HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2014 B1 Laguna Lake Management PlanCity of San Luis Obispo, Council Agenda Report, Meeting Date, Item Number
FROM: Michael Codron, Assistant City Manager
Prepared By: Robert A. Hill, Natural Resources Manager
SUBJECT: LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN
RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission:
1. Approve a resolution adopting the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan; and
2. Approve a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for the Project (Attachment 1).
REPORT-IN-BRIEF
The City’s Natural Resources Program seeks adoption of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation Plan (also referred to as 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.
The preparation of this Conservation Plan implements several policies of the City of San Luis
Obispo to ensure that natural resource protection of City-owned open space lands and compatible
passive recreation uses, where appropriate, are undertaken in a manner that conforms to the
highest standards. This approach was memorialized in 2002 with the adoption by the City
Council of Conservation Guidelines for Open Space Lands of the City of San Luis Obispo that
set forth a procedure for staff to follow to document and protect the natural resources of a City-
owned open space property, and the specific 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 City Council
consideration.
The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan introduces the site by describing its
history and physical characteristics; inventories its natural resources and sensitive species; sets
forth goals, policies, and land use designations; and, makes recommendations for protective
measures, needed improvements, and ongoing monitoring and implementation strategies.
Notable elements of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan include the
identification of numerous rare plant and animal species and associated habitats, including the
B1 - 1
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 2
federally endangered Chorro Creek bog thistle (Cirsium fontinale var. obispoense); plans for an
accessible loop trail system and constructed boardwalk and viewing platforms; restoration of
erodible creek banks and shorelines areas; ongoing sediment management and additional
sediment basins; and, the potential for dredging the lake and introducing recycled water to the
lake in order to increase lake capacity and manage surface water elevations. These capital
projects and ongoing operations and maintenance activities represent over $10 million.
Accordingly, a conceptual framework for cost allocation has been developed which is further
discussed in the Fiscal Impact section of this report.
DISCUSSION
The primary objective of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is to ensure
protection of LLNR’s natural resources, while also guiding passive recreation uses, fire safety,
and restoration and management activities. The Conservation Plan was developed pursuant to
prior Council direction; both existing and new technical information and analysis; and, an
extensive public outreach effort that included numerous individual meetings with community
members and neighbors, three public workshops, and two advisory body hearings. In addition to
the City’s customary public meeting noticing procedures, public workshops and the Public
Review Draft of the Conservation Plan were posted on the City’s website, advertised in the
Tribune, and distributed to an interested parties email list.
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 must now 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. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve
Conservation 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
B1 - 2
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 3
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.
Management Considerations
The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve 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 strategic 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 sedimentation 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 and neighbors 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.
Goals and Policies
The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve 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:
B1 - 3
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 4
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.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The Initial Study identifies several areas where potential concerns exist, but that are
characterized as less than significant (Attachment 2):
1. Potential aesthetic impacts associated with a new trail / boardwalk facility on the north side
of LLNR that could be visible.
2. Air quality impacts associated with a possible dredging project.
3. Potential for take of listed species such as the Chorro Creek Bog Thistle (Cirsium fontinale
var. obispoense) and south-central California steelhead (Onchorynchus mykiss).
4. Potential for erosion associated with projects planned in the Reserve.
5. Potential associated with projects planned in the Reserve to degrade water quality.
6. Temporary recreational use impacts associated with projects planned in the Reserve.
B1 - 4
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 5
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.
CONCURRENCES
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
programs and departments and have provided their concurrence.
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 itself as Appendix G.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the plan at its June 4, 2014 meeting and
recommend adoption by a unanimous 5-0 vote (with two Commissioners absent). Draft minutes
are included as Attachment 3. Four members of the public provided testimony to the
Commission.
The Planning Commission reviewed the plan and Negative Declaration at its June 11, 2014
meeting and recommend adoption by unanimous 6-0 vote (with one Commissioner absent).
Draft minutes are included as Attachment 4. Ten members of the public provided testimony to
the Commission.
Throughout the course of the public workshop and advisory body hearings, Natural Resources
Program staff received numerous written comments from members of the public that are
included in the plan itself as Appendix H.
B1 - 5
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 6
FISCAL IMPACT
The financial implications associated with long-term stewardship and maintenance of the
Reserve are challenging, and have always been at the crux of conversations about Laguna Lake
over the years. The major projects and suggested ongoing tasks contemplated by this plan are
estimated to total over $10 million over the course of the plan’s ten year time horizon.
The firm Economic and Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) was hired to evaluate and prepare a
Memorandum outlining its Conceptual Framework for Cost Allocation (see Appendix F of the
plan). While their analysis is preliminary based on estimates and assumptions, it concludes that
funding the desired improvements to sustain the Reserve’s natural and recreational features
through a combination of grants, City general funds, and a property owner cost sharing
arrangement via the establishment of a Community Facilities District (CFD) is economically
feasible. This conceptual feasibility test prepared by EPS considers a CFD comprised of two
zones; lakefront parcels in the first zone could be assessed as much as $958 per year, while other
parcels in the immediate vicinity of the Reserve could be assessed as much as $389 per year.
The CFD zones are subject to further refinement and analysis, but generally are thought of as
areas that would receive private property benefit from the projects described in the plan. There
is a considerable review process involved with establishing a CFD, which ultimately requires a
two-thirds vote of affected property owners to pass. As noted in EPS’ Memorandum, the City
would need to conduct substantial community and property owner outreach to establish if such a
proposition is likely to succeed. There are variety of potential structures, rates, and geographic
areas that could comprise a CFD pursuant to further evaluation and property owner input. If a
CFD were not successful, the City would have to rely on grants and general fund expenditures on
a “pay as you go” basis with the result being a scaled back approach to Laguna Lake and / or a
time-deferred implementation schedule.
Day-to-day tasks and management activities are supported by operating program budgets within
the Natural Resources Program and the Ranger Services Program. Grants are available for trail
and access improvements, land acquisition, invasive species control, and habitat improvement
projects through various sources. To begin the Year 1-3 implementation items, it is anticipated
that staff will propose a Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) project for consideration as part of the
2015-17 Financial Plan development process, as has been done in the past with Johnson Ranch
and Froom Ranch, for example. Many of the initiatives anticipated by this plan are also good
candidates for volunteer projects.
