing.
C.3 Concerning zoning for the area north of Aero Drive, the C-S zone could be approved
without the Special Considerations "S." Also, the Manufacturing (lVl) zone could be used
instead.
CA Concerning the agreement with the County on Aero Drive, the Council may postpone
action,reject the concept, or give direction on items to be negotiated.
C.5 Concerning the conceptual development plan, the Council may give no direction or
direction other than that suggested by staff.
Council Agenda Report-Fuller Road/Aero Drive annexations
Page 15
Attachments
#1 Draft Resolution approving a negative declaration of environmental impact for actions related
to the Fuller Road area and Aero Drive area annexations
#2 Draft resolution recommending that LAFCo approve Fuller Road area annexation
#3 Draft resolution amending the Edna-Islay Specific Plan map as recommended
#4 Draft ordinance prezoning the Fuller Road area annexation as recommended
#5 Draft resolution recommending that LAFCo approve Aero Drive area annexation
#6 Draft resolution amending the General Plan Land Use Map as recommended
#7 Draft resolution to deny the requested General Plan Land Use Map amendment
#8 Draft ordinance prezoning the Aero Drive area annexation as recommended
#9 Initial environmental study
#10 Aero Drive area conceptual development plan
#11 Correspondence:
A. Applicant
B. Other parties
#12 Drift City-County agreement on Aero Drive usage
#13 Updated table of parcels
Attachment#3
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE EDNA-ISLAY SPECIFIC PLAN
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by Resolution No.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The specific plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan.
SECTION 2. Specific Plan Amendment. The Edna-Islay Specific Plan is amended as
shown in the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. Document Revision. The Community Development Director shall cause
the amendment to be reflected in documents which are available for reference in City Hall and
which are available to the public.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30
days following approval.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 1998.
Attachment#1
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE FULLER ROAD AREA ANNEXATION AND THE
AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION (ER 70-97,ER 12-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential significant environmental
impacts of the proposed annexations and related General Plan amendment, Edna-Islay Specific
Plan amendment, and zoning, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council determines that the annexations and resulting development may have one or more
significant effects on the environment, but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately
analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report pursuant to applicable legal standards,
including findings of overriding considerations for some potential cumulative impacts and (2)
impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not previously been made have
been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, or through revisions or mitigation
measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. These revisions and mitigation measures
are described in the record of action on the project. The Council hereby adopts said Negative
Declaration.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
lo-17
Resolution No.
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of ' 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
�"/ 1� "om�
�I#tto ey if J gensen
Attachment#2
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY
COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION_
COMMISSION APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. 51
THE FULLER ROAD AREA ANNEXATION (ANNX 70-97)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on
the proposed annexation on January 28, 1998, and March 17, 1998 respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on March 17, 1998, by Resolution No. (1998
Series), approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of
its deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map by
prezoning the annexation property to Low-density Residential with Specific Plan (R-1-
SP), Medium-density Residential with Specific Plan (R-2-SP), Service Commercial (C-
S), and Conservation Open Space (C/OS); and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to initiate formal annexation
proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is inhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence adopted by.
the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County for the City of San
Luis Obispo;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findines.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the annexation area's northern and eastern
sides are contiguous with the City.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location,
existing development, and availability of services.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working in the vicinity of the annexation area.
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that
area, covering approximately 75 acres on the east side of Broad Street (Highway 227),
south of El Capitan Way, and including the highway right-of-way, as shown on the site
location map attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the
Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed
annexation, subject to property owners' compliance with City requirements regarding
public improvements, in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844
and following.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this
resolution and prezoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
L;WIVWA",11� -
t*/�tlor� ey ff rgensen
�o-ao
Is
me INN&I,
�XN
Ims
Exhibit B
Legal Description
FORTHCOMING
Resolution No.
Page 2
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty tto ey ff rgensen
io� 3
i l
_ W
0 x
- 2D CV
Get
, Exhibit A - Part 1 of 2
Z
e
r
h
Z
6
6
E
/ .. Z u.l
� r •• � I m Q
04
t JDL�
CL
oz
may! Z O
�/.
tea _
r / E4OWL)
H, a
�a �m C ,
�V U
i9 39 —E —'E 03 uv % _ _
3'H ami n .E *E E a� m ��o Q/ (d ( U
E: .uu emiuu E3 ° as 47, . O v�
14 D'
_! �c
cu
AV.
Q _ O
ci
ca
IL fr
r �
1
Q ft:
a C W Vis..:,:.• �:
• W s' �h .•
d \ 5.1 � }�W V W N
�6 G Yom ;:`:� `.- • Z Q ) O
�2WW v
y
co
FL
Exhibit A - Part 2 of 2
LuQLU
OD 0
I �
o o°o SCJ`" -f '�� \•\ .; j
::...
.::::.: W C�
: :::: l.�Itf-QNR08 H3�JN-1 �laVCIN S
....... ..
Lu
M ;1
.'\• •"1.�. .......... .:M� 0 Ven
:1!••i� :•••:•••:•�.:/;•�I : Q, it I U
uj
S Lu
: . U CE in'.. .
Y.. •• ,�\ \lam•.. � Oln\` ;�
IV
Lr
a.
Al
07 Of
Q
a�O
3 �
O
/a-ate
Attachment#4
ORDINANCE NO. (1998 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING ZONING FOR THE
FULLER ROAD AREA ANNEXATION (R 70-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by.Resolution No.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed zoning,
and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereon,makes the following findings:
A. The proposed zones are consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed zones are consistent with the intended uses and locations of the zones as
described in the Zoning Regulations.
C. The proposed zones will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Zones. The Fuller Road area annexation shall be zoned as
shown on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance,together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage, but no sooner than the
effective date of the Fuller Road area annexation.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of . 1998,on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
Ordinance No,
Page 2
.AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
1Vlayor'A1len K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
.APPROVED AS TO FORM:
-Qr////4u�
ty o ey eff rgensen
M"
�� SNI DSII
Attachment#5
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY
COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION
COMMISSION APPROVE ANNEXATION NO. 52
THE AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION (ANNX 12-97)
WHEREAS,the Planning Commission held hearings on the proposed annexation
on January 28 and February 25, 1998, and the City Council held a hearing March 17,
1998; and
WHEREAS,the City Council on March 17, 1998, by Resolution No. (1998
Series), approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation, pursuant to the
California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090; and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of
its deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map by
prezoning the annexation property to Service Commercial with Special Considerations
(C-S-S); and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo
County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to initiate formal annexation
proceedings; and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is uninhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS, this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence adopted by
the Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County for the City of San
Luis Obispo;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findin s.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the annexation area's eastern side will be
contiguous to the City upon completion of the Fuller Road Area annexation.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location,
existing development, and availability of services.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of
persons living or working in the vicinity of the annexation area.
/o�S
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that
area, covering approximately nine acres, including three parcels on the north side of Aero
Drive, plus the adjacent Aero Drive right-of-way, as shown on the site location map
attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached Exhibit-B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the
Local Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed
annexation, subject to property owners' compliance with City requirements regarding
public improvements, in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844
and following.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this
resolution and prezoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and
all pertinent supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of ,
1998.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ty o fl
gensen
/o-30
Exhibit A
R 155-97 AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION
ANNX 12-97 & ZONING
i
O'17
O
PR OSED
AREA �
NEXATION
'S'
J�
R RIVE
N
0 100 200 /0 -3/
Meters City of San Luis Obispo-Community Development Dept.
2-25-98
Exhibit B
Legal Description
FORTHCOMING
io-3�
Attachment#6
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
AMENDING THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT MAP
AT AERO DRIVE (GPA 155-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by Resolution No.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The Land Use Map amendment is consistent with the rest of the
General Plan.
SECTION 2. General Plan Amendment. The Land Use Map is amended as shown in the
attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. Document Revision. The Community Development Director shall cause
the amendment to be reflected in documents which are available for reference in City Hall and
which are available to the public.
SECTION 4. Effective Date. This amendment shall take affect at the expiration of 30
days following approval.
On motion of , seconded by and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/o-33
Resolution No.
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 11998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
"V 4e-'� YAA4f&*.m4 4U�
Oty#o
y J gensen
�0 3�
Exhibit A
GPA 15597 AERO DRIVE GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT
Tourist Commercial to
Services & Manufacturing
Tourist Commercial to
Public
0
J
O
i 0
T RV
A
N
0 100 200
City of San Luis Obispo-Community Development Dept.
Meters 2-25-98 10-35,
Attachment #7
RESOLUTION NO. (1998 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
DENYING A REQUESTED GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT
MAP AMENDING AT AERO DRIVE (GPA 155-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by Resolution No.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Finding. The requested Land Use Map amendment [is not consistent with
the rest of the General Plan] [would not further the public health, safety, and welfare]..
SECTION 2. Denial. The requested Land Use Map amendment is denied.
On motion of , seconded by , and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of 1998.
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
/0-3�
Attachment#8
ORDINANCE NO. (1998 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
SAN LUIS OBISPO ADOPTING ZONING FOR THE
AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION (R 155-97)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on March 17, 1998, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental
impact, by Resolution No.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed zoning,
and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations,public testimony, and
reports thereon makes the following findings:
A. The proposed zones are consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed zones are consistent with the intended uses and locations of the zones as
described in the Zoning Regulations.
C. The proposed zones will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Zones. The Fuller Road area annexation shall be zoned as
shown on the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members
voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in the
Telegram-Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go
into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage, but no sooner than the
effective date of the Fuller Road area annexation.
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of 1998, on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
OfdiriaIIce No.
Page 2
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:-
Mayor.Allen K.Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie G.awf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/-4-_-o ey ._ff _rpnsen
Exhibit A
R 155-97 AERO DRIVE AREA ANNEXATION
ANNX 12-97 & ZONING /
i
O�
O'�
O
PR ED
NEXAMON AREA
-S-
J�'
O�
T D IVE
N
0 100 200
Meters City of San Luis Obispo-Community Development Dept.
