HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-11-14City of San Luis Obispo, Agenda, Planning Commission
Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Planning Commission regarding any item on
this agenda will be made available for public inspection in the Community Development, 919 Palm
Street, during normal business hours.
SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION
AGENDA
Council Chamber
City Hall - 990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
June 11, 2014 Wednesday 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: Commissioners or staff may modify the order of items.
MINUTES: Minutes of May 28, 2014. Approve or amend.
PUBLIC COMMENT: At this time, people may address the Commission about items
not on the agenda. Persons wishing to speak should come forward and state their
name and address. Comments are limited to five minutes per person. Items raised at
this time are generally referred to staff and, if action by the Commission is necessary,
may be scheduled for a future meeting.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
NOTE: Any court challenge to the action taken on public hearing items on this agenda
may be limited to considering only those issues raised at the public hearing or in written
correspondence delivered to the City of San Luis Obispo at, or prior to, the public
hearing.
Any decision of the Planning Commission is final unless appealed to the City Council
within 10 days of the action (Recommendations to the City Council cannot be appealed
since they are not a final action.). Any person aggrieved by a decision of the Commission
may file an appeal with the City Clerk. Appeal forms are available in the Community
Development Department, City Clerk’s office, or on the City’s website (www.slocity.org).
The fee for filing an appeal is $273 and must accompany the appeal documentation.
If you wish to speak, please give your name and address for the record. Please limit
your comments to three minutes; consultant and project presentations limited to six
minutes.
1. 504 Madonna Road. GPI 76-14: Review of Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan and Mitigated Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact; P-
F zone; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. (Bob Hill)
Planning Commission Agenda
Page 2
The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs , and
activities. Please contact the City Clerk or staff liaison prior to the meeting if you require assistance.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast
3. Commission
ADJOURNMENT
Presenter: Bob Hill
D.D.
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT
SUBJECT: Review of the draft Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and environmental review for the project.
PROJECT ADDRESS: BY: Robert Hill, Natural Resources Mgr. APNs: 004-261-085; 004-271-032; Phone Number: 805-781-7211 004-291-007; 004-291-008; 004-292-041; E-mail: rhill@slocity.org 004-451-013; 004-871-005 504 Madonna Road, San Luis Obispo
FILE NUMBER: GPI/ER 76-14 FROM: Doug Davidson, Deputy Director
RECOMMENDATION
Review draft Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Initial Study, and
recommend to the City Council that the Plan and a Negative Declaration be adopted as
presented, or as amended.
SITE DATA
Applicant City of San Luis
Obispo
Representative Robert Hill, Natural
Resources Manager
Zoning C-OS (Conservation–
Open Space)
General Plan C-OS (Conservation–
Open Space)
Site Area Approx. 344 acres
Application
ER Status
Complete
Initial Study
determined
Negative Declaration
SUMMARY
The City’s Natural Resources Program seeks adoption of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan that will guide the management and stewardship of the site over the next ten
years. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (“LLNR” or “the Reserve”) is a place of exceptional
beauty, blending a rich ecosystem with spectacular views and recreational opportunities. The
entire Reserve is approximately 344 acres, and is comprised of planning areas previously
identified in the Laguna Lake Management Program (1982) and the “Nature Preserve” area
identified in the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan (1993) and brings them together under a more
contemporary Conservation Plan process in order for the property to managed in accordance
with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the Conservation and Open Space Element of the
City’s General Plan.
Meeting Date: June 11, 2014
Number: 1
RH.
PC1 - 1
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 2
Overview of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Laguna Lake is primarily a naturally occurring lake located in the easterly end of Los Osos
Valley. All lakes eventually fill in, over the course of geologic time. But, Laguna Lake has also
been substantially altered and manipulated to include the re-routing of Prefumo Creek into the
lake and the excavation of the Southeast Arm of the lake during the 1960’s. These activities
created a wonderful recreational lake amenity for the community to enjoy in a manner reflective
of our values at that time, but they also created a long-term management challenge.
Sedimentation rates into the lake have been significant, while at the same time, natural riparian
and wetland vegetation has proven resilient and re-established in areas that had been previously
removed or disturbed. Many sensitive species and habitats persist within the Reserve. As the
property owner, the City now finds that it must consider natural resource protection coupled with
an ongoing maintenance regime that will accommodate both ecological values and human
values. Technical, regulatory, and financial feasibility considerations are also paramount to
approaching the difficult public policy questions posed by Laguna Lake. This plan seeks to
address and confront these challenges by offering a framework for conservation, restoration,
recovery, and scenic recreational use at the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve.
The Reserve is remarkably diverse in its natural landscape features. The open water lake is for
the most part surrounded by wetland marsh habitat characterized by bulrush and willows, but for
the more open southeast arm extending towards Madonna Road. On the south side of the
Reserve, Prefumo Creek forms a dense willow riparian forest that is also marked by larger
sycamore and cottonwood trees, as well as coast live oaks on the margins, until it reaches a
stabilized delta area at the outlet into the lake. A long peninsula feature juts out into the lake
from the north shore. Behind that is a relatively flat grassland meadow area that is traversed by a
series of drainages, seeps and swales, as well as a network of pleasant walking trails. The
northern side of the Reserve gives way to a steep serpentine rock outcrop ridgeline that affords
outstanding views of the lake below, the Morros, the Irish Hills, Los Osos Valley, and the lower
San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.
Plan Process
The preparation of the Conservation Plan implements several policies of the City of San Luis
Obispo to ensure that the use of City-owned open space lands is consistent with environmental
protection, and activities undertaken in those lands conforms to the highest standards. This
approach was memorialized in 2002 with the adoption by the City Council of the document
Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo that set forth a
procedure for staff to follow in determining the natural resources of a City-owned property, and
the uses that are appropriate on those lands. The Conservation Guidelines were subsequently
incorporated by reference in the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan. The
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is the eighth such plan to be developed and
brought forward for public review and consideration.
1.0 COMMISSION’S PURVIEW
The Planning Commission may opine on any component of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan, although staff would like to suggest that the Commission focus especially on
matters pertaining to the establishment of the “Natural Reserve” planning area boundary, and
land use designations within the Reserve. The Conservation Plan does not propose to change
PC1 - 2
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 3
any existing passive recreational uses that occur now in the Reserve, such as hiking, biking,
boating, and parasailing from the ridge, although it does specify appropriate methods and areas
for these uses. The Conservation Plan also contemplates dredging and other projects that will
have temporary use impacts, but are anticipated to ultimately improve both environmental
conditions and visitor use conditions within the Reserve. Of note, and likely of interest to the
Commission, are the proposals to install a constructed viewing boardwalk along the peninsula,
updated signs, and accessible walking paths.
A formal General Plan Conformity Determination is not required for the adoption of the
Conservation Plan by the City Council, but the Planning Commission’s review in this regard is
still appropriate. The General Plan contains several goals, policies, and programs where use and
management of open space is addressed. The Conservation and Open Space Element (COSE)
and the Parks and Recreation Element (PRE) are where the most pertinent policy direction is
found. The list below is not exhaustive but demonstrates how the LLNR plan addresses
conformity with the General Plan.