Overall, the fiscal impacts of the plan and its implementation are considered substantial. If the
plan is approved, and a CFD is to be pursued, it is expected that continued deliberation will
occur about the nature of the costs and the benefits that will accrue to the community, to
neighboring property owners and residents, and to the natural ecosystems that comprise the
Reserve. These benefits include concepts such as: property value and property tax revenue
enhancement; regional tourism enhancement and multiplier effects associated with user
expenditures; future cost avoidance associated with natural hazard mitigation; direct use
recreational values; indirect vicarious use values and inter-generational equity; intrinsic values;
and, ecosystem services.
B1 - 6
Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan Page 7
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council could:
1. Approve the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and adopt the Negative
Declaration with amendments.
2. Deny the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and not adopt the Negative
Declaration, although this is not recommended given numerous opportunities for public
input and unanimous advisory body recommendations.
3. Continue the item with specific direction if more information or discussion time is
required before taking action.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution to approve the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Negative
Declaration
2. Initial Study
3. Minutes from Parks and Recreation Commission meeting of June 4, 2014 (Draft)
4. Minutes from Planning Commission meeting of June 11 (Draft)
AVAILABLE FOR REVIEW IN THE COUNCIL OFFICE
1. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan - Final Review Draft
2. Master Plan Laguna Lake Park (1961)
3. Laguna Lake Management Program (1982)
4. Laguna Lake Technical Appendix (1982)
5. Laguna Lake Park Master Plan (1993)
6. Council Agenda Report (2009)
7. Council Agenda Report (2010)
These documents are also available online
at: http://www.slocity.org/naturalresources/Laguna%20Lake.asp
T:\Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014-07-15\Laguna Lake Management Plan (Codron-Hill-Otte)\PH-1 – Council Agenda Report LLNRCP – 7-
15-14.docx
B1 - 7
RESOLUTION NO. ________ (2014 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING THE LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN
AND ADOPTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo has adopted policies for protection,
management, and public use of open space lands acquired by the City; and
WHEREAS, the City of San Luis Obispo manages twelve open space areas totaling
approximately 3,800 acres, including the approximately 344-acre Laguna Lake Natural Reserve;
and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, and the
general public have commented upon the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan as it
has moved through a Council-directed approval process, and staff has considered and
incorporated those comments where appropriate.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo as follows:
1. Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan. The City Council hereby adopts the Laguna
Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with
the City Clerk, based on the following findings:
a. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan is consistent with General Plan
goals and policies relating to the oversight and management of City open space areas,
specifically Conservation and Open Space Element Policy 8.5.6 that calls for the
development of conservation or master plans for open space properties to protect and
enhance them in a way that best benefits the community as a whole; and
b. Implementation of the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan will provide
protection of identified natural resources and appropriate public access to the site while
maintaining a majority of the site for habitat protection and enhancement.
2. Environmental Review. The City Council hereby adopts the Negative Declaration for the
project, an official copy of which shall be kept on record with the City Clerk, finding that it
adequately identifies all of the potential impacts of the project and that the following measures
incorporated into the Project Description are reasonably capable of reducing potentially-
significant impacts to less-than-significant levels:
a. 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.
b. Ensuring that the potential dredging project is conducted in accordance with APCD
permit requirements.
Attachment 1
B1 - 8
c. Ensuring that project undertaken within the Reserve that may impact sensitive species are
conducted with the benefit of protocol-level biological surveys and monitoring.
d. Ensure that projects undertaken within the Reserve that may cause erosion are undertaken
with an approved erosion control plan.
e. 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.
f. 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 incorporated into the Project Description, potential
impacts are less than significant and issuance of a Negative Declaration is appropriate.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the following roll call vote:
AYES: Council Members
NOES: Council Members
ABSENT:
The foregoing resolution was adopted this 15th day of July, 2014 at a duly noticed public hearing.
_______________________________
Jan Howell Marx, Mayor
ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
________________________________ _______________________________
Anthony Mejia, City Clerk J. Christine Dietrick, City Attorney
Attachment 1
B1 - 9
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 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 was 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 Attachment 2
B1 - 10
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 2
(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:
Air Pollution Control District (Dust and Odor Control Plan)
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)
Attachment 2
B1 - 11
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 3
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)).
Attachment 2
B1 - 12
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 4
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 13
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 5
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 14
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 6
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 15
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 7
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, then 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
Attachment 2
B1 - 16
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 8
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 17
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 9
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 18
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 10
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 19
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 11
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 20
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 12
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 21
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 13
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 22
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 14
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 23
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 15
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
Attachment 2
B1 - 24
Issues, Discussion and Supporting Information Sources
ER # GPI 76-14
Sources Potentially
Significant
Issues
Less Than
Significant
with
Mitigation
Incorporated
Less Than
Significant
Impact
No
Impact
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 16
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.
Attachment 2
B1 - 25
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 17
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).
Attachment 2
B1 - 26
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
INITIAL STUDY LAGUNA LAKE NATURAL RESERVE CONSERVATION PLAN 18
Site vicinity map with aerial photograph
Attachment 2
B1 - 27
Attachment 2
B1 - 28
Attachment 2
B1 - 29
Attachment 2
B1 - 30
Attachment 2
B1 - 31
Attachment 2
B1 - 32
Attachment 2
B1 - 33
Attachment 2
B1 - 34
Attachment 2
B1 - 35
Attachment 2
B1 - 36
Attachment 2
B1 - 37
Attachment 2
B1 - 38
Attachment 2
B1 - 39
Attachment 2
B1 - 40
Attachment 2
B1 - 41
Attachment 2
B1 - 42
Attachment 2
B1 - 43
Attachment 2
B1 - 44
Attachment 2
B1 - 45
Attachment 2
B1 - 46
Attachment 2
B1 - 47
Attachment 2
B1 - 48
Attachment 2
B1 - 49
Attachment 2
B1 - 50
Attachment 2
B1 - 51
Attachment 2
B1 - 52
Attachment 2
B1 - 53
Attachment 2
B1 - 54
Attachment 2
B1 - 55
Attachment 2
B1 - 56
Attachment 2
B1 - 57
Attachment 2
B1 - 58
Attachment 2
B1 - 59
Attachment 2 B1 - 60
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 1 of 12
Council Chambers
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
Wednesday, June 4, 2014, 5:30 p.m.