2-25-98 10-31
Attachment #9
INITIAL STUDY
ER 12-97, 70-97 & 155-97
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401-3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
805 781-7165
4. Project Location: (See Map #1 .)
The project site is at the southeastern edge of the city, in the vicinity of Tank Farm
Road and the airport. Parcels proposed for annexation extend along the east side of
Broad Street (Highway 227) from EI Capitan Way to east of Airport Drive. Also
included are three parcels west of Broad Street with frontage on the northern side of
Aero Drive.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Annexations of the Edna-Islay secondary planning area and of the entire Airport Area
have been initiated by the San Luis Obispo City Council (address same as #2 above).
Annexation of the parcels north and east of Aero Drive has been initiated in addition by
R. Porter, et. al. (846 Higuera Street; San Luis Obispo CA 93401), who has also
applied for an amendment to the City's General Plan, to change the land-use
designation of the Aero Drive properties. (R. Porter succeeded Aero Loop Associates,
the original applicant.)
6. General Plan Designation: (See Map #2)
All parcels proposed for annexation are inside the City's urban reserve line. The
northeastern part of the area is designated Medium Density Residential. The area
fronting Broad Street and the area east of Airport Drive are designated Services and
Manufacturing. The area between the property with Broad Street frontage and the
existing city limits on the east is designated Low Density Residential. The parcels to
the north of Aero Drive and west of Broad Street are designated Tourist Commercial.
Also, part of the area is covered by the City's adopted Edna-Islay Specific Plan (Map
#3). Discrepancies between the General Plan and the specific plan are addressed in a
section of the following checklist.
/G��d
7. Zoning:
Since the area is outside the city limits, City zoning has not been applied. Proposed
zones that would take effect upon annexation are described in #8 below.
8. Description of the Project
The proposed annexation contains about 34 hectares (84 acres) in 29 parcels, and
about five hectares (12 acres) of road right-of-way (attached table). Upon annexation,
the area would be zoned consistent with the City's General Plan, as shown on Map
#4. If the requested General Plan amendment is approved, the three acres north of
Aero Drive would be designated Services and Manufacturing and zoned Service
Commercial (C-S).
The parcels north of Aero Drive are vacant. The other areas are partly developed,
containing a mix of dwellings, indoor and outdoor commercial uses, a church, and
vacant land. Development includes 48 existing dwellings and about 6,600 square
meters (71 ,500 square feet) of nonresidential building area. With typical citywide
household sizes, the dwellings would be expected to have about 110 occupants. The
existing development is served by private, on-site wells and septic disposal systems. If
the area is further developed under City jurisdiction, most existing development and all
new development would connect with City water service (at least for fire protection)
and sewer service.
For an annexation, evaluating environmental impacts requires comparing the amount
and form of development expected under City jurisdiction with what is expected under
County jurisdiction. Also, annexation can affect the timing of development. Both the
County and the City have adopted policies and standards for development and
environmental protection. For the annexation areas, the policies and standards are
similar in many ways. Both plans require annexation and City services for residential
development exceeding rural densities. The main differences between County and City
plans are:
• The County plan does not allow medium-density (multifamily) residential in the
annexation area, while the City's plan does allow such use for the northeastern part
of the area. This map difference translates into about seven more dwellings under
City jurisdiction.
• The County plan shows the three parcels north of Aero Drive as Commercial
Service. This County designation allows uses similar to those in the City's Services
and Manufacturing designation, mainly repair, wholesaling, sales of vehicles,
equipment, and building materials, light manufacturing, and some types of offices,
though the County allows a somewhat wider range of uses. The City's plan shows
the parcels as Tourist Commercial, a designation mainly for motels, restaurants,
service stations, car rental, and similar businesses largely serving travelers. (Note:
the County Department of Planning and Building indicates that in the published San
Luis Obispo Area Plan, Figure 7-20 is correct, while the color map "San Luis Obispo
Urban Reserve Area: Land Use Categories" is not.)
/o-Hl
In the long term, nonresidential development under City jurisdiction is not likely to
differ substantially from nonresidential development under County jurisdiction.
Nonresidential development probably would be more intensive with City services,
especially in the short term. The City water system provides more fire-fighting
capacity, and City sewer service avoids the need for on-site waste leaching or
treatment areas, resulting in the ability to develop more building area .and higher
concentrations of workers and customers. Without annexation, in the long-term, these
services might be provided by a special district under County jurisdiction, reducing the
differences between development under the County and under the City. (A special
district also could provide services to residential uses.)
Under either County or City jurisdiction, development will be subject to the Airport
Land Use Plan, which is adopted by an independent commission.
With annexation, the net increase in the number of dwellings in the annexation area is
expected to be roughly 50. With annexation, the net increase in nonresidential floor
area is expected to be none to about 2,800 square meters (30,000 sq. ft.).
No development applications have been submitted to the City. For the properties east
of Broad Street, no development proposals have been provided to the City. To fulfill
one of the City's criteria for interim annexations, for the parcels north of Aero Drive
the first applicant's representative provided a conceptual plan showing 7,160 square
meters (73,000 square feet) of office floor area and a 110-room hotel (Map #5). As
explained in following sections, an office development would not be consistent with
the current General Plan designation, while the hotel would not be consistent with the
requested designation. The conceptual plan is presented to give an idea of the intensity
of use that could be developed-under the Tourist Commercial or Service Commercial
designations. The present applicant may submit a different development plan.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
Annexation to the City and zoning consistent with the General Plan are currently
requested. Future development will be subject to further environmental determinations
and, in most cases, architectural review, use permit approval, or planned-development
zoning. Residential areas are likely to be the subject of subdivision maps.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site and immediate surroundings are level to gently sloping land, with three main
tributaries of Acacia Creek flowing through the area. The annexation area east of
Broad Street is bordered on the north and east by developed or developing residential
land within the city. Land to the southeast is mostly large-lot rural residential. The
county airport is to the south. To the west of Broad Street is a mix of vacant and
developed commercially-designated land.
11 . Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) decides annexations. Completion of
the annexation depends on the City and the County having a tax-sharing agreement.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si nificance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
FISH AND GAME FEES:
EThere 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. Therefore, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
F-1 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.
(The Edna-Islay Specific Plan EIR and the Land Use and Circulation Elements Update EIR were processed
when Fish and Game fees were not in effect. Future development in the annexation area will be subject to
separate environmental review and may be subject to the referenced Fish and Game fees.)
4
/o-y3
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 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 the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets will be part of the project. 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 one or more significant effects 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, if the effect is a"Potentially Significant Impact"
or is 'Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment,
but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact
report pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for X
some potential cumulative impacts and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding
considerations have not previously been made have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR, or through revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed
project.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
BY: 4i2g"'X
►Jd�l %f�i �7��
Sig ture Vate
John Mandeville, Long-range Planning Review Manager
Printed Name
5 �� �y
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (for example, 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 (for example, 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 impacts that are off-site as well
as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross-referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an
effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative.declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (such as 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
6
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less 7 han No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan 1, 2, X
designation, or zoning? 3,4,5
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 6 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 7, 8 X
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (such as
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from 3, 9 X
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an 7, 8
established community (including a low-income or X
minority community)?
a) General plan & zoning
Concerning the proposed change in land-use designation, the Land Use Element does not contain
specific policies on the amount of land to be designated Tourist Commercial, either citywide or in
the airport area. Office development, as proposed for the Aero Drive properties, can be
considered through a planned-development (PD) overlay of the C-S zone, and will require a
separate determination of consistency with the General Plan. The C-S zone allows limited office
development. In general, City policies favor office development in Office zones and within
designated Business Parks in the vicinity of the airport, rather than this area which has been
shown for visitor-serving functions. A PD zone can allow only the amount and types of offices
that are consistent with the General Plan. Therefor, the potential impact is less than significant.
For the three Aero Drive parcels, impacts to land use, circulation, utilities, services, aesthetics,
safety, air and water quality, and wildlife habitat are not expected to differ significantly between
Services and Manufacturing or Tourist Commercial designations.
Conformance with the following General Plan policies will be achieved through annexation
agreements between property owners and the City, conditions of approval for development
projects, or both:
Land Use 1.13.3.A, required plans
Land Use 1.13.5.D, open space protection
Land Use 1.14, costs of growth
Land Use 7.4, greenbelt protection near Airport Area
Land Use 7.5, internal open space
Land Use Element policy 7.7 says "Transit service linking development sites with the citywide
bus system should be provided concurrent with any additional development in the Airport Area."
Conformance with policy is problematic. City bus routes do not extend south of Tank Farm Road,
and development sites in the annexation area extend one-half to three-quarters of a mile to the
south. According to the City Short-Range Transit Plan, if more money becomes available,
extension of service to the airport is ranked fourth in priority out of six service improvements,
though the first priority, splitting route 3, may include service to the airport. The availability of
more funds, or possible reductions in funds, are not known. The forthcoming Airport Area
Specific Plan may include funding mechanisms for extension of City bus service, but this is not
assured. Since the policy is directive rather than mandatory, the impact is less than significant.
Bus stops will be included as developments occur, consistent with the Short-Ran a Transit Plan.
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentiatiy Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The City's Edna-Islay Specific Plan contains a "secondary planning area," shown on Map #3. The
relationship of that plan with the adopted General Plan and proposed zoning is:
Specific Plan Designation Adopted General Plan & Proposed Zoning
Improved Waterways Consistent with C/OS zone along Broad Street; open channels to be
maintained and riparian vegetation to be restored through development
review consistent with Open Space Element policies. Zoning Regulations
establish creek setbacks.
Low-density Residential Consistent with R-1-S.
Medium-density Residential Consistent with R-2-S.
Service Commercial Consistent with C-S.
Retail Commercial Not consistent; no Retail Commercial shown. See mitigation below.