COSE Policy 8.5.5: Passive Recreation – The City will consider allowing passive recreation
where it will not degrade or significantly impact open space resources.
The Conservation Plan addresses this policy by improving existing authorized trails, monitoring
trails located in sensitive portions of the site, and other passive uses in a controlled manner.
COSE Program 8.7.1E: Protect Open Space Resources – The City will manage its open space
holdings and enforce its open space easements consistent with General Plan goals and policies
and the Open Space Ordinance.
The Conservation Plan implements this program by calling for certain actions to restore or
enhance the lake, riparian areas and wetlands on the site, as well as providing for regular patrol
and monitoring of the Reserve.
COSE Program 8.7.2J: Enhance and Restore Open Space - The City will… adopt conservation
plans for open space areas under City easement or fee ownership. The plans shall include a
resource inventory, needs analysis, acceptable levels of change, grazing, monitoring, wildlife,
management and implementation strategies, including wildfire preparedness plans.
The Conservation Plan implements this program by following the protocols and addressing the
matters outlined in the COSE Policy described above.
PRE Policy 2.6.9: Open Space shall be managed in such a manner as to allow for habitat
conservation uses, for appropriate public uses and to maintain and enhance its environmental
quality.
By adopting and adhering to a Conservation Plan for LLNR, this policy is directly implemented.
PC1 - 3
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 4
2.0 PROJECT INFORMATION
Site Information/Setting
Site Size Approx. 344 acres
Present Use & Development Vacant open space held for conservation and passive recreation
Topography Level to Very Steep (slopes often greater than 50%)
Access Madonna Road entrance to Laguna Lake Park
Surrounding Use/Zoning North: Agriculture / Grazing
South: Residential
East: Commercial
West: Agriculture / Grazing
3.0 PROJECT ANALYSIS
Management Considerations
The LLNR Conservation Plan provides a framework to address long-term stewardship of the
Reserve:
1.Conservation. The plan places priority on maintaining the natural ecosystem, while allowing
public recreation and other uses as appropriate and compatible. Several species protected
under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and species of special concern or with designations
under the California Native Plant Society shall be protected and monitored for long-term
recovery. Protective status is also given to other native communities and habitats that persist
in the planning area for the functions and values that they provide as an intact ecosystem.
2.Erosion and sedimentation. The lake is filling in. Conservation strategies for the upper
watershed that maintain relatively open, low-intensity land uses can make a significant
difference to sedimentation rates into a lake system. Opportunities to restore eroded creek
banks above the lake, and eroded shoreline areas along the lake, also exist. Ongoing
sediment removal from the Prefumo Arm, as well as other locations where opportunities to
create additional sediment basins are considered by this plan. The option of dredging
portions of the lake is also accommodated by the framework laid out in this plan, when
coupled with erosion and sedmimentation strategies described, above, in order to make such
a project both more feasible from a regulatory standpoint and more sustainable over the long-
term.
3.Flood protection. Laguna Lake provides significant stormwater attenuation capacity
depending on lake levels when storm events occur. The lake will swell considerably, first
into the marsh areas, and then into the natural flood plain to the west, to a size nearly four
times its normal, bank-full capacity.
4.Increase access and use of the lake. The lake is a valuable City asset for passive
recreational uses. Historically, the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve area has been enjoyed for
boating, fishing, hiking, and bird watching, to name a few examples. When coupled with the
active Laguna Lake Park, there are many possibilities for fun and adventure. Throughout the
planning process, community members were consistent in stating their preference that the
lake continue to be maintained to support recreational uses, and that the City should do more
to increase access and use of the Reserve as an attractive amenity.
PC1 - 4
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 5
Goals and Policies
The LLNR Conservation Plan has as its overarching goal to achieve sustainable conservation of
sensitive habitats while also allowing for flood protection and recreational elements. The plan
will accomplish this goal, and address the management issues described above, through the
following policies:
1. Conserve, enhance, and restore natural plant and wildlife communities; protect sensitive
endangered plant and wildlife species and their habitats; and, maintain biodiversity of native
plants and animals by protecting their habitats in order to maintain viable wildlife
populations within balanced ecosystems.
2. Provide the public with a safe, accessible, and pleasing natural environment in which to
pursue passive recreational activities, while maintaining the integrity of natural resources and
minimizing the impacts on the wildlife and habitats present in the Reserve.
3. Actively protect, stabilize, and restore creeks, wetlands, and ephemeral seeps or springs to a
natural state, and provide suitable habitat for all native aquatic and riparian species.
4.Actively address sedimentation sources, both within the Reserve and upstream of the
Reserve.
5. Minimize the impacts of harmful activities, such as off-trail hiking and biking use, horse and
cattle grazing, catastrophic wildfire, and utility access, while maintaining natural drainage
systems as a means of conveying storm water into and within urban areas.
6. Provide signage and interpretive features to enhance user safety, prevent unauthorized
entrance at neighboring private property, and for educational / interpretive purposes.
7. Maintain, protect, and improve aesthetic views as seen from various locations throughout the
City of San Luis Obispo.
8. Regularly monitor and patrol the Reserve, establish Levels of Acceptable Change (LAC), and
take action to correct areas or problems that exceed LAC.
The Conservation Plan’s primary thrust is to protect the existing resources at LLNR while also
allowing recreational use, fire safety, and restoration activities where appropriate and
compatible.
4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Initial Study identifies several areas where potential concerns exist, but that are
characterized as less than significant: One is for the potential aesthetic impacts associated with a
new trail / boardwalk facility on the north side of LLNR that could be visible; second is air
quality impacts associated with a possible dredging project; third is the potential for take of rare
native plants species like the Chorro Creek Bog Thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense) and
San Luis Obispo star tulip (Calochortus obispoensis), as well as south-central California
steelhead (Onchorynchus mykiss); fourth is the potential for erosion associated with projects
planned in the Reserve; fifth is the potential associated with projects planned in the Reserve to
degrade water quality; and; sixth are the temporary recreational use impacts associated with
projects planned in the Reserve.
PC1 - 5
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 6
These concerns are addressed by including the following provisions into the Project Description:
1. Ensuring that new trail construction design preserves native vegetation on the outer edge in
order to screen the trail itself and that any new constructed boardwalk is reviewed by the
City’s Architectural Review Commission.
2. Ensuring that the potential dredging project is conducted in accordance with APCD permit
requirements
3.Ensuring that project undertaken within the Reserve that may impact sensitive species are
conducted with the benefit of protocol-level biological surveys and monitoring
4. Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve that may cause erosion are undertaken
with an approved erosion control plan
5. Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve that may degrade water quality are
conducted in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and 401
Water Quality Certification permit requirements.
6. Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve are staged in such a manner as to
minimize disruptions to recreational uses.
With incorporation of these provisions into the Project Description, potential impacts are less
than significant and issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
5.0 PUBLIC COMMENT
Natural Resources Program staff conducted three public workshops in February and June, 2012
and April 2014. Notes from these meetings are included in the plan.
6.0 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS
City of San Luis Obispo Natural Resources Program staff, Parks and Recreation Department
staff, and Fire Department staff have reviewed components of the plan pertinent to their
departments. The item is scheduled to be heard by the City Council on July 15, 2014
7.0 ALTERNATIVES
The Commission could: 1.) continue the item and request that staff come back before the
Commission again at date to be determined after addressing suggested edits or changes to the
Conservation Plan, or 2.) recommend denial of the Conservation Plan.