DRAFT
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Davis called the meeting to order at 5:31 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chair Steve Davis, Vice Chair Jeff Whitener and Commissioners Ryan
Baker, Michael Parolini, Ron Regier
ABSENT: Commissioners Craig Kincaid, Susan Updegrove
COUNCIL: None
STAFF: Shelly Stanwyck, Melissa Mudgett, Bob Hill, Michael Codron
Public Comment
None
1. Consideration of Minutes
MOTION: (Whitener/Regier) Approve the May 7, 2014 minutes as amended.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent
Page 1-6 Damon Garcia correction “filed” to “field” & page numbers
2. Status Report Damon Garcia Sports Fields 2014 Renovation (Todd Beights, Parks
Maintenance Supervisor)
Parks Maintenance Supervisor was unable to attend the meeting. Parks and Recreation
Director, Stanwyck, will present the status report on behalf of Parks Maintenance
Supervisor as part of the Director’s Report, item 6 of the Agenda.
3. Review, Comment, and Make Recommendations to City Council on the Laguna
Lake Master Plan ( Bob Hill, Natural Resources Manager)
Meeting Minutes
Parks and Recreation Commission
Attachment 3
B1 - 61
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 2 of 12
Bob Bill presented on the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and discussed
the public comment and input process. This project has been challenging and with a long
history. The Laguna Lake Natural Reserve is scenic and recreational area. Bob presented
and overview of the conservation plan with a historical perspective including contemporary
aerial views (flood and drought conditions).
Bob Hill continued to provide the Commission with a bit of history and timelines about the
area. Circa 1900s, the Laguna lake area had a different alignment than that of today. In
1961, pre development, the Laguna Lake area was significantly marsh. In 1963, Prefumo
Creek was redirected into the Prefumo arm which fed into Laguna Lake. In 1965, the creek
was redirected again through what is now the Laguna Lake golf course and middle school.
From 1965 to 1977 there were significant storm events adding to increase sedimentation of
the lake. The estimated sedimentation rate transfers were characterized as “rapid” in the
Prefumo arm. In 1982, after several years of drought-like conditions, Council adopted the
Laguna Lake Management program. In 1991, the Laguna Lake delta was highly populated
with willows, marsh and sediment. To address this issue, the Laguna Lake Park Master
Plan was approved by Council in 1993 and bifurcated the park into two areas – an active
park (BBQ, dog park, picnic tables) and passive park - nature preserve (trails). The
Conservation Plan was codified as part of the conservation guidelines and open space
element. In 2012, a Geographic Information Systems (GIS ) Aquatic Land Surveyor
compared the 1997 to 2012 sedimentation rates at Prefumo creek inlet and bottom elevation
survey. It was determined that if the sedimentation rates continue, a landform will
eventually form and separate the lake into two parts. Bob noted that in 100 years’ time
frame, the Laguna Lake area will eventually revert back to marsh. Once again in 2014,
this area is experiencing a significant drought. As such, a sand bar is forming, causing
separation of the lake. Bob commented that eventually all lakes revert back to land/marsh
through full sedimentation and that this lake may be reverting a bit faster due to human
impact and diversion of the Prefumo creek.
Bob continued to explain that the Wetland Mitigation project, as part of Costco
Development, serves to capture a lot of sediment from various watershed areas. Erosion
sources in the watershed above the lake are adding to sedimentation (Golf Course one
example) along the shoreline. There have been numerous projects to help stabilize the
creek banks. Bob noted that the City does not control the northwest inlet of the lake. He
further explained that there has been mapping of various vegetation and wildlife habitat
surveys completed in this area which show a diverse number of species and habitat types
Attachment 3
B1 - 62
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 3 of 12
(such as wetlands, marsh, grassland meadow, serpentine bunchgrass, seeps/springs/swells,
Toro creek bog thistle and owls).
Bob reiterated to the Commission that the goals and policies of conservation plan are to
conserve and enhance the natural habitats, provide to the public safe and passive recreation,
actively protect the creeks, minimize the impacts of harmful activities, provide signage and
interpretive features, maintain protect and improve aesthetic views, restore resources within
the reserve and regularly monitor and patrol the area.
Bob discussed how a needs analysis would support a plan that marries the technical
intelligence and available resources to that of the needs and desires of the community. In
2012 and again in 2014, community workshops were held to inform and receive feedback
from the public and partner agencies. Some of the feedback received included support for
resource management and protection (Utilities & Recycled Water for the ongoing
management of lake levels), resource enhancement (such as steelhead trout, invasive
species control and excavation/dredging), mitigation projects (such as Condon’s tar plant,
Adobe sanicle), updated signage & educational props and accessible amenities (such as a
path trail loop and viewing boardwalk on peninsula area).
Bob reviewed with the Commission the appropriate land use designations for habitat
protection, management and restoration and the difference between “maintained” and
“unmaintained” trails. Maintained trails would include actively protecting for hazards,
creating trail stability and limiting erosion. Bob noted that there is currently an
unmaintained trail in this area that has interior fencing used for seasonal cattle grazing.
This open fencing along Madonna property and behind the existing restaurants could be
potentially problematic with public expectations for trail maintenance.
Bob provided the Commission with an overview of project implementation and stages.
Stages 1-3 would include the addition of signage and trailheads, accessible path and
sediment basins and the beginning of a dredging project. Stages 4-6 would include land
conservation strategies of the water shed and various stabilization projects. Stages 7-10
would allow for continued dredging, fish passage projects, construction of a boardwalk,
recycled water use (which is currently undergoing a major facility upgrade) and a
bathymetry lake survey. Bob mentioned that regulatory permitting process are expected to
take some time. Ongoing tasks would include the monitoring of the habitat, conducting
resource inventories, grazing use, patrols, sediment removal and management surveys, as
Attachment 3
B1 - 63
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 4 of 12
well as eventual recycled water delivery.