Rural Industrial Not consistent; no Rural Industrial shown. See mitigation below.
According to the General Plan, the Retail Commercial land use category is to accommodate a
wide range of retail, office, and entertainment businesses, on intensively developed sites at the
edges of the commercial core and near Highway 101 and Madonna Road. It would not be a
consistent designation at this spot. Existing uses at the southeast corner of Broad Street and EI
Capitan Way can be accommodated with a C-S zone.
Mitigation: Amend specific plan designation from Retail Commercial to Service Commercial.
The General Plan no longer has a Rural Industrial map designation, which was for agriculture and
other airport vicinity uses needing a lot of space but not City Services. The General Plan now
shows the southern triangular area as Services and Manufacturing.
Mitigation: Amend specific plan to exclude this area from the specific plan area.
The Airport Land Use Plan shows the annexation area in compatibility zones 4 and 5. The types
of uses allowed by the proposed zoning are classified as either "compatible" or "conditionally
approvable." Avigation easements will be required as development plans or subdivisions are
approved, under either County or City jurisdiction. Therefore, there is no significant impact.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING - Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population 1 X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly (for example, through projects in an 7 X
undeveloped area or major infrastructure)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? 8, 9 X
a) The additional resident population enabled by the project (about 170) is within the General
Plan's projection, and has been addressed in the EIRs on the Edna-Islay Specific Plan and the
1994 Land Use Element Update.
b) Extension of City water and sewer service will reduce constraints to development. A main
issue is jobs-attracting commercial and industrial development proceeding faster than
residential development. The jobs-housing relationship and growth inducement were
addressed in the EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update.
8
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenua[iy Potentially Less Than No Imp
Significant Significant Significant
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving:
a) Fault rupture? 6, 9 X
b) Seismic ground shaking? 10.13 X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? 6,10 X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? 6,10 X
e) Landslides or mudflows? 6,10 X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil 6,9, X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill? 13
g) Subsidence of the land? 6,9 X
h) Expansive soils? 9,13 X
i) Unique geologic or physical features? 9,11,1 X
2
a) through e), i) The City of San Luis Obispo is in a seismically active region. Strong ground
shaking is expected during the life of structures, which must comply with seismic design
criteria in the Uniform Building Code. No known faults pass under or close to the site. The
site is not subject to landslide, liquefaction, seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazards. It does not
contain unique features.
f), h) Soil erosion and expansive soils are common concerns at construction sites in the San Luis
Obispo area. They are addressed by requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
g) The lack of unconsolidated alluvium makes unlikely ground subsidence due to groundwater
withdrawal. With City services, there would be reduced dependence on groundwater, a
beneficial impact.
4. WATER. Would the proposal result in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 6,13 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 6, 14, X
such as flooding? 15, 16
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of 6
surface water quality (including temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water 6 X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water 6 X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of 6 X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? 6 X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality? 6 X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater 6 X
otherwise available for public water supplies?
More intensive development under City jurisdiction would increase construction-related erosion
and the amount of impervious surfaces. A "general construction activity storm water permit" is
required for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity involving five or
more acres, whether or not in the City. (Most sites in the annexation area are smaller than five
acres, but would be covered by routine requirements of the City's Building Division.) Storm drain
runoff calculations will be required prior to issuance of a building permit. Land Use Element
Policy 6.4.7 encourages the use of porous paving, landscaping, or other design elements to
9
/0-7 0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
reduce surface water runoff and aid in groundwater recharge. Compliance with this policy will
be monitored through the architectural review process.
The creek channels and the nearby over-bank areas are subject to flooding. Development in such
areas is subject to the City's Flood Damage Prevention Regulations.
Surfacing more of the area with nonporous paving and buildings will reduce the area's capability
for groundwater recharge. Additional runoff will be directed into the storm drain system unless
some of it is able to be retained on site consistent with Land Use Element Policy 6.4.7.
Cumulative drainage impacts were addressed in the EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update.
Availability of City sewer service is expected to improve the quality of surface and ground water.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation 6, X
(noncompliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 18,
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 19 X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors? X
The project would not result in development beyond that anticipated in the County Clean Air
Plan. The additional traffic resulting from additional development will contribute to lower air
quality than if the development did not occur. Additional commuting due to jobs-housing
imbalance may result. The annexation does contain a mix of residential and commercial areas,
some already developed. Cumulative air quality impacts were addressed in the EIR for the 1994
Land Use Element Update.
6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? 6 X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses 20 X
(such as farm equipment)?
c) Inadequate general or emergency access? 20 X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? 6,20 X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative 22 X
transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (incompatibility 21, X
with Airport Land Use Plan)? 22
a, b, and c) Development in the project area has the potential to increase congestion and to
increase traffic on substandard road segments. It will contribute to citywide impacts which have
been found to be significant and for which findings of overriding considerations have been
made.
Mitigation: 1. The City will collect transportation impact fees (as they may be revised), as
development occurs.
2. Development on the Aero Drive parcels shall be evaluated for impacts on the
10
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potenttatjy Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
intersection of Aero-Drive and Highway 227 (the evaluation may draw on
information prepared for the Airport Master Plan and its environmental review).
Development will install or pay a proportionate share of costs for improvements
recommended as a result of the study, which may include addition of turn lanes
and traffic signals.
3. Development of properties with access from Fuller Road shall install or pay a
proportionate share of costs for full street improvements to City standards
along Fuller Road from Broad Street to Poinsettia Drive, including the bridge.
4. As subdivision and development occur, all road and highway frontages shall be
improved to City and State standards, as appropriate, including right-of-way,
paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, Class II bicycle lanes, street trees, landscaped
parkways, and street lights. Bus turn-outs and space for shelters will be
provided, and agreements to install or pay for bus shelters shall be provided to
the approval of the City's transit manager. Medians and protected turn lanes
may be required as individual developments are reviewed.
5. Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided for all new development, consistent
with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan.
6. Developments shall minimize the use of individual driveways on Highway 227,
by using common driveways to the maximum feasible extent.
Parts of the area have response times from City fire stations longer than the City's preferred
maximum of four minutes. With the presence of the CDF station at the airport, and fire
sprinklers required for new construction, this is mainly a concern for paramedic service rather
than fire suppression. While there has not been a detailed assessment, some existing buildings
have inadequate driveway access for fire apparatus. These deficiencies will be addressed in
more detail in the forthcoming specific plan. Impacts from development in the interim will be
addressed in part by the general circulation mitigation noted above, and are not expected to be
significant.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats X
(including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
b) Locally designated species (such as heritage trees)? 2, 6, X
c) Locally designated natural communities (such as oak 17 X
forest, coastal habitat)?
d) Wetland habitat (marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? X
While City jurisdiction can result in more intense development, City policies and standards for
creeks protection will apply.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? 23 X
b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and X
inefficient manner?
c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X
Il
/D$0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentialiy Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
resource that would be of future value to the region 2
and the residents of the State?
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including oil, pesticides, chemicals or X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any health hazard of potential health 6, 20 X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential X
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, X
grass or trees? r::: I
City jurisdiction is expected to result in a higher level of review and protection for hazardous
materials.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels? 6 X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise 24 X
Element?
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any of the following areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c). Schools? 6, 20 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X
e) Other governmental services? X
Demands on City services will increase with the expanded jurisdiction. Resources are expected to be
expanded in pace. Bringing developed sites into compliance with City standards will require
substantial effort from the Fire and Utilities departments, in particular.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? 6 X
b) Communications systems? 6 X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution 6, 20 X
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 6, 20 X
e) Storm water drainage? 6, 15 X
f) Solid waste disposal? 6 X
g) Local or regional water supplies? k6-, 20 X
Development will be subject to the City's Water Allocation Regulations and water and
wastewater impact fees, including fees for the Airport Area as applicable.
Mitigation: Drainage improvements shall comply with the criteria established in the Edna-Islay
Specific Plan and the 1986 Drainage Master Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan,
until superseded by the forthcoming Airport Area Specific Plan.
12
/o-�l
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
The Aero Loop Properties applicant's statement incorrectly identifies the water and sewer
facilities in Aero Loop as the City's. The facilities referred to are owned, operated, and
maintained by the County for use at the airport only. The nearest City water and wastewater
facilities are located at the intersection of Broad Street and EI Capitan.
The sewer in Broad Street is tributary to the Tank Farm Lift Station. Recently this lift station was
analyzed and determined to be approaching capacity. With the development of the Marigold
Center, it is likely that this lift station will not have adequate capacity to serve substantial
development in the annexation area. There may be the potential to modify the Tank Farm Lift
Station or provide some other mitigation to provide reliable service until areawide improvements
anticipated pursuant to the Airport Area Specific Plan are constructed. Any interim
improvements would not be credited towards the developer's share of the areawide
improvements (though improvements to the Tank Farm Lift Station may be credited towards
applicable lift station fees).
Mitigation: Prior to development, a developer's engineer shall submit water demand and
wastewater generation calculations, and the City will determine the adequacy of the
supporting infrastructure. If the City determines that a deficiency exists, the
developer will be required to mitigate the deficiency as part of the development.
After annexation, an owner can use an on-site well for domestic use and irrigation, while
connecting to the City water system for fire protection. Use of private well water is limited to
the parcel overlying the well. Upon failure of a well, the owner will be required to connect to the
City water distribution system. If an owner chooses to be connected to the City system for fire
protection without having a meter for domestic use, the owner will be required to pay a monthly
water system "access charge" for the fire sprinkler connection.
Mitigation: If a well is to be used for domestic purposes, the domestic usage will be measured
with a City meter, in order to properly bill for wastewater collection. Appropriate
backflow prevention is required by law for any connection to the City water system
if the property includes an active well.