8.0 ATTACHMENTS
1. Location Map
2. Draft Initial Study
The Public Hearing Draft Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is on City’s website:
http://www.slocity.org/naturalresources/index.asp
PC1 - 6
GPI/ER 76-14; Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
Page 7 ATTACHMENT 1
PC1 - 7
For GPI 76-14 (2014)
1.Project Title: Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
2.Lead Agency Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
3.Contact Person and Phone Number:
Robert Hill, Natural Resources Manager, (805) 781-7211, e-mail: rhill@slocity.org
4.Project Location: San Luis Obispo, California
5.Project Sponsor’s Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6.General Plan Designation: Conservation / Open Space.
7.Zoning: Conservation / Open Space.
8.Description of the Project:
The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan that will guide the management and
stewardship of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve (“LLNR” or “the Reserve”) over the next ten
years. The entire Reserve is approximately 344 acres, and is comprised of planning areas
previously identified in the Laguna Lake Management Program (1982) and the “Nature
Preserve” area identified in the Laguna Lake Park Master Plan (1993) and brings them together
under a more contemporary Conservation Plan process in order for the property to managed in
accordance with the City’s Open Space Regulations and the Conservation and Open Space
Element of the City’s General Plan. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan
proposes a variety of project opportunities to protect, restore, and enhance the Reserve over a
time horizon of 10 years. In addition to normal management, maintenance, and monitoring of the
Reserve consistent with existing practices, new projects may include the option to install
sediment basins, resurface existing roads and trails for accessibility, and installation of a
constructed viewing boardwalk. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan also
allows for the option to dredge portions of the lake; this activity, however, was evaluated and
addressed previously under the earlier analysis of an Initial Study leading to the determination of
a Mitigated Negative Declaration that adopted by the City of San Luis Obispo as lead agency
(ER 31-06) on November 17, 2009. The following provisions are included in the project
description:
(1) Ensuring that new trail construction design preserves native vegetation on the outer edge in
order to screen the trail itself and that any new constructed boardwalk is reviewed by the
City’s Architectural Review Commission.
Environmental Checklist Form
PC1 - 8
(2) Ensuring that the potential dredging project is conducted in accordance with APCD permit
requirements
(3) Ensuring that project undertaken within the Reserve that may impact sensitive species are
conducted with the benefit of protocol-level biological surveys and monitoring
(4) Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve that may cause erosion are undertaken
with an approved erosion control plan
(5) Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve that may degrade water quality are
conducted in accordance with Regional Water Quality Control Board standards and 401
Water Quality Certification permit requirements.
(6) Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve are staged in such a manner as to
minimize disruptions to recreational uses.
9.Surrounding Land Uses and Settings: Urban development is located south of the planning
area, rural ranches and low-intensity development lay to the west and open space/parkland
comprises the remainder of the boundary.
10.Other public agencies whose approval is required:
•California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement)
•Regional Water Quality Control Board (Water Quality Certification, Section 401 Clean
Water Act)
•United States Army Corps of Engineers (permit to dredge Waters of the U.S., Section 404
Clean Water Act)
PC1 - 9
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at
least one impact that is a “Potentially Significant Impact” as indicated by the checklist on the following
pages.
Aesthetics Greenhouse Gas Emissions Population / Housing
Agriculture Resources Hazards & Hazardous
Materials
Public Services
Air Quality Hydrology / Water Quality Recreation
Biological Resources Land Use / Planning Transportation / Traffic
Cultural Resources Mineral Resources Utilities / Service Systems
Geology / Soils Noise Mandatory Findings of
Significance
FISH AND GAME FEES
The Department of Fish and Game has reviewed the CEQA document and written no effect determination
request and has determined that the project will not have a potential effect on fish, wildlife, or habitat (see
attached determination).
X
The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code. This initial study has been
circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment.
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE
X
This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more
State agencies (e.g. Cal Trans, California Department of Fish and Game, Department of Housing and
Community Development). The public review period shall not be less than 30 days (CEQA Guidelines
15073(a)).
PC1 - 10
DETERMINATION (To be completed by the Lead Agency):
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment,
and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions in the project have been
made, by or agreed to by the project proponent. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE
DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a “potentially significant” impact(s) or “potentially
significant unless mitigated” impact(s) on the environment, but at least one effect (1) has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has
been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached
sheets. An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the
effects that remain to be addressed
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR
or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions
or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required.
Signature Date
Printed Name Community Development Director
PC1 - 11
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1.A brief explanation is required for all answers except “No Impact” answers that are adequately supported by the
information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A “No Impact” answer is adequately
supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved
(e.g. the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A “No Impact” answer should be explained where it is based on project-
specific factors as well as general standards (e.g. the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a
project-specific screening analysis).
2.All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well
as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts.
3.Once the lead agency has determined that a particular physical impact may occur, then the checklist answers must
indicate whether the impact is potentially significant, less than significant with mitigation, or less than significant.
"Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect may be significant. If there are
one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required.
4.“Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated” applies where the incorporation of
mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The
lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant
level (mitigation measures from Section 19, "Earlier Analysis," as described in (5) below, may be cross-referenced).
5.Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, an effect has been
adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration (Section 15063 (c) (3) (D)). In this case, a brief discussion
should identify the following:
a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review.
b) Impacts Adequately Addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope of and
adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state whether such effects were
addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
c) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are “Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated,” describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they addressed
site-specific conditions for the project.
6.Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for potential impacts
(e.g. general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or outside document should, where
appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the statement is substantiated.
7.Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted
should be cited in the discussion.
8.The explanation of each issue should identify:
a)The significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question; and
b)The mitigation measure identified, if any, to reduce the impact to less than significance
PC1 - 12
1. AESTHETICS. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista?1 X
b)Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not
limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, open space, and historic
buildings within a local or state scenic highway?
1
X
c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of
the site and its surroundings?
1, 13 X
d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would
adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area?
1 X
Evaluation
a) The LLNR Conservation Plan (Plan) does not anticipate any structures that would impeded views or have an effect on a
scenic vista.
b) The project site is not within a local a state scenic highway area, and does not anticipate any improvements that would
damage scenic resources or historic buildings.
c) The Plan anticipates access to portions of the LLNR that are currently inaccessible. Introducing new improvements, such
as a bike/pedestrian pathway at the peninsula, could degrade the existing visual character of a portion of the site. As a result,
the Plan calls for Architectural Review and design plans for the proposed improvements that are sensitive to the natural
setting and that are limited to the minimum width necessary to provide safe, compliant access for the public (including
disabled persons) to proposed wildlife and natural feature viewing areas at the end of the peninsula.
d) The LLNR closes at dusk and no new lighting is anticipated or proposed by the Plan. The City has a night-sky ordinance
that would apply in the event any new safety lighting is installed on the site.
Conclusion
Although the Plan does anticipate some ground level improvements that could change the visual character of a portion of the
site (the peninsula), the impact is considered less than significant because the Plan provides direction that the design will take
into consideration the sensitive nature of the site, the improvements will require Architectural Review, and the width of the
new path will be limited to the minimum width necessary for compliant access to proposed viewing features.
2. AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of
Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps
pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of
the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use?
2 X
b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a
Williamson Act contract?
1 X
c)Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to
their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland
to non-agricultural use?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b) and c) The project site does not include any Farmland that is considered prime, unique, or of statewide importance.
There are no Williamson Act contracts that apply to the site, and no changes are proposed to the site that could result in
conversion of Farmland to a non-agricultural use.
Conclusion
The project site is public land that is part of an existing natural reserve and body of water and no changes in use are proposed.
3. AIR QUALITY. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or
air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project:
a)Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air 3 X
PC1 - 13
quality plan?
b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an
existing or projected air quality violation?
3 X
c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria
pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an
applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard
(including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative
thresholds for ozone precursors)?
3 X
d)Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant
concentrations?
3 X
e)Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of
people?
3 X
Evaluation
a), b) The Plan includes policies that require compliance with applicable air quality standards if any projects are carried
forward that would create air quality impacts or violate any air quality standard.
c) The City of San Luis Obispo is in compliance with regional air quality standards and no projects are proposed that would
result in a net increase in of any criteria pollutant.
d), e) The Plan includes an option for dredging limited portions of Laguna Lake. If this option is pursued in the future, the n it
could result in a substantial number of vehicle trips removing dredge spoils from the site. Furthermore, the equipment needed
to perform the dredge may cause emissions that are not expected to be substantial, but could expose sensitive receptors in the
adjacent neighborhood and park to exhaust or dust. In addition, odors from sludge beds that would be used to dry out the
dredge spoils before they can be transported off site may occur. The Plan calls for a Dust and Odor Control Plan to be
submitted to the Air Pollution Control District (APCD) as part of the permitting regimen for the dredge project, if it moves
forward. The Plan also requires any vehicles used in the project to comply with applicable APCD requirements for limiting
diesel exhaust emissions.
Conclusion
The project site is a natural reserve and lake bordered by open land, residential development, and a park. No changes in land
use or the operations of the facility are proposed that would impact air quality in any way. The project involves less than
significant impacts on air quality because the Plan includes policies to seek approval from APCD, and comply with
applicable APCD requirements, before any activities commence that could create air quality impacts. These activities include
the potential for one-time dredging, and pedestrian/bike path construction.
4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through
habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate,
sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans,
policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish
and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 10,
11,
12,
13, 17
X
b)Have a substantial adverse effect, on any riparian habitat or
other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional
plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department
of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
1, 10,
11,
12,
13, 17
X
c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected
wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.)
through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or
other means?
1, 10,
11,
12,
13, 17
X
d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident
or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native
resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of
1, 10,
11,
12,
X
PC1 - 14
native wildlife nursery sites? 13, 17
e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting
biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or
ordinance?
1, 13 X
f)Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation
Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved
local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
1, 10,
11,
12,
13, 17
X
Evaluation
a)New trail or boardwalk construction or maintenance activities could cause minor disturbance to wildlife or rare plants and
would result in the removal of some vegetation. The Plan calls for site surveys to occur prior to the design of new facilities,
such as trail or boardwalk construction, to ensure that such impacts are avoided to the greatest extent possible.
b)Steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) are listed as “threatened” and are protected under the Endangered Species Act and
are found onsite in Prefumo Creek. It is possible this species could be impacted by activities, such as dredging or limited silt
removal projects nearby or in the waterway. California red-legged frog (Rana draytonii) may also be present; although it has
not been observed in past site surveys. Several sensitive and endangered plants have been documented on the site and are
catalogued in the Plan. In general, the Plan calls for avoidance of plant and animal resources in the area, but it is possible that
impacts could occur. The Plan directs the City to work with resource agencies as part of the design and permitting process for
any of the anticipated projects that could impact riparian habitat.
c)Maintenance activities and flood control projects can have an impact on the jurisdictional areas, such as wetlands, of most
agencies. However, these projects can be beneficial and provide improved flood control capacity. The Plan identifies areas of
potential impact to wetlands, and includes concepts for enhancing and expanding existing wetland areas within or adjacent to
the project site. Any such activities will require compliance with all applicable resource agency requirements.
d), e), f) The Plan does not anticipate any improvements that would be considered a barrier or otherwise interfere with
migratory animals. The Plan requires compliance with all local policies and ordinances that protect biological resources in the
area, and there are no other conservation plans that apply to the project site.
Conclusion
The project will have less than significant impacts to biological resources because the Plan requires all anticipated projects to
be designed in a manner that minimizes these effects. Projects anticipated in the Plan will be carried forward only after the
appropriate resource agency permits have been obtained, and the Plan requires compliance with all local ordinances and
policies established for the purpose of protecting biological resources, such as the City’s Creek Protection Ordinance and the
Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan.
5. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a
historic resource as defined in §15064.5.
1 X
b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an
archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5)
1, 4 X
c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource
or site or unique geologic feature?
1 X
d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of
formal cemeteries?
1 X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is an area that has been previously disturbed during the development of the adjacent residential
subdivisions and the relocation of Prefumo Creek as a tributary to Laguna Lake. Overall, the Plan anticipates preservation of
PC1 - 15
existing natural features and no historic resources have been identified on the site that could be impacted by anticipated
activities associated with carrying out the Plan. During past City study of dredging at Laguna Lake archeological surface and
subsurface testing has been performed (Heritage Discoveries 2006 and 2007). These studies found some early 20th century
surface materials, but subsurface historic artifacts were introduced in fill soils and have low significance and lack of context.
d) The City of San Luis Obispo maintains a burial sensitivity map that identifies locations of known and likely burials. The
project site falls outside of the area known to be used for this purpose. The City has construction guidelines that would apply
if any human remains are discovered during construction, however, the Plan anticipates limited excavation activities and no
impact to human burials is likely.
Conclusion
The project site has been modified and disturbed in the past, and proposed activities under the Plan are unlikely to disturb any
significant historical, cultural, archeological or paleontological resources.
6. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project:
a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse
effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving:
5 X
I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the
most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map
issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other
substantial evidence of a known fault? Refer to Division of
Mines and Geology Special Publication 42.
5 X
II.Strong seismic ground shaking?5 X
III.Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction?5 X
IV.Landslides?5 X
b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil?19 X
c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that
would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially
result in on or off site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,
liquefaction or collapse?
19 X
d)Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 1802.3.2 of the
California Building Code (2007), creating substantial risks to
life or property?
19 X
e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic
tanks or alternative waste water disposal systems where sewers
are not available for the disposal of waste water?
19 X
Evaluation
a) The Plan does not anticipate any new structures or activities that would expose people or structures to substantial adverse
effects. There is a fault zone mapped outside but proximate to the project site.
b) Maintenance activities and flood control projects have the potential to cause erosion. Any project located in or near a
riparian corridor will have permit conditions that address sediment and erosion control. The Plan includes policies that direct
projects to be designed in a manner that minimizes the potential for soil erosion to the greatest extent possible, and many of
the projects anticipated by the Plan are specifically intended to reduce sedimentation in the lake caused by soil erosion
upstream.
c), d), e) The Plan does not anticipate the construction of new structures that would be subject to geologic impacts. The
project site does include expansive soils, but paths and other flatwork will be designed in a manner that takes the soil type
into consideration and in no case would involve substantial risks to life or property. The site is served by the City of San Luis
Obispo sanitary sewer system and no use of septic tanks or alternative systems is proposed.