Bob stated that the fiscal impacts of this project are estimated at $10 million dollars over a
ten-year period. General Fund Capital Improvement Project funding, Measure Y funding,
operating budgets, grants and property assessments such as a Community Facilities District
(CFD) could all be considered as funding options. Assessment Districts would require
analysis of costs and significant outreach with the Laguna Lake neighbors.
Bob provided to the Commission an outline of project review dates; the Parks and
Recreation Commission on June 4, 2014, the Planning Commission on June 11, 2014 and
the City Council on July 15, 2014.
Chair Davis opened the presentation to questions from the Commission. Seeing that there
were no questions, Chair Davis opened the item for public comment.
Public Comment
Don Green, resident of 966 Vista Delgatos, reiterated that a lot of work has been put into
this plan and past plans on this topic. Mr. Green said it has been psychologically
devastating to have plans to build up neighborhood hope and then nothing ever comes from
the plans. He said it was nice to see City momentum to actuate the plan and agreed it was a
good idea to keep sediment from entering into the lake. Mr. Green noted that for the past
35 years, approximately 3.6 m cubic feet of sediment in the lake which equates to the
removal 150,000 cubic feet over 10 years. He would like to see more effort put towards
keeping sediment from entering the lake. Mr. Green gave his support for forming a funding
district as he felt this has been holding up the project. Mr. Green indicated that many of his
neighbors are willing to pay to keep the lake as it increases their property values.
Rob Davidson, resident for 26 years on Oceanaire, commended staff on an excellent,
balanced report and summary of work. Mr. Davidson said the report was missing
perspective on how much is being “not-spent” on the lake over past 50 years. He said the
groups such as yacht club, canoe team, boaters, wind-surfers, kite surfers, weddings,
photographers, bird-watchers have all used to use this area frequently in the past and that
there has been a long-term decline of these types of uses of the lake. Conditions will
deteriorate if no money spent on maintenance. Mr. Davidson said there should be a
stronger emphasis of the value of the asset and said there was negligence on the part of the
City for not maintaining this asset. He said he liked the concept of a Maintenance Fund to
Attachment 3
B1 - 64
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 5 of 12
support the ongoing maintenance needs of the lake in the future. As property owner, he
said he was happy to pay into a Community Services District (CSD). Mr. Davidson asked
what has happened to the extra property taxes generated by lakefront properties as this
revenue is not being spent on maintaining the lake. He continued that the lake is a critical
part of the active park and park recreational uses as it attracts people to the community.
Jim Foley, a resident of Laguna Lake for the past 18 years, echoed what Mr. Davidson said
about disappearing recreational uses of the lake (windsurfer, kite surfing, etc). He said at
one time the lake was capable of supporting these uses. He would like to see the money
from property owners used to maintain the lake. He supports the idea of planning ahead for
permits before drought conditions become too severe. Mr. Foley said it might be an easier
time to dredge when the lake is at its lowest levels. Mr. Foley expressed to the Commission
that it is better to accomplish even a part of the plan that not at all. He hopes this issue
sustains public awareness.
Theodora Jones, resident of 1945 Oceanaire for 40 years, said she has seen a lot of changes
in area and changes in attitude. She indicated that Laguna Lake was the laughing stock of
town but she appreciates this area as a community asset. Ms. Jones said that when the pine
trees started dying on Madonna Road, the overplanting row of pine trees now obstructs the
views of lake and mountains. Ms. Jones said the “hodge-podge” of memorial grove trees
are blocking the joy of the reserve and the views of the morrows and the lakes. Ms. Jones
also noted that accessibility was an issue. She said that vehicle traffic along the loop were
making it dangerous for pedestrian use of park. Ms. Jones said the lake was “well-used” at
one time and would like to see it that way again.
Bob Hill received written comments from Brett Cross and read highlights. The written
comments provided support and recommended the Commission to support the
sedimentation removal. Mr. Cross indicated his concerns about additional regulations for
fishing (primarily steelhead) and that he was not in support of building a bridge across lake
but that building a viewing pier would be okay. He provided other locations, such as
Shoreline Lake in Mountain View and Lake Elizabeth as examples.
Public Comment received from Mr. Don Dollar indicated he was not in support of
dredging. However, he was supportive of more patrols, vegetation monitoring, interior
fencing, time frames for botanical surveys, addition of regular trail work and maintenance.
Attachment 3
B1 - 65
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 6 of 12
With no further public comment, Chair Davis closed the public comment period and asked
the Commission to provide comments.
Commission Comment
Commission Parolini said that funds are needed to take care of this City asset. Rangers
currently patrol and volunteers to maintain this area.
Commissioner Baker asked if there was a plan for keeping sediment out of lake. Staff Bob
Hill responded that dredging only would be like treating the systems but not the illness.
Bob said a plan would include dredging, coupled with creek bank stabilization projects.
Bob also clarified units of measurement as referenced earlier by Mr. Green during public
comment. He said that some reports used cubit yards and some cubic feet and that’s why
there wasn’t consistency in the date numbers as presented.
Vice Chair Whitener asked why stabilization projects are beginning in years 4-6. Staff Hill
responded that this is due primarily to the lengthy permitting process. Vice Chair Whitener
asked when was the last Master plan was reviewed. Staff Hill responded that the existing
Master Plan for Laguna Lake Park describes the uses allowed in the active park versus the
passive - nature preserve. Only the “nature preserve” portion of the plan is being presented
to the Commission this evening.
Chair Davis asked if Staff Hill had a sense of any regulatory agencies precluding actions as
presented in this plan. Staff Hill said that mitigation efforts were assumed and included
into this plan. He continued that there have been preliminary conservations with regulatory
agencies and that this plan has addressed those questions or concerns. Staff Hill reiterated
that staff is not proposing any change to the current uses of the lake area.