Water and wastewater mains will be required to be extended to serve the annexation area. They
can be extended in existing public streets or streets to be dedicated with subdivision or
development. No significant secondary impacts from installing utility lines are expected.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 6, 22 X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 6 X
c) Create light or glare? 6 X
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? 1 X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? 6, X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 25, X
would affect unique ethnic cultural values? 26
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
13
/0
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
a) Paleontological resources have not been found and are very unlikely within the watershed,
given its lack of sedimentary rock.
b) No prehistoric archaeological resources are known to exist in the .annexation area, but the
watershed's long Chumash settlement means resources may be encountered.. Standard
mitigation for archaeologically sensitive areas will be applied as development occurs.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks 6, 27, X
or.other recreational facilities? 28
b) Affect_existing recreational opportunities? X
The additional residential population will add to demand for parks. The French and Islay Hill
neighborhood parks are in the vicinity. Other parks are planned for the Margarita Area to the
northwest. Park space demands will be mitigated by dedication or, more likely, payment of in-
lieu fees pursuant to the City's Subdivision Regulations.
14
�0-53
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potcrtuatty Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop below self_sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, X
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California history,or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental X
goals?
c) 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 X
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
More intense development under City jurisdiction does have a potential to cumulatively degrade
the quality of the environment, despite City policies and standards las discussed in the EIR for
the General Plan update) and mitigation measures proposed in this study. These impacts will not
be significant.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, X
either directly or indirectly?
15
/o S�{
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, 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.
Part of the annexation area is covered by the Edna-Islay Specific Plan, which the City adopted in
1982. A final EIR for that plan was prepared in 1982.
All of the annexation area is covered by the City's General Plan Land use Element and
Circulation Element, which were comprehensively revised in 1994. A final EIR for those updates
was prepared in 1994.
These EIRs are available at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department,
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Status in Status in Land Use Element/
Topic Edna-Islay Specific Plan EIR Circulation Element Updates EIR
1. Land Use and Planning, Inconsistency between specific Agricultural land conversion
including agricultural land plan and General Plan: resolved by significant, adverse: overriding
later amendments. consideration
2. Population and Housing Growth inducement: no specific Further imbalance in workers
findings compared with residents:
overriding consideration
3. Geologic Problems Nothing relevant to annexation No particular impacts for annex-
area ation area; routine mitigation
through development review
4. Water Contaminated runoff: unavoidable, Runoff contamination: mitigated
adverse: no specific findings by creek buffers in annexations
5. Air Quality Adverse construction and long- Construction air pollution: miti-
term impacts; so specific findings gated through development review
6. Transportation/Circulation Fuller Road improvement would Cumulatively, traffic on most art-
help mitigate access deficiency is erial streets and their intersections
southern Edna-Islay area would have unacceptable levels of
service, unless unacceptable
street widenings are done:
overriding consideration
7. Biological Resources Increased human activity in area Impacts will not be significant
will degrade riparian habitats; no with CEQA review and code
specific findings compliance at the level of
development projects
8. Energy & Mineral Resources Not discussed No impacts
9. Hazards Not discussed Impacts not significant with CEQA
review and code compliance at
the level of development projects
10. Noise No significant impact for this Construciton-generated noise and
annexation area residential exposure to traffic
noise: impacts will not be
significant with CEQA review and
code compliance at the level of
development projects
is-s.�
Topic Status in Status in Land Use Element/
Edna-Islay Specific Plan EIR Circulation Element Updates EIR
11. Public Services Fire flow deficiency: mitigated by Cumulative impacts on transit,
connection to Edna Saddle tank police and fire protection, water,
and new tank on Islay Hill sewer, general government, and
(completed). schools: mitigated by code
requirements, impacts fees and/or
special assessments, and various
program changes
12. Utilities & Service Systems Combined with Public Services See Public Services
13. Aesthetics Rural character will be lost: no Cumulative change from rural to
specific findings urban character: overriding
consideration
14. Cultural Resources No significant impacts. Impacts will not be significant
with policies added to General
Plan, plus CEGA review and code
compliance at the level of
development projects
15. Recreation Not specifically addressed. No significant impacts to park land
availability
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.
Several of the impacts of development that is consistent with the 1994 Land Use Element
update are mitigated by policies and programs included in the updated element.
Since the previous EIRs were certified, the City has made progress on standard mitigation
measures for the following impact topic areas, which apply to all development under City
jurisdiction. Mitigation measures proposed specifically for the subject annexation are listed under
part 19 below.
Biological Resources - Wildlife Habitats - Riparian: Creek setbacks standards added to Zoning
Regulations.
Cultural Resources: Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines adopted.
Noise Exposure and secondary impacts of noise potential mitigation measures (sound walls) -
Noise Element update and Noise Guidebook adopted.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
17
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 (as amended through
November 1997.
2. General Plan Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo, January 1994 (as amended through
November 1997).
3. Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February 1997.
4. Edna-Islay Specific Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, February 1982.
5. Airport Land Use Plan, S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Commission, 1973 (as amended in 1977).
6. Final Environmental Impact Report: 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates, City
of San Luis Obispo, August 1994.
7. "Land Use Inventory" and "Counter Book Maps" City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, July 1997.
8. Site survey, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department, July 1997.
9. Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1984.
10. General Plan Seismic Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975 and update in progress.
11. Geologic Map of Califomia, San Luis Obispo Sheet, California Division of Mines, 1958.
12. U.S.G.S. Topographic Map Series, Pismo Beach quadrangle, 1994.
13. Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1994, as amended by the
Sate of California_and the City of San Luis Obispo.
14. "Flood Insurance Rate Map, panel 0660304 0625 C," Federal Emergency Management Agency,
July 1985.
15. "A Drainage Master Plan for the Airport Area Specific Plan," John L. Wallace & Associates,
November 1986, in Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area
Specific Plan, Wildan Associates, April 1988.
16. Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February, 1997.
17. Preliminary Specific Plan Analysis for the San Luis Obispo County Airport Area Specific Plan,
Wildan Associates, April 1988.
18. CEQA Air Quality Handbook, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1995
19. San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, S.L.O. County Air Pollution Control District, 1995.
20. Application routing review comments by City of San Luis Obispo Fire Department, Public Works
Department, and Utilities Department, July through November 1997.
21. Airport Land Use Plan: San Luis Obispo County Airport, Airport Land Use Commission, 1973, as
amended May 1977.
22. General Plan Circulation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, November 1994 (as amended through
July 1997).
23. General Plan Energy Conservation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, April 1981 (as amended
through March 1982).
24. General Plan Noise Element, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996.
25. Historic and archaeological resource maps, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, various dates.
26. San Luis Obispo Area Plan, County of San Luis Obispo, January 1997.
27. Parks and Recreation Master Plan, City of San Luis Obispo, April 1995.
28. Subdivision Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, as amended through July 1997.
18
/0-SSI
19. MITIGATION MEASURES & MITIGATION MONITORING
1. Mitigation Measure: Amend the Edna-Islay Specific Plan to designate the Retail Commercial
area Service Commercial.
Monitoring Program: Planning staff verification concurrent with annexation processing.
2. Mitigation Measure: Amend the Edna-Islay Specific Plan to delete from the planning area the
southern, triangular area shown as Rural Industrial.
Monitoring Program: Planning staff verification concurrent with annexation processing.
3. Mitigation Measure: The City will collect transportation impact fees (as they may be revised),
as development occurs.
Monitoring Program: Public Works and Building staff verification concurrent with development.
4. Mitigation Measure: Development on the Aero Drive parcels shall be evaluated for impacts on
the intersection of Aero-Drive and Highway 227 (the evaluation may draw
on information prepared for the Airport Master Plan and its environmental
review). Development will install or pay a proportionate share of costs for
improvements recommended as a result of the study, which may include
addition of turn lanes and traffic signals.
Monitoring Program: Public Works staff verification concurrent with development.
5. Mitigation Measure: Development of properties with access from Fuller Road shall install or pay
a proportionate share of costs for full street improvements to City
standards along Fuller Road from Broad Street to Poinsettia Drive,
including the bridge.
Monitoring Program: Public Works staff verification concurrent with development.
6. Mitigation Measure: As subdivision and development occur, all road and highway frontages
shall be improved to City and State standards, as appropriate, including
right-of-way, paving, curbs, gutters, sidewalk, Class II bicycle lanes, street
trees, landscaped parkways, and street lights. Bus turn-outs and space for
shelters will be provided, and agreements to install or pay for bus shelters
shall be provided to the approval of the City's transit manager. Medians
and protected turn lanes may be required as individual developments are
reviewed.
Monitoring Program: Public Works staff verification concurrent with development.
7. Mitigation Measure: Bicycle storage facilities shall be provided for all new development,
consistent with the City's Bicycle Transportation Plan.
Monitoring Program: Public Works staff verification concurrent with development.
8. Mitigation Measure: Developments shall minimize the use of individual driveways on Highway
227, by using common driveways to the maximum feasible extent.
9. Monitoring Program: Public Works staff verification concurrent with development.
Mitigation Measure: Prior to development, a developer's engineer shall submit water demand
and wastewater generation calculations, and the City will determine the
adequacy of the supporting infrastructure. If the City determines that a
deficiency exists, the developer will be required to mitigate the deficiency
as part of the development.
Monitoring Program: Utilities staff verification concurrent with development.
10. Mitigation Measure: If a well is to be used for domestic purposes, the domestic usage will be
measured with a City meter, in order to properly bill for wastewater
collection. Appropriate backflow prevention is required by law for any
connection to the City water system if the property includes an active
well.
Monitoring Program: Utilities staff verification concurrent with development.
The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental
impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the
above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review.
The City is both an applicant and the decision-maker for this project. Mitigation ultimately will be decided by
the City Council.