Conclusion
Many of the impacts the Plan is designed to address were caused by upstream erosion that has led to sedimentation in the
PC1 - 16
lake. The Plan will guide future actions to improve the quality of the lake and reduce future sedimentation. Although the
location is an active seismic region and located proximate to a mapped Alquist-Priola fault, the Plan does not introduce
people or structures to an area where substantial risk of harm to life or property exists.
7. GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Would the project:
a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly,
that may have a significant impact on the environment?
1, 20 X
b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted
for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases?
1, 20 X
Evaluation
a), b) The City of San Luis Obispo has a Climate Action Plan that requires the City to evaluate actions that would lead to
increased greenhouse gas emissions. The project is a Plan to conserve a natural area within the City limits and day to day
operations of the natural reserve will not generate, directly or indirectly, increased greenhouse gas emissions. In fact, the Plan
includes activities that would create new wetlands that would increase the ability of the site to sequester carbon. The
beneficial effects would last for years into the future, as long as the site wetlands are sustained. Temporary impacts may
result from electrical power generation needed to operate equipment on the site, and vehicle usage, should a dredging project
proceed in the future.
Conclusion
On balance, the long term positive effects of the project for increasing carbon sequestration capacity within the Reserve are
expected to outweigh any temporary impacts that might occur from the use of equipment and electricity during future dredge
operations.
8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project:
a)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous
materials?
X
b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment
through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions
involving the release of hazardous materials into the
environment?
X
c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely
hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter
mile of an existing or proposed school?
X
d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous
materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section
65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to
the public or the environment?
X
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety
hazard for people residing or working in the project area?
X
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working
in the project area?
X
g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an
adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation
plan?
13 X
h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury,
or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are
13
X
PC1 - 17
adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed
with wildlands?
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The Plan and ongoing preservation of the natural reserve area will not expose people or structures to
harm from hazardous materials because there are no hazardous materials on site, routinely transported through or adjacent to
the site, and no handling of hazardous materials is proposed. The project site is outside of the Airport Land Use Plan area,
and there is no private landing strips in the vicinity. The Plan would not impair or interfere with the City’s emergency
response plans.
h) The Prefumo Arm is a portion of the project site area with a dense riparian forest and many non-native nuisance vegetation
species. A component of the City’s overall conservation planning includes the development of a Wildfire Preparedness Plan.
This plan identifies the areas needing attention and offers suggestions for riparian forest management and enhancement. The
impact is considered less than significant because of the remote location of the potentially hazardous areas.
Conclusion
The project site is a natural reserve that includes open space and lake. It is adjacent to a residential neighborhood and an
active recreation park. There are no uses, past or present, that involve hazardous materials. Wildland fire impacts associated
with maintaining on-site vegetation are minimal, and potential impacts are addressed through the Plan’s Wildfire
Preparedness Plan.
9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project:
a)Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge
requirements?
13, 15 X
b)Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere
substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would
be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local
groundwater table level (e.g. the production rate of pre-existing
nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support
existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been
granted)?
13 X
c)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion
or siltation on or off site?
13 X
d)Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or
area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream
or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface
runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off site?
13 X
e)Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the
capacity of existing or planned storm water drainage systems or
provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff?
13 X
f)Otherwise substantially degrade water quality?13, 15 X
g)Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on
a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map
or other flood hazard delineation map?
X
h)Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which
would impede or redirect flood flows?
13 X
i)Expose people or structures to significant risk of loss, injury or
death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the
failure of a levee or dam?
13 X
j)Inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow?X
PC1 - 18
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The project would not negatively impact water quality standards or discharge requirements, or use
groundwater supplies or interfere with groundwater recharge. The Plan envisions activities to restore and improve natural
systems that were impacted by past grading and development activities, including the realignment of Prefumo Creek directly
into Laguna Lake. This past activity has allowed the Lake to serve as an important flood control facility, protecting
downstream properties from potential flooding effects.
f)Water quality may be temporarily impacted through dredge activities envisioned in the Plan. In addition, maintenance
activities and flood control projects have the potential to cause erosion. The Plan requires that any project located in or near a
riparian corridor will be designed to limit impacts to the greatest extent practical and will have resource agency permit
conditions that address sediment and erosion control.
g), h), i), j) There are no projects anticipated that would place new structures within a 100-year flood plain, or impede or
redirect stormwater flows. In the event of a significant flood event, the area bordering the lake could be subject to inundation,
but the project would not introduce people or structures to this risk. The project could be beneficial by providing additional
capacity in Laguna Lake for flood control purposes.
Conclusion
The project would have a less than significant effect on water quality, and in the long term is designed to enhance water
quality, flood control, and the surrounding habitat. Although the area surrounding the project site is subject to flooding, the
project would not introduce people or structures that are not already present to this hazard.
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project:
a)Physically divide an established community?X
b)Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation
of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but
not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal
program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of
avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect?
1 X
c)Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or
natural community conservation plan?
1, 9,
10,
11,
12,
13, 17
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project is consistent with the City’s General Plan and would not physically divide an established community.
No land use changes are proposed and there is no habitat conservation plan currently covering the site.
Conclusion
There are no impacts to land use and planning associated with the project to create a natural reserve conservation plan.
11. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project:
a)Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource
that would be of value to the region and the residents of the
state?
X
b)Result in the loss of availability of a locally-important mineral
resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan,
specific plan or other land use plan?
X
Evaluation
PC1 - 19
a), b) The project does not involve any physical changes to the site that would impact the availability of mineral resources.
Conclusion
No impact to mineral resources is anticipated or likely because the project is a natural reserve conservation plan involving
minimal physical changes to the project site.
12. NOISE. Would the project result in:
a)Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of
standards established in the local general plan or noise
ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies?
X
b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne
vibration or groundborne noise levels?
X
c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the
project vicinity above levels existing without the project?
X
d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise
levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project?
16
X
e)For a project located within an airport land use plan, or where
such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public
airport or public use airport, would the project expose people
residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels?
f)For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the
project expose people residing or working in the project area to
excessive noise levels?
X
X
Evaluation
a), b), c) The Plan does not anticipate any new uses or facilities that would generate noise, or expose people to unsafe noise
or ground vibration levels.
d) Maintenance activities or flood control projects undertaken as part of this plan may have temporary noise impacts from the
use of equipment or trucks to complete activities. Scheduling and proper equipment selection for given projects may reduce
the noise emitted from the site. The City’s Noise Ordinance limits construction hours and the amount of noise that can be
generated on a project site. Compliance with the Noise Ordinance during future maintenance and flood control projects will
ensure that impacts are less than significant.
e), f) The project site experiences frequent overflight, but is outside of the airport land use plan area, and farther than two
miles of a public airport.