Commissioner Regier said his experience with the lake was limited. He commended staff
for good work in preparing reports over time. Commissioner said he would like to see the
City determine the most economical and efficient way to sustain this area as an asset
enjoyed by the community. He noted that there is profound community interest in the park.
He would like to protect the natural resources and preserve the area in whatever state it may
evolve into. Commission Regier stated he was in favor of dredging and restoring the lake
and supported the development of a CFD. Commission Regier indicated he would like to
see Measure Y, ½ cent sales tax funds used to support and maintain this community. He
noted that additional improvements, such as building of a boardwalk are not as high of a
priority but would like to see improved signage. He thanked the public for coming out and
Attachment 3
B1 - 66
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 7 of 12
expressing their concerns about this issue. He agreed with the public comments about
disappearing uses of the lake and being prepared to act. He also supported that viewing
increases appreciation of this resource and would like to see enhancement of the views.
Chair Davis supported the plan and would like an opportunity to review it from time to
time.
Staff Hill said that the plan will further define funding areas for which project components
are more likely to receive grant funds and which will utilize city general funds.
MOTION: (Reiger/Whitener) the Parks and Recreation Commission to make a
recommendation for Council to approve the Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation
Plan as presented and that Council strongly consider the CFD funding.
Approved: 5 yes: 0 no: 2 absent
4. Presentation Re: Tennis Courts in SLO (Scott Cleere)
Mr. Cleere expressed to the Commission his desire to keep the conversation alive about the
need for tennis court lighting. With summer, and longer daylight hours, the Commission
may not hear as much from the public about the need for nighttime lighting of the courts as
opposed to winter time when there is shorter daylight hours. Mr. Cleere indicated that there
were tennis advocates in audience to provide public support for this issue. He would like to
convey to Council and the Commission that having lights at the Sinsheimer tennis courts
would enhance play and demonstrate a need. Mr. Cleere shared with the Commission ideas
about possible public support efforts such as an on-line questionnaire in which the
community could express support of/or dissention for tennis court lighting at Sinsheimer, as
well as a neighborhood focus, going door –to-door seeking community input. Mr. Cleere
noted that the main objective of this would is to bring about a better idea of the current level
of support for tennis court lighting. Mr. Cleere expressed that lit courts and Sinshiemer
would grow recreational activities and desires. He noted that the Country Club and Bay
Club have lit courts, but not all public have access to them or financial resources to become
members. He continued to share his observation that thousands of people enjoy the
Sinsheimer park throughout the year and that when public parks are fully utilized; it
elevates and increases the value of the community as well.
Vice Chair Whitener responded that he was keenly aware of this need and hopes that this
Attachment 3
B1 - 67
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 8 of 12
issue makes the list of Commissions’ goals. He encouraged Mr. Cleere to keep up the
efforts and invited the public to participate in the City’s goal-setting process/community
forum. He said that this public input it is helpful for Commissioners when advocating and
has proven to be an effective method in the past, such as with the example of the new skate
park.
Commissioner Parolini encouraged Mr. Cleere to bring tennis racquets to the community
forum as a visual representation.
Commissioner Baker said he supports lighting and asked where else can tennis be played at
night for free. A member of the public, Eddie Rodriguez, said that you can play tennis at
night at Soto park in Arroyo Grande, Los Osos, Atascadero, Grover Beach and Paso
Robles. Mr. Rodriguez continued to add that the SLO High school tennis courts are lit but
that the lighting is not appropriate to need. The lighting is outdated and does not provide
adequate illumination. Mr. Rodriguez stated that currently there is no location in the City of
San Luis Obispo for young professionals to play tennis in the evening. He expressed a
community desire to improve these facilities.
A member of the public, Collin Jones, said that he is frustrated with the inability to play
tennis at night in the winter months. He continued that there are issues with SLO High
school tennis courts and upgrades are needed on court size and lighting. Mr. Jones
expressed his disappointment that almost all of the other surrounding cities have lit tennis
except for our city; the county seat. He further noted that there is a strong tennis
community in SLO and would like to see the Commission view the tennis courts as part of
the upcoming annual parks tour. He encouraged the Commission to take on an active
leadership role and pass a resolution supporting lights at Sinsheimer tennis courts.
Commissioner Regier added that there are other problems with the SLO High school tennis
courts such as access to courts limited as it is on school (private) property, courts are not
lined up linearly, the lighting is deficient as well as the court size (close proximately of the
fencing) limiting the ability to play. In essence, having improved lights at the High school
would not be enough as it would not improve the configuration of the courts and solve the
other issues. In addition, Commission Regier said these tennis courts are not controlled by
the City and the School District has preferred use. Commissioner Regier supported the
ideas of coin-operated lights to help offset the costs. He also mentioned cities where tennis
courts were placed on top of parking structures, such as in Los Angeles. Commissioner
Attachment 3
B1 - 68
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 9 of 12
Regier supported creative ideas that could help accommodate community needs.
Commissioner Regier also supported public participation in the goal-setting process and
noted that September is when the Commission will begin discussing recommendations for
Council goals.
Commissioner Parolini encourage the group to stay organized and be visual in the goal-
setting process.
A member of the public, Steve Kadin, said he would like to lend his support to the tennis
community. He plays at both Sinsheimer and at the High school and said when he plays at
the High school at night he has difficulty seeing the tennis balls.
A member of the public, Vicente DelRio, said that with all of SLO’s resources, we should
have lights at the tennis courts. He echoed the needs expressed by his colleagues that lit
courts also means increased security. Public workshops only attract people with ability to
attend and that there should be other means to collect community input. Mr. DelRio said he
supports all sports equally such as soccer at Damon Garcia sports fields.
Director Stanwyck said she would send Mr. Cleere information about the City’s goal-
setting process and information about the School District’s proposed bond measure. She
further noted that there has been a significant reduction in the amount of tennis courts that
used to exist in this city. She noted that the tennis courts at Sinsheimer were built by
volunteers who donated time and materials in the late 1980s.
Commissioner Parolini said that he recalled the goal-setting process including this specific
topic for past 8 years.