19 p
�0 SO
a (naalaaaaaalaaa:a!waaa'aaaaltn (n (nrntn
u)I V N 9 y to w (n to to I to I to to (n V U) co to tom 9) U) !n t!1 I(n rn rn F-
N N N N N N N �i� �j�� '• � � � V V V
m w,Cl CZCCICCCCICICCC; ja' a' a'ia' a' �I� 66006
CI O l(A I (n to
N �I U
CL U �I UI IU
m •mCmq Im-M.C Cm Cm Cm Cm Cm CN I N I H N oei mcm04 m im mm m I',@c.itc.o .cm,. .'c cc. m m m i
c E E E E c EECElE C1CiE E cEc c = c = .c •a
C J m m m m m m m m m m m JJJJ
dm
m vjv v � -0iivvvis E 0
av .- W w E E E
mm m m m m m m -0 m m Nm m Im m m m m m E E E
000
-6 C 0la: m to m mm
'
tD
E 31myD.L � LDmL � LI —�i 3I� i� 22 222 UUU
m O N m N N •m m YI 'm m N m Z N 0 m H m 0 N N N 7
E J ee c clic c c c c c c c c l c m I c J c c c c t8 e6 c0 a6 v0 ca
d w m m m m m m m a m m m m y m m m m m 0 my mm my mm me� J J J
w 08VV7 7V7Y mi77717; 7JT ? � 7 � UJU Uf1 HHH 7
CD m E E E E 3 E 3 3 313 3 c 3 3 .� c v
m 2 7 J J .2 .2 J 2 J J J'JI IJ 0 1J J J Z Z Z Z Z m m
m V D �' mmm m m m y
00 m
we m m m m '- ee h (lJ M h N m ,n 0
I
ly
ani o j 2
N �,
J I I I I i
VCD m0 0 0o0o0 0 0
m o00 Lo Ey
Q m LL c !O N 0 n m
a o 0 Qy�
Z 0 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O,o O OI olo!OIN r, o g o 0 0 0 0
4 Im l to i j t� c rn ab o
32
t0 ID c
Q ! E
m yl
Z a1 'LI
nR
�I 3 ! u u u
W c F caQ r r N to (A
> Z > > >
, I ' o
N I I i I I I � N
D OIOI� O7 N NIO)ININ;� 0 O 0101 �I010 O O a 0000 C
lI N N
N
QE N.O I tb 0 m Q
I
Q � Ill III ! I ! jlll c
I o
0 O tD U
� L
c U. i 1
W m I D ! o
n S> m III jll j
LL
m to'.1n l0 tnitnloitn!. In'N'A j0't0,�P N tDj N:P1 0 LOILLY'Nito LO'IU WCO NIN N f0 Q V V
m N;N N OIOIn t7 0 j;r- <Ito Y'1 N.m O11q:cq O�'N�N � f0 OIfD In Ln Un In N
Q 0101 ISI I IN O �;� O N'O IO iO t0'to Q to N' N N N r N r t•1 m
O Ir to •p
m Col—
d �]N'NIV) Oi0 N•.7jINitD fO lN D Ir r- LO.O1W:0)
'ni0 0:61015 in 0N7 it
trt0 o '7IOON0w q'O� � ON'ON q 6N r
7 MeOnf dT
G I Ci0,0 0 77,010�04�04�,: IN O P7 N Y P1 L
ts N t7 C
Q = ! c
I
jE m E m m a m H
c c x uiml ml w�di5 mE m 0 0 0 0 m
ml m ml J d H F — r e;la O m L m m m J O
EI a_IL Icj Irl ml m h" CM cc m Q m m m m cJ
F mmlaeF r' «I r c:cN > > QQQ CM `m
cc, to;Im'� mfr ~ ~I OE m m e m a a a = c
.LL �°-� mwlWrnm.olE'QI mh Ir EEa0oilH 0000la mW
r m W mite:S L,a. OJ:L mIm dl ml•- m m m mim J Y J J J >
c a8'miwim ale0 Q x � C }s ee mi3 m fn > > pIU o p 0 m m Q m 6 r O
LLI ~Iael> pJloe Nf IQ IQ F ILL W Q ILL LL C9�Jj� m SO J 9 d m m ` o
_j �()I=I� �i� a•� !(7i>la•IJ (,�C � tn:J JIp CIa z S Y W Q Q Q Q r Z
I 1 1 1 1 1I I II ee
a I l i!�.Wi
j3 _ m
E to M Itn t0 n to'V, N In !— N.t'fV W) O't0 N M N O 01 O OP!•OI�.N!616;� IN N'N N NIN IN O O10'O •'� t0 V V ~oZololo o o o ol0o;oio 0 0l0 olglgio q o o o C9 0 0 c
N NI . N NIN N NIN�N N N N NN!N N H OO O y Go $ YYI4IY444444'YY14414jvY ") 44 0.m f0 t0' lto! ;W t0 t0 t0 t0•(D I(D t0 CD tO oto t0 t0 t0 tO ltn lf0 fb tD tom f17'� t0 a
CO i�ili:ilC CD CDCDi ilo10 o 0 i �lilolo o�o 0 0 o�o o o 0 0
��s9
FULLER ROAD - AERO DRIVE ANNEXATION
MAP #1 : VICINITY
Off,
os
�9
�O
�O DO RD
' a
RM ROAD
SI .,�
BUCKL
EY RO
500 0 500 10001500
Meters N
!o -eo
MAP #2
PROPOSED ANNEXATION
ADOPTED CITY LAND USE DESIGNATIONS
;fes!!!!! / �. •
Af
.�\\\\\\\\\
N/ \
j\\\\.\\/��
MEDIUM-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL '
EO IS
RE
\\ LOW-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL
SERVICES & MANUFACTURING
TOURIST COMMERCIALA.
\ /�.WJ.,VrJW�/V\VWH•l'VW�.-N . i � , i .N\: ` .- \, \\ \
v.n.•JYJvv\vv\ ,rr \ \ \ \\ \
'` \,�MlvY�M•�I` -NJ�.Y/NW�.`M,�/`r\1,�r \\ ♦ \ \
\� ,v.-✓v�nnn. Jrr,. _Y\wr/Nw�.•,.vv`!v` \
AIRPORT
-✓\'W,MN./`.M,`.YV�M/./�.'W�/W�IvVJ. Y N./�/W\^.tV�N:
\ U.w�v-v.-Jww✓�.vNww^n �,\-7� :.�.. �`n� �rYr. ` •.`\\\\
� .V✓WWw'✓V�r/^NVNWV�M/WVVV`M� V�.V��\MIVJ�, !,/`Jt/�r'�/\.
\ \ \ w vw
w\YY \ \\
ANORTH
1 in. = 1000 ft.
1cm = 123m
MAP #3
�v PROPOSED ANNEXATION
EDNA-ISLAY SECONDARY PLANNING AREA
` ADOPTED LAND USE & CIRCULATION
'.b•e Syyl-
'
ti Frrq
>t ice:• , 5 ,•` �. �k•" 6°. .
TRY
Lana
�} is t}.::'�. �\ �•�
� 'Mr
low density :•;.
residential
medium density •:t:�::'�:�;:� :''•::'
residential
retail F fi
commercial Q
'y. service
`i commercial •;:�:.
Improved •:J
- _ waterways 1
A NORTH
e: -• linear park
bicycle/ 1 in. = 400 ft.
pedestrian path
1cm = 48m
1 �
• �� Xr� �
M ,y it f
. . . . . . . . . . . . .
sc� PL=RS�P�-P
MAP #5
AERO LOOP CONCEPTUAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN
e id
L zZ 7.MN �lyls
pt
Ul
100 ft
i 6
50m
/ ti0,p
Source: FIRM Design Group
/0 -dy
_}
s
.� � - �
_ ., �
`V � ,
n � {�
� ��� '��
- � + ' ,' :�
�� 1 � _i..
'fit I —�I U � � r � �'�1 .�
;1 6
.. �
r
� � � •fir lr- A� . �;
,� aQ_ � �
� ,�� � Y
r
�!� ai��'
a � r � ���
'''
3 r
1! •1� �� 8� i6
� L{�II�
��, aI q� �. I�i �
t
b � �Ip .baa• '�,������'� �`�' _
�! �•___ X67 L �
s `.;I�
t `
� �
\�` �s�� �
��/
•. '" � e
111 ���� ww ��, ��,� �� :.
�Q� � a1 '
III �� �'��
•._ . I a;
i ae �. ��/
,-
�f ���
e o .��--;.,�
.,-
,. ,
� :��
� -
.�: ,
,.
, ,
Attachment#11-A
Jo h n F r e n c h RECEIVED
a Land Use ConsuItanr FEB 121998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
February 11, 1998
Mr. Glenn Mattison
Community Development Department
City Hall
990 Palm Street
City of San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Aero Loop Annexation
Dear Glenn:
This letter responds to your request that the applicants for the above referenced annexation
outline their intended uses for the property.
The project is intended to house typical CS uses with an emphasis on research and development
type businesses. Because of the existing land form the two buildings in phase I will be marketed to
businesses and professional services. We understand that if large offices are proposed they must
be larger than 2500 square feet and have no substantial public visitation or need for access to
downtown government services. Phase I may be subject to a planned development zoning
application at a future date. Examples of the types of uses contemplated are computer services,
utilities engineering and administration, and industrial designers with a limited need for large open
floor areas.
The other two phases will be designed to accomodate research and development uses that need
larger open floor areas or have special access requirements. Examples of the types of uses
contemplated are light manufacturing, new product development, laboratories, and businesses that
have special indoor storage need such as assemblers, and specialty contractors such as
electricians, etc.
As you know the county is currently conducting the environmental review of the recently
completed airport master plan. Thai five year plan will result in the displacement of some airport
compatible businesses to accomodate needed expansion of airport related services. The proposed
development will be a logical place to accomodate some of these displaced businesses.
If you require additional information do not hesitate to contact me.
Si ely,
French
3942 Hollyhock Way.San Luis Obispo.CA 93401 ° Tek(805)595 924];F=(805)595-7603 /0-46
_
R.H. PORTER CO.
February 10, 1998 RECEIVED
Planning Commissioners FEB 11 1998
City of San Luis Obispo CITY OF SAN LUIS
990 Palm Street DMMUNITy DEVELOPMENT
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
RE: Aero Drive Annexation and Zoning
Dear Sirs:
In response to your inquiry at our last City Planning Commission meeting for any
substantive evidence concerning the lack of hotel/motel demand at the Aeroloop Drive
property, we took the opportunity to contact one of our area's most knowledgeable
hotel/motel authorities, Mr. Jerry Hempenius of Com-Spec Properties, Inc. Mr.
Hempenius is a local hotel and motel owner, manager and broker and is a qualified expert
witness in this field.
Please review his remarks in his enclosed letter. I have also included his summary of
qualifications. Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Richard H. Porter
Robert E. Olson
Craig Cowan
846 Higuera Street. Suite E3. San Luis Obispo. CA 93401 . (e051 543-5408 /O�
csp
COM SPEC PROPERTIES, INC.
Serving the hospitality industry
HOTEUMOTEL SALES •INVESTMENTS • EXCHANGES •SYNDICATIONS
February 5, 1998
Mr. Rick Porter
846 Higuera
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Dear Rick:
Concerning your parcel on Broad Street, which is zoned for motel-hotel develop-
ment, it was briefly reviewed with the following considerations.
At this point in time, nor in the immediate future, would it make economic
sense to construct a hotel facility at this location.
(1 ) The main corridor of traffic for hotels is Hwy. 101 . The great majority
of overnight stays come from car traffic heading north or south.
(2) Airport traffic would need to dramatically increase to support a facility
and/or major commercial development in the area.
(3) If any hotel property were to be developed in that area of town, it would
need to be a full service resort with conference, golf course, meeting
rooms, etc. This would make it a destination and could feed somewhat from
the accessibility of the airport.
(4) Having owned an interest in the Holiday Inn Express of S.L.O. , I can attest
that very little traffic comes from the airport, other than pilots or
attendants with overnight stayovers. In fact, we discontinued our van
service soon after opening.
(5) Limited service hotels, without conference facilities, restaurant, bar,
etc. , need to be near the activity centers, i .e. , restaurants, service
stations and similar commercial business areas.
In my opinion we will not see enough commercial development in this area of town
to support a motel/hotel facility. Perhaps offices or other service type faci-
lities would better suit your parcel .
Sincerely,
Ger 4 E. Hempenius
GRI HA, CCIM, EMS
GEH:bp
Enc.
1422 MONTEREY STREET, SUITE A-201 SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA 93401 FAX (805) 542-9161 PHONE (805) 542-0131
®Individual Member
Your Professional Commercial-Investment Real Estate Source
Corn-Spec
Gerald H0177penlus
Com-Spec Properties, /nc.
A California Corporation
1110 Ca/ifornia B/vd, Ste. D
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Gerald F Hempenlus, Pr-dent
Sales, Exchanges
Syndications
Hospitality Specioli�ts
i
EDUCAT/ON College Degree Major
New York University M.S. Retailing/Merchandising
Whittier College B.S. Business Administration
H/STORY - BUS/NESS 1957 to 1977 Gerald E. Hempenius.J.C. Penney Company
1977 to Present President. Com-Spec Properties, Inc.
H/STORY - SYND/CAT/ON 1976 to 1990 Villager Motel. Morro Bay, CA. Owner/
AND MANAGEMENT Operator. (Property Sold)
1976 to 1990 Sunset Travelodge. Morro Bay, CA, Co-
General Partner/Operator. Franchise with
Travelodge International. (Property Sold)
1979 to 1990 Ventura Beach Travelodge, Ventura, CA.
Co-General Partner/Operator. Joint
Venture with Travelodge International.
General Partner on both properties - Mr.
and Mrs. Glen R. Lewis. Attornev-at-Law,
specializing in real estate and taxation.
(Property Sold)
1982 to 1994 Sands Motel, San Simeon, CA. General
Partner/Operator. (Property Sold)
1981 to 1984 Beachcomber Motel. Pismo Beach. CA,
General Partner/Operator. (Property Sold)
1982 to 1983 Mid-Town. Motel. San Luis Obispo, CA,
General Partner/Operator. (Property Sold)
1978 to 1982 Homestead Motel. San Luis Obispo, CA,
Owner/Operator. (Property Sold)
1985 to 1989 Atascadero Inn, Atascadero, CA. Devel-
oper, Owner/Operator. New property built
August 3, 1985. (Property Sold)
1985 to 1992 Fireside Inn, Morro Bay, CA, Owner/
Operator. (Property Sold)
1987 to 1990 Multi-story office complex, Morro Bay, CA,
DJM Enterprises - General Partner/
Operator.
1993 to Present Cuesta Canyon Lodge -Conversion to Holi-
day Inn Express. General Partner.
J Com-Spec Propedles, Inc. A Caiihor 1a Corporaflon
/D-7W
.yr
RECOGNMONS AND Licensed Real Estate Broker, State of California
CERTIFICATIONS Graduate. Realtors' Institute Certification (G.R.I.)
Who's Who in Creative Real Estate
Rotary International. Past President. Morro Bay Club
California Lodging Industry Association, Past President
Morro Bay Chamber of Commerce, Past President
California Iiotel and Motel Conference Committee
Forte Hotels Conference Committee
PROFESSIONAL AND California Lodging Industry Association
ORGAN/ZAT/ONAL California Hotel & Motel Association
Chamber of Commerce - San Luis Obispo, San Simeon/
Cambria. Ventura, Atascadero
United Methodist Church
Rotary International
National Association of Realtors
Real Estate Securities and Syndication institute
National Council of Exchangors (Gold Card #2941)
California Association of Realtors
Certified Commercial Investment Member - R.N.M.I.
(Certification#3075) (C.C.I.M.)
California Hotel Administrator Designation (C.H.A.)
National Association of Counselors - Candidate Member
Visitor Convention Bureau - Past Board Member
RECENT PROPERTIES Ventura Beach Travelodge - Ventura
LISTED AND SOLD Parkxvay Center - Escondido
Campus Motel - San Luis Obispo
Heritage Inn - San Luis Obispo
Fireside Inn Motel - Morro Bay
Estrella Park Inn - Palm Springs
Radisson Simi - S±mi Valley
Cuesta Canyon Lodge - San Luis Obispo
Bay Breeze Inn - Morro Bay
Roundhouse Inn - Carson City, NV
PROPEnlES PEND/NG St. Tropez -.Las Vegas
WITH OfFERS Motel 8 - Las Vegas
Rainbow Hotel - Las Vegas
Olive Tree - Best Western - San Luis Obispo
Boulder Manor - Las Vegas
Nicolle Manor - Las Vegas
St. Louis Manor - Las Vegas
Crowne Plaza - Solvang/Buellton
Com-S, 0C PropelAes, InC. A Callfornla Cogdoio/!on 2
/Q-7�
CONT/NU/NG EDUCATION Mr. Hempenius is engaged in the sale, exchange, and man-
agement of commercial properties in the State of California
and is a licensed Real Estate Broker.
Mr. Hempenius has had numerous courses pertaining to his
field of endeavors within the recent years, including:
The Art of Real Estate Counseling C.Chatham 5 days
Basic Steps in Real Estate Exchange Ringsdoif 3 days
Real Estate Appraisal J. Lubleau Semester
Conceytual Bddges Between Properties and People B.Broadbent 3 days
Real Estate Financing Cuesta College_— Semester
Real Estate Lew D. Hilton Semester
Appraisal Advanced Schenberger Semester
Real Estate Economics J. Lumbfeau Semester
Ccealive tical Estate PReal
ee:e 2 days
Graduate Realtors Institute e1 rnle_. .._,....._,. 6_,days—
Graduate Realtors Institute 12 6 days_
Graduate Realtors Institute 03 ation 6 days_
Buying Selling Evaluating Businesses r 2 da s
Develo in S ndicatin and Bi Mone Brokers a 3 daysTaxation and Exchan a Semester
National Institute of Exchange Counselors y 6 days —
Tax Update and Legal Survival CA.R. 1 day
Fundamentals of Real Estate Investment 11 Taxation CCIM C1-101 6 days
Fundamentals of Analyzing Real Estate Opportunities CCIM CI-102 _ 6 days
Techn4ues in Real Estate Syndication Course 1 RESSI 6 days _
Advanced Techniques in Real Estate Syndication Course II RESSI _ 5 days
Small PropeAy Syndication-The Legal Way Kuchel — 2 days
Advanced Real Estate Taxation CCIM (31.103_ B days
Fact of Human Behavior on Commercial Investment Decision Makinct CCIM C1-104 6 days
Case Studies in Commercial Investment Brokerage CCIM CIA05 6 days
Partnership Administration __ RESSI 3d9ys___
Real Estate Securities - Course 22L NPR 3 days
Real Estate Securities -Course 39L NAR 3-days
Understanding the Foreclosure Process DRE 1 day_
�peredatin Nates and Deeds of Trust DRE 1 day_
Real Estate Tax and Investment _ CCIM
ForeclosureLaw and PradiCe 1.daY—
Developing Small Office Buildup Northwest Center 1 day_—
Negotiating the Real Estate Contract Roger Dawson 1 day
Ethics and Professional Conduct REM 1 d�--
Tax Structuring - -Real Estate ____ r'Joriheast_Ce_nter 1 day..____
Advanced Real Estate Taxation for Investment Real Estate CCM-__
Listed.
Listed.Sold and Offered ___—_. CAA _..____... 1 day_____
Brokers Liability Local Board —_ 1 day
Tax investment Seminar CCIM 1 day
Tax Update Com t,day__
Real Estate Owned into Owned Real Estate _—_ CCIM 1 day__
Tax Deterred Exchan a tar the i s Ma-, slarr 1-day
Essentials of Contract Creation local Board 1 day
—
Agency-The Professional Approach Local Board 1 da
Negotiating the Commercial Lease Dff=__—.....--.._ 1.jaj_.—.