Conclusion
The Plan would involve no day to day increases in noise that would expose people to unacceptable noise levels. The City’s
Noise Ordinance applies to all construction activities, and ensures that temporary noise impacts due to construction are less
than significant.
13. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project:
a)Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly
(for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or
indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other
infrastructure)?
X
b)Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating
the construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the
X
X
PC1 - 20
construction of replacement housing elsewhere?
Evaluation
a), b), c) The project site is a natural reserve area and lake and there will be no population growth or displacement associated
with adoption of the Plan.
Conclusion
No impacts to population and housing will occur with the adoption and implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan because no housing will be constructed or displaced as part of the project.
14. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the
provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives
for any of the public services:
a)Fire protection?13 X
b)Police protection?X
c)Schools?X
d)Parks?X
e)Other public facilities?X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e) The Plan will not result in any increase in demand for public services because it is a natural reserve
conservation plan.
Conclusion
The implementation of the Plan will not result in any new or altered government facilities, or changes to acceptable service
ratios, response times, school enrollment, or park use.
15. RECREATION.
a)Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood or
regional parks or other recreational facilities such that
substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or
be accelerated?
X
b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the
construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might
have an adverse physical effect on the environment?
X
Evaluation
a), b) Plan implementation will enhance the natural environment of the project site and potentially attract new users to the
adjacent park and lake. The increased usage would be considered less than significant because the City maintains a high ratio
of parkland per City resident and regular use would no substantially deteriorate the park or adjacent facilities. No new
facilities would be constructed that would have an adverse physical effect.
Conclusion
The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve is anticipated to support passive recreational uses including hiking, picnics, canoe and
paddle board use, and even the use of small non-powered watercraft on the lake. However, the project will not increase the
use of the park in a way that degrades existing or planned facilities, and no impacts are anticipated from the construction of
minor new facilities, such as hiking trails or pathways.
16. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would the project:
a)Conflict with an applicable plan, ordinance or policy
establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of
X
PC1 - 21
the circulation system, taking into account all modes of
transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel
and relevant components of the circulation system, including but
not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,
pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit?
b)Conflict with an applicable congestion management program,
including, but not limited to level of service standards and travel
demand measures, or other standards established by the county
congestion management agency for designated roads or
highways?
X
c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an
increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in
substantial safety risks?
X
d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g.,
sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
(e.g. farm equipment)?
X
e)Result in inadequate emergency access?X
f)Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding
public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities?
X
Evaluation
a), b), c), d), e), f) The project is adoption and implementation of a Plan to enhance the natural environment of the project
site. There are no new uses proposed that would generate new traffic or trips, conflict with traffic management plans, change
air traffic patterns, create hazards due to a design feature, result in inadequate emergency access or conflict with an adopted
transportation plan.
Conclusion
The proposed plan will not increase trips to or from the project site beyond that for which the existing facilities have been
designed to accommodate, and overall will have no adverse effect on traffic or transportation.
17. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project:
a)Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable
Regional Water Quality Control Board?
X
b)Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water
or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing
facilities, the construction of which could cause significant
environmental effects?
X
c)Require or result in the construction of new storm water
drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the
construction of which could cause significant environmental
effects?
X
d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project
from existing entitlements and resources, or are new and
expanded entitlements needed?
X
e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider
which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate
capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to
the provider’s existing commitments?
X
f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to
accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs?
X
g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations X
PC1 - 22
related to solid waste?
a), b), c), d), e), f), g) The project would create no new demands on utilities and service systems that cannot be met with
existing supplies. For example, one potential use of utilities would be for recycled water produced by the City’s Water
Resource Recovery Facility to be used to augment lake water levels. There is significant supply available for this purpose,
and the use of recycled water in this way would not require the construction or upgrading of these facilities in any way. No
additional solid waste will be generated through the implementation of the Plan.
Conclusion
The proposed Plan and its implementation will have no adverse effect on utilities or service systems.
18. 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,
reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant
or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of
California history or prehistory?
X
The project is expected to have an overall beneficial effect on the quality of the environment.
b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but
cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means
that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when
viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects
of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects)?
X
There are no cumulative impacts identified or associated with the project. All of the impacts identified are less than
significant and temporary in nature.
c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause
substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
X
The project will not have adverse effects on human being because it is a natural reserve conservation plan for a site that is
currently used for passive recreational and open space management purposes.
PC1 - 23
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
19. EARLIER ANALYSES.
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or more effects have
been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). In this case a discussion
should identify the following items:
a)Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
Initial Study and Environmental Checklist, Laguna Lake Dredging Project (ER 31-06).
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.
See attachment 3
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.
See attachment 3
20. SOURCE REFERENCES.
1.Conservation and Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo General Plan (2006)
2.Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/ciff/ciff.html
3.SLO County APCD List of Current Rules and Clean Air Plan: http://www.arb.ca.gov/drdb/slo/cur.htm
4.Heritage Discoveries: Archeological Subsurface Testing at the Laguna Lake Project (2006) and Archeological
Subsurface Testing for the Laguna Lake Project (2007)
5.Alquist-Priola Special Studies Zones Map:
http://gmw.consrv.ca.gov/shmp/download/quad/SAN_LUIS_OBISPO/maps/SLOBISPO.PDF
6.Master Design, Laguna lake Park, City of San Luis Obispo (1961)
7.Laguna Lake Management Program; City of San Luis Obispo (1982)
8.Laguna Lake Park Master Plan; City of San Luis Obispo (1993)
9.Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands, City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
10.Recovery Plan for the California Red-legged Frog, USFWS (2002)
11.Chorro Creek Bog Thistle: 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation, USFWS (2007)
12.South-Central California Coast Steelhead Recovery Plan, NOAA (2013)
13.Public Review Draft Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. City of San Luis Obispo (2014)
14.Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo, City of San Luis Obispo (2002)
15.Characterization of Sediment and Water at Laguna Lake, LFR (2001)
16.Engineering Analysis of Dredging and Disposal Alternatives at Laguna Lake, LFR (2001)
17.Ecological Resources and Potential Impacts of Dredging Operations at Laguna Lake, LFR (2003)
18.Initial Study and Environmental Checklist, Laguna Lake Dredging Project (ER 31-06), City of San Luis Obispo
(2006)
19.Soil Survey of San Luis Obispo County, Coastal Part, USDA Soils Conservation Service (1984)
20.City of San Luis Obispo Climate Action Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (2012)
Attachments:
1.All of the source documents are included by reference and are on file in the offices of the City of San Luis Obispo
2.Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
3.Earlier Analysis (section 19): Initial Study and Environmental Checklist, Laguna Lake Dredging Project (ER 31-06).