5. Reminder – 2014 Park Tour Agenda (Director)
Director Stanwyck reviewed the annual parks tour agenda as approved by the Commission
at the last meeting. She noted two slight changes resulting from use of the Trolley as this
vehicle will need to be available for Farmer’s Market at 4:30pm. As a result, the time was
changed to include pick-up at 12:00pm and a return at 4:30pm. Director Stanwyck
confirmed that viewing of the tennis courts were on the park tour agenda.
Commissioner Parolini asked if both sides of Bob Jones trail were on the tour agenda.
Director Stanwyck responded that currently only the new bridge connection portion was on
agenda. She reminded the Commissioners to RSVPs for the optional morning hike.
Attachment 3
B1 - 69
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 10 of 12
6. Director’s Report (Director)
Parks and Recreation Director, Stanwyck, presented the status report and highlights on
turf renovation for Damon Garcia Sports Field on behalf of the Parks Maintenance
Supervisor and agenda item 2. To date, over 250 tons of sand have been applied to the
turf and new seed (Kentucky bluegrass) has been added to the impacted areas such as
the goal mouth on field 8. Damon Garcia has benefited greatly by receiving two weeks
of potable water. Public Works staff is still fine-tuning the methodology to support
quicker seed germination such as pre-fertilizing the soil to make it more receptive to
seeding. Director Stanwyck noted that there has been significant regrowth of the
impacted trees of Golf course as flushing with potable water has gone a long way in
making improvements. Director Stanwyck added that there will be more opportunities
to invite Public Works and other city staff to speak under the Commissions new
meeting style.
Facilities & Pool
Hired new Aquatics Coordinator & Facilities Specialist
Swim Lessons Underway. Summer swim hours begin June 9 – August 17
Santa Rosa Playground Replacement Closure of BBQs
Skate Park Ground Breaking May 21st - Construction Started June 4th
Damon Garcia – 2 weeks Potable Water – Significant Improvements
Rangers
Jr Ranger activity camp next week
New Ranger Hire – (promotion to CDD)
Working on Trails
GIS Mapping
Weed Abatement with CC’s
Youth Services
Summer Camps start June 16th
Teen SPOT Camp
CIT Training – 15 (highest in years)
Collaboration with Public Transit for Camp transportation
Collaboration with School District
Sports
Summer Adult Softball started June 2nd
Jr. Giants starts June 9 – Aug 8th
SLO Triathlon – July 27th
o 881 registered
o Average age 42 (78 oldest, 15 youngest)
o Volunteers Needed
Attachment 3
B1 - 70
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 11 of 12
Sport N’ Splash Camp (Sinshiemer) August 11-15th
Community Services
Skate Park Ground Breaking May 21st - Construction Started June 4th
Skate Park Time-Lapse Video Project (CANA)
Dive-In Movie Friday, June 6th
Jack House in full-summer swing (working with staff for elevator removal project
Gardens – Renewal Time & New potential site at Laguna Golf Course
Contract classes - offering new summer skateboard building camp
Senior Center - partnership agreement and new chair volleyball program
Golf
Fund Raisers – June 10th
Ladies Fund Raiser “Pink Flags” & Sierra Vista Stroke Rehab
Marketing for Summer Play – June Buy 10 pays get 2 free rounds
Repair Range Netting
Greens Improvement after 2 weeks Potable Water
Other
Marti is back!!!
Pedestrian Lighting Replacement CIP - Meadow Park Lighting (2014-15) $60K
Public Art Updates: WTC Memorial, Kyle Roofing Mural, Higuera-Fountain
7. Subcommittee Liaison Reports
Tree Committee: Commissioner Baker reported the Tree Committee will meet on
June 9th. There is nothing to report at this time.
Natural Resources: Commissioner Kinkaid was absent. There is nothing to report at
this time.
Jack House: Commissioner Updegrove was absent. There is nothing to report at this
time.
School District: Commissioner Parolini reported that the School District has not
met. There is nothing to report at this time.
Damon-Garcia: Commissioner Parolini supported Director Stanwycks' update on
Damon Garcia but further expressed just how much staff effort and materials are
involved in field renovations.
Golf: Vice Chair Whitener reported that golf rounds up 5% and revenues are up 9%
to date. He noted that the greens were doing great after two weeks of potable water
and hopes to continue collaborations with Utilities staff. He reminded the
Commissioners that there are opportunities throughout the year where potable water
is in the system and that the golf course should take advantage of these times.
Attachment 3
B1 - 71
City of San Luis Obispo, Title, Subtitle
Page 12 of 12
Classed with Cal Poly and First-Tee continue. Vice Chair Whitener said that
Altrusa, a local youth organization, played a fund-raising tournament on May 31st.
Bicycle Committee: Commissioner Regier said that the Bicycle Committee has not
met. There is nothing to report at this time. He added that long-time volunteer and
avid cyclist, Gary Havas, is leaving on June 18th for a 6,000 miles/100 days bicycle
journey. His trip will be journaled on the blog as provided:
www.crazyguyonabike.com/gphavas
Youth Sports: Chair Davis reported that the YSA has not met. There is nothing to
report at this time.
8. Communications
Director Stanwyck reported to the Commission that she will return in August with a
follow up report from the May 31st Special Meeting with a discussion about the
assessment, work scope and review of policies in the Element.
Commissioner Parolini expressed his gratitude for staff Bob Hill and his work on the
Laguna Lake Master Plan. He added that Bob was very knowledgeable, a great
advocate for staff and a huge asset to the City. Vice Chair Whitener added that Bob
was the perfect guy to replace Neal.
9. Adjourned to Special Meeting (Parks Tour) on June 19, 2014
Meeting adjourned at 7:47 pm to the annual Parks Tour Special Meeting on
Thursday, June 19, 2014 at 9:00am.
Approved by the Parks and Recreation Commission on __________________.
________________________________________________
Melissa C. Mudgett, Parks and Recreation Department Manager
Attachment 3
B1 - 72
DRAFT
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
June 11, 2014
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL: Commissioners Hemalata Dandekar, Michael Draze, John Fowler,
Ronald Malak, William Riggs, and Chairperson John Larson
Absent: Vice-Chairperson Michael Multari
Staff: Assistant City Manager Michael Codron, Deputy Community
Development Director Doug Davidson, Natural Resources Manager
Robert Hill, City Biologist Freddy Otte, Interim Assistant City Attorney
Anne Russell, and Recording Secretary Diane Clement
ACCEPTANCE OF THE AGENDA: The agenda was accepted as presented.