Realtors Guide to Income Tax _ Local Board1.day___._
N_egot sting the Commercial Lease Northwest___.._.. 7 day—
Ethics Local Board t,dy.
Agency Relationsf iDs Local Boani 1 day
Return on Real Estate Investments CCIM i_day_--.
Tax Update CCIM 1 day..........
CCIM Investment Conference __ CCIM 2 days__..
National Commercial R.E.Conference NAR 2 dam--
1994 International Commercial R.E. Conlerence Crisis & Opportunity CCIM — 1 day
Trus Fund Handling _.__._._ Gin t.day
Fair HousingCJIA 1 da
Com-Spec Propedies, Inc. A Cali%rhAd CbrPoration
Attachment #11-B
RECEIVED
JAN 2 8 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS
COMMUNITY DEVELOP SPO
MENT
January. 27,1998
City of San Luis Obispo
Planning Commissioners
Re: Property located at 4548 Broad St., San Luis Obispo, Ca.
We would welcome the annexation of the property referenced above. We have been
patient occupants and citizens of this community for more than 50 years and feel that our
inclusion in this annexation is proper at this time. The annexation of the Secondary
Planning Area of the Edna-Islay Plan is the most logical step in light of the degree of
development that has taken place within the primary and secondary area.
We would be hopeful that the annexation would allow us not only to continue our current
business, Wisberg Lumber Co./ACE (since 1952, ACE since 1977), but also have the
utilities for improving our site to benefit and enhance the community-
rely'
rt E. Wisberg
cc: Glen Mateson
/�-73
1850 COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
,.,
-� bepaRtment of cEneml sewces
COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408• (805)781-5200
DUANE P. LEIB, DIRECTOR
RECEIVED
January 28, 1998 JAN 2 8 1998
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8100
FULLER ROAD - AERO DRIVE ANNEXATION/1-28-98 PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
I have reviewed the staff report concerning the above referenced item with particular attention
regarding the Aero Drive portion of the proposed annexation and related planning issues. The
County owns significant land (over 300 acres) adjacent to or in the vicinity of the proposed
annexation and is more commonly known as San Luis Obispo County Airport/McChesney Field.
The General Services Department/Airports Division has the operational responsibility for the
Airport. The following information is provided to supplement your staff package concerning the
annexation.
1. Representations made in the Aero Loop Properties Annexation "Project Statement" dated
January 21, 1997 concerning the availability of City sewer and water lines portray an
incorrect picture. Fortunately, this inaccuracy has been pointed out in your staff report
and on the environmental checklist form. The County entered into an agreement with the
City for sewer and water services in 1977. The sewer and water lines internal of the
Airport were installed by the County in 1979 at a cost of over $450,000. Access to the
Airport sewer and water system is limited by the agreement.
2. The exhibits in the staff report depict a portion of Aero Drive right-of-way as part of the
proposed annexation. The County cannot support the inclusion of Aero Drive right-of-way
as part of the annexation. The current San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors has
voted to not support the inclusion of the San Luis Obispo County Airport property as part
of a proposed larger Airport Area Annexation. Aero Drive is currently the main entrance
and the gateway to the San Luis Obispo County Airport and can easily be viewed as an
integral part of the Airport. Airport parking management issues are a major concern to
the successful operation of the Airport. Current parking management operations and
related enforcement are coordinated with the County Engineering Department. Related
parking enforcement ordinances are under one coordinated jurisdiction and multiple
jurisdictions could prove problematic.
/o -7`f
Arnold Jonas i
January 28, 1998
Page two
Your consideration ofthis additional information is appreciated. If you have�further questions,
don't hesitate to contact me at 781-5200.
R: GEORGE ROSENBERGER
Deputy Director of General Services
c = Planning Commissioners
Paul Gimer, Airports Manager
F1hlgrVjooes .
° COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
bepautment of gcnazal sewces
r �•�;�J COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER• SAN LUIS OBISPO,CALIFORNIA 93408• (805)781-5201
DUANE P. LEIB,DIRECTOR
•
February 25, 1998 RECEIVED
FEB 25 1998
Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
City of San Luis Obispo OMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93403-8100
AERO DRIVE ANNEXATION/2-25-98 PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
The Planning Commission will again consider a request for annexation, General Plan amendment
and prezoning for 3 parcels west of Broad Street (Highway 227) and north of Aero Drive. The
subject property is adjacent to the San Luis Obispo County Airport and the request includes a portion
of Aero Drive.
Our previous letters dated January 28, 1998 took exception to the staff recommendation to include
Aero Drive in the annexation request. The current staff recommendation remains the same. The
County Board of Supervisors has voted to not support the inclusion of the San Luis Obispo County
Airport property as part of the proposed larger Airport Area Annexation. Aero Drive is currently
the main entrance and the gateway to the Airport and can easily be viewed as an integral part of the
Airport. Airport operational issues regarding Aero Drive are also a major concern. Parking
management and control in and around the Airport,including Aero Drive, are an important element
to Airport operations. Both City and County staff have discussed the possibility of an agreement
whereby the City could annex Aero Drive and the County Airport could maintain operational control
of Aero Drive. However, the details of such an agreement are not developed.
The applicants"Conceptual Development Plan"depicts points of ingress and egress from their most
westerly parcel on to the northerly leg of Airport Drive. This section of Airport Drive is a private
Airport road, and not a public right-of-way. If the applicant wishes access to this portion of Airport
Drive, the County would require an agreement regarding such access addressing their pro.rata share
of road maintenance and liability issues. This requirement should be a condition of any development
plan approval.
A portion of the applicants most westerly parcel (intersection of Aero Drive and Airport Drive) is
currently utilized by Hertz and Budget Rental Car Companies for vehicle preparation and cleaning
of rental vehicles at the Airport. This use has existed since approximately 1982 and involves two
of the three major car rental companies based on the Airport.
Amold Jonas
February 25, 1998
Page Two
The County is very concerned about the continued economic viability of the Airport and the services
it provides to the citizens of the County and the City of San Luis Obispo. The economic benefits
provided by the Airport are substantial and the County is endeavoring to maintain this delicate
balance.
I have attached for the Commissions information, a map which more clearly shows the relationship
of the parcels under consideration to the San Luis Obispo County Airport. Should you have any
further questions, don't hesitate to contact me.
R. GEORGE RO ES�NBERGER
Deputy Director of General Services
c: Planning Commissioners
John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manager
Paul Gimer, Airports Manager
Warren Hoag, County Planning Department
Attachment
koIF:\home\GeorScm\Jonas.Let
/n�7
SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY AIRPORT
OCOUNTY OWNED-125 AC-EXIST RESIDENCE-ACQUIRE
02-COUNTY OWNED-2.5 AC-EXIST PARKING-ACQUIRED 1.98
/ O FRANKLIN/SMTH-2.5AC
\ a PORTER/OLSON-2.52 AC
OCOWAH-2.52 AC EACH
PARKING
I �QQ
PARKING .
i J.
. �. 1• � _ �., PARKING� • •
�II PARKING PARKING
I I TERNMAL RESLWRART
TERMINAL APRON
TWY A
RUNWAY 11 -29
/
,l..S 830 SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY
f
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND BUILDING
ALEX HINDS
DIRECTOR
RECEIVED BRYCE TINGLE
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR
p ELLEN CARROLL
8
AN 21"BRONMENTAL COORDINATOR
January 28, 1998 CBARNEY MCCAY
CITY' ITY OF TVN LUIS OBI$PDCHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL
DEVELOPMENT
Arnold Jonas
Community Development Director
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
Subject: Fuller Road - Aero Drive Annexation
Dear Arnold:
I have reviewed the staff report to the city planning commission for this matter and would offer a few
comments. Ultimate annexation of these properties as part of the airport area is strongly encouraged by
adopted policies in the recently updated San Luis Obispo Area Plan of the Land Use Element of the
county general plan. However, incremental annexation of smaller portions of the airport area in the
interim prior to comprehensive annexation of the greater area needs careful examination.
As you know, the county Board of Supervisors has taken a position against including county-owned
airport property in the airport area annexation because of concerns over jurisdictional matters possibly
complicating airport operations. Given those concerns, please note the position taken by the county
Department of General Services in their letter dated today regarding the Aero Drive right-of-way. If the
Aero Drive properties (the area west of Broad Street) are going to be considered for annexation at this
time, the Aero Drive right-of-way should be deleted from the proposal at least until the comprehensive
airport area annexation is done to avoid any jurisdictional complications that could arise from an
incremental interim annexation, such as road maintenance, frontage improvement and parking issues.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposal. If you have any questions, please give me
a call at 781-5982.
Sincerel ,
Warren Hoag
Principal Planner
c: Supervisor Pinard,Alex Hinds,George Rosenberger,Paul Hood
aerofull.laf 1Q—�9
COUNTY GovERNMENT CENTER • SAN Luis OBISPO • CALIFORNIA 93408 • (805) 781-5600 FAX (805) 781-1242 OR 5624
01.26.96 14:56 FA1 6055432094 K-iR1 1x701
OWNS
January 28, 1998
RECEDED
Glen Matteson,Associate Planner JAN 2 8 1998
City of San Luis Obispo CIN OF SAN LUIS
990 Palm St. COMMUNITY OEVELOp SPO
SLO, CA 93401-3249
RE: Fuller Road Annexation
Plznni*g Commission Meeting
January 28, 1998
Dear Glen:
I am writing this letter in support of Annexation of our properties along the east side of Broad
Street directly across from the entrance to the San Luis Obispo Airport. Our properties are all
currently developed and include the Cuesta Equipment/Rarig Construction,Inc. building,Familian
Pipe&Supply building and New West Communications building.
We are especially interested in connecting our existing buildings to the City sewer system. Our
domestic wells are adequate for our current needs and we do not forsee any immediate
requirements to hook into the City water system. We also have adequate fire protection including
a large water storage tank and our buildings are only a few minutes response time from the
Airport Fire Station.
Please distribute copies of this letter to the City Planning Commission prior to tonight's meeting.
I will not be able to attend tonight's public hearing, however I urge the commission to support
our annexation requests.
Sincerely,
r~
Steve Rarig,President
Karig Construction, Inc.
APN 076-511-002 2.5 Acres
APN 076-511-003 4.15 Acres
PoWr Fax Now 7671 Oab3)Z psgea► 1
ire10.r� M e n FMM
CojoeoL Co.
"ones Phone r AOOR Rita
AW 6rud A.
Fax s --1 61 — —111 Fax• SM tws M1*0.G19�W
Ph":806•SU•93W
�:eoa•w•�r�
/0—OT
Attachment #12
DRAFT
AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
THE COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO CONCERNING AERO DRIVE
This agreement is made and entered into this day of 1998, by and
between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter referred
to as "CITY") whose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401; and the
County of San Luis Obispo, a general law county, (hereinafter referred to as "COUNTY,"
located at the County Government Center in San Luis Obispo. CITY and COUNTY shall
hereinafter be referred to collectively as "PARTIES."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, CITY has recommended that the Local Agency Formation Commission of San
Luis Obispo County approve Annexation No. 52 to the City of San Luis Obispo, also known as
the Aero Drive Area Annexation (City File No. 12-97); and
WHEREAS, this annexation is proposed to include the Aero Drive right-of-way, from
Highway 227 (Broad Street) to a point approximately 650 feet westerly from Highway 227,
and fronting privately owned land to the north of Aero Drive; and
WHEREAS, Aero Drive is a main entry to the San Luis Obispo County Airport, which is
owned and operated by COUNTY; and
WHEREAS, PARTIES desire the continued successful operation of the Airport and supporting
facilities; and
WHEREAS, PARTIES desire the effective and efficient improvement and maintenance of the
Aero Drive roadway and associated frontage, and of the public utilities that are or may be
installed within the right-of-way, and coordination with development of the fronting, privately
owned land; and
WHEREAS, neither CITY nor COUNTY is empowered to make the final determination on the
boundaries of the annexation area, this being the purview of the Local Agency Formation
Commission.
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants, and agreements
stated herein, PARTIES agree as follows:
/0-81
Aero Drive Agreement D R A .F T
Page 2
1. Parking Management. Within the Aero Drive right-of-way, the following shall apply,
regardless of whether or not the right-of-way is annexed by CITY:
A. The.rules for parking shall continue to be established by COUNTY.only.
B. Enforcement of parking rules shall be the responsibility of COUNTY (and to the extent
consistent with State and local law, the County Sheriff or the California Highway
Patrol).
C. All revenues from parking use charges and fines shall be paid to, and be the property
of, COUNTY; accounting for these revenues shall be the responsibility of COUNTY.
D. The day-to-day administration of parking matters shall be the sole responsibility of the
Airport Manager, or his or her designee.
E. COUNTY shall indemnify CITY for all actions taken by COUNTY involving parking
management.
F. CITY and COUNTY each shall make all reasonable effort to inform developers of
property fronting Aero Drive in their respective jurisdictions of this arrangement for
parking management, early in the course of development review.
2. Roadway and Frontage Improvements. PARTIES anticipate improvements to the Aero
Drive roadway as the Airport and adjacent properties are developed or further developed.
Such improvements may include additional width or depth of paving. Frontage
improvements may include curb, gutter, sidewalk, driveway approaches, street trees, and
streets signs. COUNTY may make such improvements in connection with implementation
of the anticipated Airport Master Plan or for other reasons. CITY may require developers
of fronting property to make such improvements, consistent with CITY standards, when
fronting property within the city limits is developed.
3. Roadway and Frontage Maintenance. If Aero Drive is not annexed, the roadway and
frontage improvements shall be maintained by COUNTY, or by owners of fronting
property where so required by COUNTY's codes and standards. If Aero Drive is annexed,
the roadway and frontage improvements shall be maintained by CITY, or by owners of
fronting property where so required by CITY's codes and standards.
4. Work in the Right-of-Way. Regardless of whether or not the right-of-way is annexed by
CITY, work by a private party within the Aero Drive right-of-way, including but not
limited to constructing or replacing driveway approach or sidewalk, and installing or
replacing utility lines or trees, shall be subject to approval of an encroachment permit by
CITY only.
5. Street Lights. If Aero Drive is not annexed, PARTIES do not anticipate installation of
street lights in the right-of-way. In that case, PARTIES shall endeavor to have fronting
development under each agency's jurisdiction provide, operate, and maintain site lighting
that, without glare, will provide adequate illumination for the road and sidewalks. If Aero
Drive is annexed, street lights shall be installed and maintained to CITY standards.
/p-8�
Aero Drive Agreement D R A FT
Page 3
6. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the date shown
above and shall continue for thirty years, provided that at any time this agreement may be
modified or terminated by mutual consent of PARTIES.
7. AMENDMENTS, TIME EXTENSION, OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may
be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their
successors in interest.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date stated above at San Luis
Obispo, California.
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation
BY:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Bonnie Gawf
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tto�ey ff b4gensen
COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
BY:
Michael Ryan
Chair, Board of Supervisors
ATTEST:
Clerk of the Board
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Counsel
/D��3
Attachment#13
NNaaalaacnN'yNaNayaaaaaNNNNu� cny � Ny
O V N N NIN N O O O O N O y O � N N N N 0 0 O_ •L -{ •`
V N N N N N -7 -7 -7 -7 U V V U U UCS
mrna
W e to 19 1? y
O C ! N N r 17 O
CL
o` NCC d' �I2 a' cr
d y N (/J
Ch U fq
U U
_ v
L p)N m R m lc N tc l W N lc /c N W' W R W lc N Ol O O D) Ol Ol
N C — C: E 'E E 'E — m - - E T rj m ._ - - ._ C C C C C C m
m L C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Lr C C C CIL 'C L 'C 'C 'C
cr 7 0 m 0 0 m m 0 d d 0 0 W m 0 d m 0 j 7 3 7 7 O '
v10 01— v+ vvvvmv - vv_ avtititit'i -6 -6 m m m 01
CL W — — — — — — o c — — — —
W C W N 0 N 0 W 0 y d W y W 0 (D W FYI W Yl W W m mom.. EEE
CD d m m m d m m m d 0 m m m d d d 5 0 g 5 E E E o
R• CKitm wm Rw0: w 0w CCW wCE e c c c c e 0 0 0
Z eO <6 a8 aE c8222222
0 COCC C C 0C
0 d 00y '915 '9 '9
W W W W W yW VV9 4 V '9 '9 V Y 4 v5 1 Y 4 8 0 mm
ym
F c
CD c E E E E E 3 E d 3 3 3 3 3 c 3 3 3 3 • m
W W •� > > > > > o p 0 0 0 0 o W o 0 0 0 � '� 2 Z
m � Co w w 0 0 0 J •0 2. o d d
o ca co m m m m m m y y� co (A fOyN N ep
J W ME m
R y
0 J fq
v OO 00000 O O
j m o ami o0o IWq n
W W LL Y to CM r,r A
Q y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 0 0 0 O O O N � N O 0000 V
a d v, m l7Ypf
Z Cmr N� m
O � � t
m rn
V
o I
> >
Z m TrL C `3 � � '2 >.
Z o y ` � 4 v� �n �n E
Q Z
W I Ic
n OOI�- '- Or N N m NN O 0000 Q O O O O Y m
p) N N
O � E Nm m O m
0 C W
W o
K a W D 00
GE rf� NI N N N m O m y
Q Wm II Q
O �LL
� m oo
J W;cO WIm:N O m m'v m�N 1 m m OIN W N n N N Ip N m m m O CD N'N N m O t�
s
d'Pf NN BOO Af70 �.� 1l m off!! N m m m m W N �j m V f0 Y] 10 10 10 cV E
Q O O O I C I N O O N 0 0 0 m m v m N a .1" N h N r m p
LL O t0 A m
LL m y co OI I m m O O N m Y 0] � 4• h O ;m m m11�IP
m.0 i0�� �a71m A O fA N A m Cn m m m V
L � � 'IN NI O •- N Y N N m N f7 N O O 9
N0,N t7 �0'm NIS N W A NlM r r n N A N m m NIN N m N r7 N p
mO Om � � mmO � N NN V mu! Of0 m 0 01000 r
O Oii0 O•N N >�
m LL] I OGO GGGG � GGGG NCV lV N Pi N v a
W � I W
m
Q = C
Oq
f —
m L m 3 f C
m o x cYf m m m m c m E OLD c 0 m
yJ o
m W' !E c: m m H m m U 0 Q m m m W t Q
5m ml~ 1LmmImvip 2'" ccw > > c
E pl: E� m m' H F o E d W o m
mW IW �:mpEQ - a � � E n � � m ��� w
Ewmyl- d � p � tWlt� mmv 'mm `mu`imE '�Sz dmd � m �
c UIO�I m:W miQlm Q Y;� CC 3 a7 goo' m m -5 -50 U 0 0 � (9 0 0 0 0 t 0 m
's ��x � zQIQ�FLL ~ W QQ LL LL CEJ � W gyJL dCl (l � 0 G
C7�>ICJC7d' mC7JJaM ZSYw C' Ca' Q t Z
Em 01 V O m n I m'm O I N !•f O LO m N l•1 'Q 10 O m N l•1 O I O m 0 O H O
f`9 O'OO O O O O �I� � NNNN N N N OO � O •' N Y •'
W o o 0;0 0 0l0 o g o o q q o O q o o q o o q o o q q � qi q 0 x
4 Z �- I I r SIV r '- ^I� fA W Q
N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N � 7 � � ;- O O O
ayi $ 4 YID Y 4Y 4YY Y YIY 4 YIY
W m m m mem co m m m m m m m.m P, ab m
a o o.o:o�o N olo'oo olo o,olo o o�0 P. 0,0 0 0 P.