PC1 - 24
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
PC1 - 25
PC1 - 26
PC1 - 27
PC1 - 28
PC1 - 29
PC1 - 30
PC1 - 31
PC1 - 32
PC1 - 33
PC1 - 34
PC1 - 35
PC1 - 36
PC1 - 37
PC1 - 38
PC1 - 39
PC1 - 40
PC1 - 41
PC1 - 42
PC1 - 43
PC1 - 44
PC1 - 45
PC1 - 46
PC1 - 47
PC1 - 48
PC1 - 49
PC1 - 50
PC1 - 51
PC1 - 52
PC1 - 53
PC1 - 54
PC1 - 55
PC1 - 56
PC1 - 57
PC1 - 58
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
May 28, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari, and
Chairperson John Larson
Absent: None
Staff: Community Development Director Derek Johnson, Senior Planner Phil
Dunsmore, Deputy Director of Public Works Tim Bochum, Traffic
Operations Manager Jake Hudson, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Anne Russell, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA:
The agenda was accepted as amended. The agenda forecast was moved forward to
accommodate Commr. Draze who recused himself from consideration of Item 1.
MINUTES:
Minutes of May 14, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated that she met with staff concerning the acquisition of
40 Prado Road by the Regional Transit Authority (RTA) for RTA offices/facilities and
has decided not to file an appeal, because she was assured that future development at
that site will come before the Planning Commission.
There were no further comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 276 Tank Farm Road. SPA/ER 92-08: Recommend certification of Final EIR and
amendments to portions of the Airport Area Specific Plan for the Chevron
Remediation & Development Project: Chevron, applicant (Phil Dunsmore)
Senior Planner Phil Dunsmore presented the staff report, recommending the City
Council adopt the following resolutions and continue review of the Public Facilities
Financing Plan (Chapter 8) of the Airport Area Specific Plan to July 9, 2014:
a. Resolution A recommends the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of
overriding considerations relative to Air Quality and Transportation and
Circulation.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 2
b. Resolution B recommends the City Council amend the Airport Area Specific
Plan including policy amendments in Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Airport Area
Specific Plan and General Plan Land Use Map to correspond to the Chevron
project and FEIR.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Bill Thoma, SLO, endorsed the amendments and encouraged the development of a
finance plan that is workable and affordable for applicants. He noted the importance of
growing small companies into regional players, attracting businesses to the City, and
developing resources for a tax base to finance further improvements.
Victor Montgomery, representing Chevron, noted this project will provide benefits for the
local economy and quality of life. He referred to EIR certification as the gateway to
remediation and that it should be approved quickly so that a season of construction is
not lost. He supported the staff recommendation and stated that Chevron is committed
to remediation and restoration.
Daniel Blandford, Business Development Manager for Calportland Construction which
operates a ready mix concrete plant in the area, supported the project and encouraged
the City to work toward solutions for a finance plan for this and all future projects.
John Wallace, SLO, representing several properties in the area, recommended adoption
of staff recommendations and commended separating out the financing plan. He
expressed concern about how changing the construction fees would be reconciled with
the remediation. Referring to page PC1-184, Table 4.3 Allowed Uses, he stated that it
seems incorrect not to allow office use in the service commercial area. He stated that
other entities deal with funding issues by forming bodies such as community service
districts and also wrapping in some citywide considerations. He noted that the
proposed fees for a 10,000-square foot metal building on Suburban Road would be
$168,000, one third of the cost of the project.
Myron H. Amerine, SLO, stated that remediation has been long awaited. He stated that
the roundabouts should have sharrow markings and roads should have continuous
Class 2 bike lanes. He noted that “bicycle/bike path” should be upgraded to be
consistent with State terminology in the report.
Mila Vujovich-LaBarre, SLO, stated that Tank Farm Road needs to be widened before
remediation to avoid traffic congestion while toxic substances are being removed via the
roadways. She suggested a northern alignment for the Class 1 bike way and that the
15-acre recreation area should be closer to the Damon Garcia Sports Complex. She
stated that the 8,000-square foot commercial building planned by Chevron is not
compatible with neighborhood character. She suggested that another remediation be
considered for the intersection of Broad and Tank Farm.
Carol Florence, SLO, representing East Airport Commerce Park, recommended
adoption of the two resolutions. She stated that she wants a robust discussion of
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 3
funding alternatives, because the fees are now over one-third of the cost of projects.
She noted that she wants to provide certainty to clients for future development.
Charlene Rosales, Director of Government Affairs for the SLO Chamber of Commerce,
stated that certification of the FEIR is a positive step that the Chamber supports.
Lea Brooks, SLO, applauded the bicycle, pedestrian, and transit plans and noted that
meeting the goals will require political will to get people to take public transportation,
walk, or bike and that doing so will reduce the need to widen roads. She asked people
to attend the workshop Saturday at the library.
Steve LePell, SLO, expressed concern about the remediation process and asked if
there will be monitoring of the process and a final report before development begins.
He supported the comments of Ms. Vujovich-LaBarre and Ms. Rosales. He stated that
he supports step-by-step development, and financing is a concern.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Larson asked staff in attendance to do a presentation on fewer lanes for Tank
Farm Road to address a question from Commr. Riggs about why the results of modeling
two lanes was not included in the report when it had been specifically requested.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that four lanes, not two lanes, had always been a part
of the analysis but that there had been a question about two lanes as part of the
phasing of road construction.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that the cumulative study said four lanes will
be absolutely needed. He noted analysis of two-lane sections for each phase was
done, and that the planned widening is designed to keep up with increasing traffic.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum added that it may be possible to include a
study of two vs. four lanes as part of the LUCE coming to the Planning Commission in
the future. He noted that the phasing was proposed by Chevron.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that he recalled a discussion of the
timing of two vs. four lanes and that more analysis can be done about when the four
lanes will be needed and what will happen if the four lanes are not built.
Commr. Riggs stated he had previously questioned the need for four lanes, referred
staff to documents on smart roads and doubts whether four lanes are consistent with
the LUCE.
Commr. Multari stated that he also recalled a discussion recorded in the minutes about
this issue. He noted that it is a policy question as to whether to reduce costs and
absorb a worse level of service to try to force the community from single-person car
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 4
trips to other modes. He stated he does not want to delay the remediation and asked
about the impacts on the map.
Senior Planner Dunsmore and Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum reviewed the
intersections where mitigation might not be possible due to the feasibility of acquiring
the right of way and/or the cost.
Commr. Multari asked if Prado Road alignment is different in this report than in the
Circulation Element.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum responded with a reference to The
Relationship of the Proposed Project to the Prado Road Extension on page PC1-40 of
the report.
Commr. Multari stated that fee calculations for the AASP based on proportional or fair
share are only paying for what benefits the specific development. He asked if the
improvements would need to be built if there was no development at all and no fees.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that this would be dealt with through
the general fund or grants but that development drives the need for improvements.
Commr. Multari noted that if the fees are too high, then there would be no development
so the need for improvements would disappear. He stated that things not caused by the
development should not be in the fees.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that the City is precluded by law from
charging for improvements beyond those generated by development and that the City
must parse out impacts and charge only for impacts from the development, which is
why the sophisticated traffic modeling is needed.
Commr. Multari asked why the Planning Commission is being asked to recommend
certification of the FEIR now without consideration of Chapter 8 and with the City
Council not certifying the FEIR until September.
Senior Planner Dunsmore responded that all issues with the FEIR have been resolved
and staff wanted to reserve discussion with Council about financing as a separate issue.
Commr. Multari asked whether amendments to expand the list of Class 1 impacts would
be necessary if it is found later that there is no practical way to finance mitigations.
Senior Planner Dunsmore responded that this would be necessary.