MINUTES: Minutes of May 28, 2014, were approved as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS:
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
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. (Robert Hill)
Natural Resources Manager Robert Hill presented the staff report, recommending
review of the draft Laguna Lake Natural Reserve Conservation Plan and Initial Study,
and recommending to the City Council that the Plan and a Negative Declaration be
adopted as presented, or as amended.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Rob Davidson, SLO, commended staff on a comprehensive, detailed report and stated
that preservation of Laguna Lake is essential to the park. He noted that many users no
longer come to the lake due to its steady deterioration. He supported approval of the
plan and emphasized the need to set aside funds for ongoing maintenance.
Michael Alamo, SLO, stated that there has been a tremendous increase in open space
in the City over the last 30 years but that the development of recreational facilities has
not kept up with population growth. He noted that it is important to keep the current
synergy between those interested in active recreation and those interested in natural
habitats. He stated that one of the key comments made at public workshops is that the
City needs to do more to increase the use of resources as attractive amenities and that,
even though the plan clearly states that passive recreational activities will be permitted
Attachment 4
B1 - 73
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 2
as long as they do not cause environmental problems, future interpretation of that
statement will determine the actual uses allowed so it is important to identify the
permitted passive uses. He supported the dredging.
Jonathan Lindenthaler, SLO, stated he is impressed with the plan because it is the most
comprehensive, well-thought-out report he has seen in the five years he has been
attending hearings for Laguna Lake.
Jan Simek, SLO, commended the presentation and had two suggestions: 1) the report
could be improved with inclusion of a satellite image showing the future boardwalk and
the location of planned dredging; and 2) there should be active web links in the report to
online supporting documents. He stated that another study of the sediments in the lake
should be undertaken before any dredging takes place because the last study was done
in 2001. He noted that there has been unpermitted dumping at the lake in the past and
it is his assumption that sewage from Sunny Acres drains to the lake. He stated he is
concerned about the accumulation of heavy metals.
Michael Hesser, SLO, commended the report and stated that Laguna Lake is the largest
asset in the City. He suggested that dredging take place now while the lake is nearly
dry because it would save money.
Gordon Mullin, SLO, stated that he is running for City Council and is concerned about
what is not in the report which is an examination of what happens if we do not do
anything. He noted that some say it will just turn into a meadow like Tuolumne
Meadows but that he thinks it will become a swamp and that time is running out to deal
with this.
Jim Buonrostro, SLO, distributed photographs he took this morning illustrating some of
the neglect imposed on Laguna Park. He noted that the City could end up spending
money on liability due to accidents from such things as the erosion under the fishing
dock. He stated that funds for maintenance should be put into an escrow account. He
noted that the City maintains Damon Garcia and other parks but has been neglecting
Laguna Park where even the grass is not mowed. He observed that there used to be all
kinds of recreation going on at the park but that people do not come any more.
Leslie McKinley, SLO, supported dredging now and asked how long a special
assessment district would be in place.
Linda Meyer, SLO, commended the report and stated that she grew up on the lake and
her mother still lives there but now her views are blocked by the “mountain” of sediment
that has built up. She noted that she worries about flooding and supports dredging.
Donald Green, SLO, complimented the report and stated that it is the first set of
recommendations to include a holistic approach. He emphasized that it is better to
keep sediments from getting to the lake than having to remove them after they are in
the lake. He supported ongoing sediment control and removal and stated he is very
much in favor of being part of the financing program but is concerned about who will be
in charge of choosing dredging locations, etc. He asked if those residents living close to
Attachment 4
B1 - 74
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 3
the lake, who will be putting more money in, will have more control in choosing how that
money is spent and where dredging is done.
There were no further comments made from the public.
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Larson stated he is grateful to the public speakers tonight and to all the area
residents for showing support for an assessment district. He noted that community
support is the most important motivation for staff to set up the district and that this will
not be the sole means of financing the plan. He supported dredging and stated that this
report is the most comprehensive and integrated he has seen for Laguna Lake and the
first time he has seen the suggestion of using dredged spoils onsite for purposes such
as landscaping. He requested that staff discuss the financing plans, the time frame,
and the assessment district.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that this report is very preliminary and very
conceptual and it needs more thinking and vetting by the community. He noted that the
assessment district will be similar to a Mello Roos district, requiring a supermajority of
67% with one vote per parcel.
Assistant City Manager Codron stated that the design of the dredge would be an effort
to marry the technical requirements and the practical need to get it accepted and would
be known before any vote for an assessment district.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that questions about control of the assessment
district are still up in the air and there are many ways to do it including a community
board.
Commr. Draze thanked Natural Resources Manager Hill and City Biologist Otte for the
report, and thanked the public speakers and expressed appreciation for the public’s
help to staff. He stated that he likes the plan and hopes the City Council will approve it
and that it will get implemented.
Commr. Fowler stated he would like to see a chart comparing the costs of implementing
this years ago and now.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated he had thought about doing this but does not
know how productive it would be to show that it would have been cheaper in the past.
He stated that if nothing is done, the prediction is that the delta would continue to form
and stabilize, with the lake shrinking in size and eventually becoming a wetland
meadow by about 2100. He noted that it may be true that the lake might be an
unpleasant place in the interim, as stated by Mr. Mullin, and that the best comparison is
to look at 1977 and 2014 and average the change over time with the understanding that
the changes would actually be more episodic.
Attachment 4
B1 - 75
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 4
Commr. Fowler asked whether it would be better to attempt to stop or slow the progress
of this sedimentation or begin dredging. He also asked whether a similar report done
city wide is being considered.
Assistant City Manager Codron stated that staff did look at a larger assessment area,
but wanted to limit it to those most affected. He noted that staff is seeking more public
comments.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated it has been the goal to have a broader voice
from the public. He noted that, in his experience, those living around the lake speak out
much more than those living elsewhere in the City. He stated that the City took out a
full color advertisement in the Tribune and posted on the City website for the three
workshops.
Commr. Fowler supported the plan and stated he hopes the City Council will support a
financial plan to pay for it.
Commr. Dandakar stated that Laguna Lake is a community-wide asset. She asked
about showing the allocation of the $10 million budget for the public including what the
projected funding sources are and how much from each. She also asked when
dredging would be needed again if this plan is implemented and the sediment basins
are developed.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that the dredging project, as envisioned in 2009,
would be 20 weeks a year and that maintenance of the sediment basins would be
ongoing with some variation due to episodic events. He noted that funding is projected
to be 30% from grants, 25% from the assessment district and 45% from the General
Fund. He stated that it will not be possible to get grants for dredging or the sediment
basins so that funding will be 75% from the assessment district and 25% from the
General Fund. He noted that an Army Corps of Engineers grant is not feasible here.
Commr. Dandakar asked what the maintenance model would look like.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that there will be $10 million in improvements
and $150,000 for ongoing maintenance.
Commr. Malak asked about the onsite island and marshland discussed on page PC1-
28.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that this is from the 2009 dredging only report
when using spoils to form an island, but this was not the preferred alternative as it would
be even more expensive hauling them to landfill. He noted that current estimates are
comparable to the 2009 figures.
Commr. Malak asked for a definition of passive recreation, as mentioned in 15.
Recreation on page PC1-21.
Attachment 4
B1 - 76
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 5
Natural Resources Manager Hill noted that discussion of passive vs. active recreation is
legendary and that the plan does not propose use changes but does include some
controls and monitoring to determine impacts.
Commr. Malak asked if some commercial use would be allowed.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated an exception would be needed for that.
Commr. Malak stated that he agrees that the park is not being maintained and he
agrees with Commr. Fowler about presenting this to the Council as a citywide issue. He
asked what would happen if Measure Y is not approved.
Natural Resources Manager Hill stated that the preliminary plan does rely on approval
of Measure Y and that Community Facilities Districts are not easy to accomplish. He
noted that without those funding sources, the City would have to look at this as a pay-
as-you-go project using General Fund monies and grants or something time-deferred
and maybe smaller.
Commr. Riggs stated that implementation will increase the user base from around the
City, and he is concerned about cumulative impacts of traffic. He noted that the last
thing the neighbors would like would probably be seeing an increase in people driving
there, which is something to be sensitive to in the implementation.
Commr. Larson stated that this is the best plan seen for Laguna Lake and noted that the
willingness of the residents with property adjacent to the lake to support staff and the
plan is a powerful tool in gaining support from a broader area.
On motion by Commr. Draze, seconded by Commr. Fowler, to recommend to the City
Council that the Plan and a Negative Declaration be adopted as presented.
Commr. Malak suggested a friendly amendment for commercialization of the open
space. Commr. Draze stated he would like that as a separate amendment. Commr.
Malak agreed.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Draze, Fowler, Malak, Riggs, and Larson
NOES: None
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Multari
The motion passed on a 6:0 vote.
On motion by Commr. Malak, seconded by Commr. Larson, for consideration of
commercialization of lake activities at Laguna Lake commercialization of lake activities
in the Laguna Lake Park.
Attachment 4
B1 - 77
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 6
Commr. Dandakar stated that if she is supporting this, she would like to see it tied to
fiscal liability in the long term and would like an analysis of licensing. She stated that
otherwise she is not supportive of something that might diminish the quality of this
natural, beautiful environment.
Commr. Larson noted that this is worthy of a continuing discussion if it can be done
without adverse environmental effects and can raise additional monies for the park and
that there is a precedent for more active uses of the park with the periodic events held
there.
Commr. Draze stated he can support commercialization in the park only.
Commr. Malak suggested uses such as a paddle boats concession.
Commr. Riggs recommended that the motion be changed to request staff explore this
and report back to the Planning Commission because it could have ramifications here
and across the city.
Commr. Fowler stated he cannot support this as there are more questions than answers
and the staff has its hands full with just the conservation plan.
There were no further comments made from the Commission.
AYES: Commrs. Dandekar, Larson, and Malak
NOES: Commrs. Draze, Fowler, and Riggs
RECUSED: None
ABSENT: Commr. Multari
The motion resulted in a 3:3 tie vote.
Commr. Larson, as chair, stated that he chooses to leave it as a no vote.
Commr. Malak stated he would now prefer staff explore this and come back with a
presentation about possibilities and ramifications.
Assistant City Manager Codron recommended speaking with the Park and Recreation
Director about this and any precedents, after which a memo to the Planning
Commission would be developed, and then staff could take direction from the
Commission.
Commr. Malak stated he would rather have a presentation.
Commr. Fowler agreed with Assistant City Manager Codron.
Commr. Larson stated that no action will be taken and the subject will be discussed
again when all Commissioners are present.
Attachment 4
B1 - 78
Draft Planning Commission Minutes
June 11, 2014
Page 7
Commr. Larson stated that the plan will be heard by the City Council in two weeks
where everyone has the right to state their viewpoint.
Commr. Dandakar stated that if there is to be a memo, she would like it to be about the
fiscal plan and viability of maintaining this resource with a long-term preservation
strategy and less about just commercialization.
COMMENT AND DISCUSSION:
2. Staff
a. Agenda Forecast by Deputy Community Development Director Davidson:
1) June 25, 2014, meeting cancelled
2) July 1, Tuesday, 2014, 5 p.m. joint meeting with City Council about LUCE
3) July 9, 2014, Chevron Tank Farm area, Public Facilities Financing Plan
4) July 23, 2014, about LUCE and Housing Element review.
3. Commission
a. Commr. Dandakar will be absent for all meetings in July.
b. Commr. Draze will recuse himself from July 9, 2014, meeting.
c. Commr. Malak will be absent for July 1, 2014, joint meeting with City Council.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 8:19 p.m.
Respectfully submitted by,
Diane Clement
Recording Secretary
Attachment 4
B1 - 79
Page intentionally left
blank.
B1 - 80