Commr. Multari asked if an EIR amendment would be necessary if policy changed
based on the LUCE, resulting in an LOS F with two lanes fifteen years in the future
based on the City deciding to live with congestion, or if a different technology for
transportation was developed, based on an overriding consideration to get people out of
cars.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 5
Senior Planner Dunsmore responded that it would be necessary.
Commr. Multari asked if development of this project on the Chevron property could go
ahead before remediation is completed.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that it could not.
Multari asked if there would be opportunities to amend the EIR in the 3-4 years the
remediation will take.
Senior Planner Dunsmore responded that there would be opportunities.
Commr. Multari stated that remediation is the first priority. He asked if there would be a
process via amendment or supplement to the EIR if the philosophy or project changes.
Community Development Director Johnson stated that nothing prevents making
changes to the finance plan.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that revisions based on projects that
are found not to be feasible might not require a supplemental EIR. He noted that
Chevron will be contributing even if other things change. He also stated that that the
use of sharrows in the roundabouts as suggested by Mr. Amerine can be done and that
the terminology for bike paths/lanes will be made consistent with state nomenclature.
Commr. Multari asked how remediation will be evaluated to assure the public that it has
been properly done before development begins.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that a variety of state resource agencies and the City
and County have worked together to develop the remedial action plan which includes
many checks and balances and assurances. Community Development Director
Johnson added that performance standards are included.
Commr. Fowler stated he is trusting that the process has been and will continue to be
thorough. He asked if the percentages shown for roundabouts applied to four-lane
roads as well as the two-lane roads shown in the presentation.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that the percentages are scalable to the size
of the intersection.
Commr. Fowler stated that he wants to support the recommendation to the City Council.
He asked if there is still some adjustment in timing to be considered and what is the
impact of tonight’s decision.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum responded that the timing of the filling of the
square footage is important and that the five phases over 25 years may change
somewhat.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 6
Community Development Director Johnson noted that the build out of Prado Road
depends on what happens in the eastern portion and that it is possible to tailor some
monitoring to determine when four lanes on Tank Farm are needed.
Commr. Fowler asked if the bikeways could be installed sooner and whether, when
talking about impact fees, communitywide impacts are included.
Community Development Director Johnson stated there is a need to identify an
alternative funding source.
Commr. Fowler noted that the difficult issues are financing and the timing of
infrastructure completion. He noted that this project will be of huge interest in the
community with lots of feedback and comments.
Commr. Malak expressed concern about visually impaired pedestrians crossing the
roundabouts.
Traffic Operations Manager Hudson stated that all roundabouts are designed to federal
standards for ADA requirements and amendments to those requirements are being
reviewed now at the federal level and will be adopted here even if retrofit is necessary.
Commr. Malak stated that he is not convinced and does not see that there is a solution.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that the City can experiment with the
existing Prado Road roundabout and consult with the local low vision group.
Commr. Malak asked how bike paths along Tank Farm Road could be built in stages.
Deputy Director of Public Works Bochum stated that the Class 1 bike path would be
built as close as possible to its final location although it may be built in an interim
location if the need for four lanes stretches out in time.
Commr. Riggs stated that he shared papers with staff about visual and auditory
impairments in relation to roundabouts and noted that this issue warrants more
consideration by staff.
Commr. Larson asked about the lack of office uses in the commercial service zones.
Senior Planner Dunsmore noted that several types of office uses are allowed and that
the City is using what is done citywide to avoid repercussions in other areas. He noted
that this complex subject requires a separate discussion and is not on the table tonight.
Commr. Larson stated that the report focused on cumulative traffic impacts, several of
which are significant and not able to be mitigated. He stated he wanted to know more
about the Class 1 air quality impact and that, in his understanding, this relates to the
operational phase after development in which emissions will not meet diesel particulate
matter and fugitive dust thresholds. He noted that while the emissions are above the
thresholds, the carcinogenic potential is below the limit used for health assessment.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 7
Senior Planner Dunsmore confirmed that this is correct.
Commr. Larson noted that in the descriptions of traffic mitigations, “project” refers to
both the Chevron project and to traffic projects which is confusing. He stated that the
key finding to be made by the Planning Commission about Class 1 impacts is that
mitigation measures or project alternatives are not feasible. He noted the report
contains the findings about the lack of feasibility and that staff wants the Commission to
recommend certification and acceptance of the amendments with the exception of the
financing. He stated that Class 1 impacts and the mitigation of long-term traffic impacts
are bundled up with the financing issue, and even if staff does create a financing plan
that holds together over the coming years, traffic improvements that eliminate impacts
will probably not be provided. He noted that it is important to do more work on the
financing plan and that debt financing, though complicated and harder now than in the
past, should not be discounted as it can still be a solution with major roads. He
concluded that he is concerned with financing but comfortable with moving this item
forward.
Commr. Multari stated he is ready to move this forward with the reservation that, after
seeing Chapter 8 in six weeks, the Commission might give an additional
recommendation to the Council before they act on it. He emphasized that he is really
uncomfortable when staff brings something to the Commission and wants it taken
seriously but says that some parts are coming later. He also noted that Chevron wants
to get started quickly but the problem has been here for decades and he is concerned
as to whether there will be opportunities later to hear any problems that will arise.
Commr. Fowler stated that staff probably made the wiser decision to separate the two.
Commr. Malak agreed with Commr. Multari’s comments.
Commr. Dandakar stated that she is concerned about how the history of the area will be
recognized and displayed as recommended by the Cultural Heritage Committee.
Senior Planner Dunsmore stated that it is included in the EIR as a mitigation with signs,
displays and viewing points along the bike paths in phase one of any development
project and it is also included as an AASP policy.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to approve Resolution A
recommending the City Council certify the Final EIR with findings of overriding
considerations relative to Air Quality, ad Transportation and Circulation.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
May 28, 2014
Page 8
On motion by Commr. Multari, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to approve Resolution B
recommending the City Council amend the Airport Area Specific Plan including policy
amendments in Chapters 3, 4, 6, and 7 of the Airport Area Specific Plan and General
Plan Land Use Map to correspond to the Chevron project and FEIR.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Fowler, Larson, Malak, and Multari
NOES: Commr. Riggs
RECUSED: Commr. Draze
ABSENT: None
The motion passed on a 5:1 vote.
Commr. Multari asked staff not to bring things to the Planning Commission in a
piecemeal manner.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Community Development Director Johnson
1) June 11, 2014, meeting: Laguna Lake Reserve Conservation Plan
2) Jun 25, 2014, cancelled pending any future need.
3) Workshop Saturday, May 31, 2014, 1-5 p.m., Library.
3. Commission
a. Commr. Larson commended staff on completing this very difficult job,
concurred with Commr. Multari’s comments and added that staff needs to listen
carefully to what the Commission is saying. He noted that the City is in a
transition period of adopting new policies about roads. He urged staff to work
with consultants and developers to devise the best financing options possible.
He thanked those who made public comments and noted that these were the
most informative comments he has heard in his time on the Commission.
b. Commr. Malak stated he was flabbergasted when one speaker stated that the
equivalent of one third of a development’s costs go to fees.
c. Commr. Fowler observed that financing is going to be a big deal and may not
be done in one meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 9:26 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary