Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/1996, 5 - GP/R 7-96: GENERAL PLAN AND ZONING MAP AND TEXT AMENDMENTS TO ALLOW DEVELOPMENT OF A 1.6-ACRE SITE ON THE WESTERLY SIDE OF CALLE JOAQUIN, SOUTH OF LOS OSOS VALLEY ROAD AND IMMEDIATELY SOUTH OF MOTEL 6. counck j acEnaa izEpout CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director�J Prepared By: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner SUBJECT: GP/R 7-96: General Plan and Zoning map and text amendments to allow development of a 1.6-acre site on the westerly side of Calle Joaquin, south of Los Osos Valley Road and immediately south of Motel 6. CAO RECOMMENDATION 1. Approve in concept the following amendments: A. The General Plan Land Use Element map from Open Space to Tourist; B. The General Plan Open Space Element Greenbelt map, to eliminate the site fromthe "greenbelt"; C. General Plan text to allow development of the site; D. Zoning map from Conservation/Open Space, minimum 10-acre home site (CC&10) to Tourist Commercial (C-T); 2. Approve in concept the addition of the "Special Considerations" overlay zone to the site, specifying several "special considerations", as recommended by the Planning Commission; 3. Advise the applicant that any further development or annexation of the property may be subject to additional open space dedication; 4. Deny the applicant's request for a fee waiver; 5. Direct staff to return to the Council on July 2, 1996 for possible formal adoption along with the other General Plan amendments ready for adoption at that time; DISCUSSION Situation The applicant wants to develop a golf driving range and baseball batting cages on the site. The site is currently designated "open space" on both the General Plan Land Use Element (LUE) and Zoning maps. The LUE text says that no further development in this specific "hillside planning area" is allowed. The General Plan Open Space Element Greenbelt Map shows this parcel as part of the "greenbelt" around the city. Therefore, the applicant is requesting amendments to the LUE, Zoning, and Greenbelt maps, and an amendment to the LUE text. S-✓ Council Agenda Report - GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 2 The Planning Commission heard this request on April 24, 1996, and recommended approval of the amendments, with the addition of the "Special Considerations" overlay zone to the site, to assure that use permit review would be required of any development. Evaluation The Planning Commission report is attached to this report A summary of the Commission's comments and action follows, along with additional information that was not available at the time of the Commission hearing. 1. The Commission supported the request. The majority of Commissioners present were in favor of the project, primarily for two reasons: 1) they felt the project would be low-intensity and appropriate for the site; and 2)they felt the open space being offered in dedication would be a valuable asset to the City. A lesser incentive for approval was the nature of the future development (driving range and batting cages) itself, which some Commissioners felt would be beneficial to the community. As discussed in the Commission staff report, the applicant is offering to dedicate about 34 acres of the 63 acre property to the City for open space preservation. Additional open space lands in the lower portions of the site that surround the ball landing zone will not be part of the dedication(see dedication map). There was some discussion of what was the most appropriate piece of land to dedicate as well as why these additional open space lands were not included in the dedication offer. The applicant indicated that they were trying to keep their future development options open. In the end, the Commission supported the applicant's offer. It should be mentioned that future development or annexation may result in more open space lands being added to the dedication area. The Commission discussed the future development of the site and defined several "special considerations" that should be addressed at the time of use permit review. The opposing Commissioner did not want to see any change to the amount of land designated for open space around the city, and felt that changing the land use designation from Open Space to Commercial could set a bad precedent. 2. Some citizens expressed concerns. There was testimony in support of the proposal from a Little League coordinator, and opposition from two citizens. One citizen was concerned because she felt that land use, planning, air quality, transportation, and circulation issues were not adequately addressed in the environmental study. She felt the Urban Reserve Line and the Open Space areas were only recently adopted and should not be changed. She wanted an Environmental Impact Report(EIR) done for the project. The other citizen mressed concern that development of the site would have a detrimental effect on the local ecosystem, particularly on those animals dependent on deep valley soils. He too felt an EIR should be required. SIt Council Agenda Report - GP/R 7-% 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 3 3. Map information was wrong. The applicant based preliminary maps on the assessor's map for the site. Subsequent research determined that the map was inaccurate, that dimensions were measured from the wrong location. The in-city portion of the site is smaller than previously thought. Estimated acreage was incorrect, also: the area shown on maps submitted with the application is actually about 3.6 acres, whereas the appraiser's report(from which the applicant took his information) lists the property inside the city limits as 1.9 acres (it is actually 1.6). What this means is that the structures planned for the property won't all fit within the city portion of the lot. The batting cage structure is expected to extend into the county land, where structures are not permitted. The applicant indicates that the project can be redesigned so that all physical improvements (except fencing) can be located within the city limits. 4. Annexation is a possibility. The applicant feels the project can be redesigned so that all structures will be inside the city limits. He has submitted sketches to show how this might work. If he ultimately determines that the in-city property is not sufficient for his needs, he may choose from these options: • Attempt to obtain permission from the County to have structures on county land (County Planning Commission use permit). Neither City nor County staff supports this alternative to resolving jurisdictional issues; • Request annexation of the additional area originally thought to be part of the in-city portion; • Request annexation of the entire parcel. Staff supports either the second or third options, preferring annexation of the entire parcel. . Informal conversations with County staff indicate that it is likely'the County would support this alternative as well. The Council may wish to give the applicant direction on which option to take. Annexation and prezoning requests are not a part of the present proposal, however. The Council may only act on the map and text amendments requested at this time. 5. The applicant has asked for a waiver of fees. Because he believes the project will benefit the community, and because a large amount of open space dedication is part of the project, the applicant is asking for a waiver of processing fees (see attached letter). The Council sets fees and therefore may waive them if it determines there is good cause. Usually the Council waives fees when it determines that the project will benefit low-income residents or when it perceives that somehow the citizen has been subjected to an unusual hardship because of the type of application process required. In this case, if the request is approved the developer will benefit financially from the increased development potential of the site. In exchange, the City will benefit by the acquisition of open space, and, to a lesser degree, by the recreational nature of the project itself. Council Agenda Report - GP/R 7-% 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 4 It is not unusual for a project to benefit the community; in fact, all projects should benefit segments of the community or they should not be approved. It is also not unusual for an offer of essentially undevelopable open space to be made in conjunction with approval of a project in a hillside area on the edge of the city. It is true that the proportion of open space in comparison to the proportion of developable land is larger than typical in these cases. If the council chooses to approve a waiver of fees, this difference should be the reason for that waiver. On balance, the trade appears to be reasonable as it now stands. Staff does not support a waiver of fees, and is concerned about the precedent set should such a waiver be approved. 6. The Council c :,-approve it formally yet. The City may amend its General Plan Land Use and Open Spac.- —cements only four times per year. Staff therefore groups amendments into batches so that there are only four adoption hearings at the Council every year. This application is in the second batch. Several other amendments are not yet ready to be heard by the Council, but the applicant for this project needs some support from the Council before making a decision on whether to purchase the property. This action is "conceptual" only. IT council cannot bind itself to a legislative act before taking formal action, and the applicant :, not entitled to rely upon conceptual approval for any purpose other than a general reading of how the Council is likely to act. This is particularly important since the applicant has stated that he needs conceptual approval for lending purposes. It is possible that the project could ultimately be denied or significantly modified based upon further public testimony or additional environmental considerations. CONCURRENCES No other departments had concerns with this request that cannot be handled through the satisfaction of code requirements. FISCAL IWACT If the fees are waived, the cost to the City would be $2,643. Ultimate dedication of open space would increase the City's land holding costs incrementally. ALTERNATIVES The Council may deny the amendments, if it makes findings to support a denial. The Council may approve some amendments but not others. The Council may approve the amendments with changes to the recommended "special considerations". The Council may continue consideration of the requests. s � Council Agenda Report- GP/R 7-% 1695 Calle Joaquin Page.5_ Attachments Planning CommiMion report and attacliinents Draft Planning Commission minutes of April 24 i u u �7 CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REP RT rrEM x I BY: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner` MEETING DATE: April 24, 1996 FROM: Ron Whisenand, Development R iew Manage /7 FILE NUMBER: GP/R 7-96 PROJECT ADDRESS: 1695 Calle Joaquin SUBJECT: 1.) General plan and zoning map amendments, to change the designation of a 1.9-acre parcel from Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10) to Tourist (C-T), to remove the parcel from the Greenbelt Map, and to include the parcel within the City's Urban Reserve Line; and 2.) General plan text amendment to allow development of the site; for a 1.9-acre site on the west side of Calle Joaquin, south of Los Osos Valley Road, immediately south of the Motel 6 site. RECOMMENDATION Review the Initial Study of Environmental Impact and recommend approval of the amendments to the City Council, as amended by the addition of the "Special Considerations" overlay zone to the site. BACKGROUND Situation The applicant wants to develop a golf driving range and several batting cages on his property, which includes the 1.9-acre parcel under consideration, plus a 61-acre parcel outside the city limits and immediately adjacent to the site (see site plan, attached). He wants to develop the in-city (1.9- acre) portion with driving tees, picnic tables, putting green, batting cages and a maintenance building. A part of the county parcel would be used as a landing field for balls. About 34 acres would be donated to the City for open space. The applicant has therefore asked for a general plan and zoning map amendment to change the 1.9-acre parcel to Tourist (C-T), to remove the lot from the Open Space Element's Greenbelt Map, and to move the Urban Reserve Line so that it includes this parcel; and has asked for a general plan text change to modify language that prohibits additional development in this part of the Calle Joaquin Hillside Planning Area. General plan and zoning amendments are reviewed by the Planning Commission, which makes a recommendation to the City Council, which acts on the request. GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 2 Data Summary Address: 1695 Calle Joaquin Applicant/property owner: John Franks Representative (engineer): Bruce Elster Zoning: Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-10), with minimum 10-acre requirement for residence General Plan: Open Space Environmental status: Negative Declaration with Mitigation recommended by the Director on April 8, 1996. Final action on the initial study will be taken by the City Council. Project action deadline: No state-mandated deadlines for legislative actions Site description The site to be used for the development consists of two parcels, one inside and one outside the city limits. The two comprise an irregular-shaped site of uneven terrain, with the lowest, flattest portion on the in-city parcel. The site is vacant and gently rolling, rising from Calle Joaquin to the west. Froom Creek straddles one property line on the northerly side of the site, and a narrow wetland area parallels Calle Joaquin, then angles to the west into the property. The remainder of the site is grassland. The lower slopes contain primarily invasive non-native grasses, while higher on the slopes are greater concentrations of native grassland communities. The site is adjacent to a parcel developed with a motel (Motel 6) on the north, to undeveloped open space land on the west and south, and across'Calle Joaquin from Highway 101 on the east. Project Description The project is changes to the Land Use Element, Open Space Element, and Zoning maps, and a text change to the Land Use Element text. The changes would result in Tourist-Commercial zoning for the in-city parcel, with all of that parcel within the Urban Reserve Line. The applicant has offered to dedicate about 34 acres of the upper parcel to the City, for open space purposes. While the intent of the map and text changes is to allow development of a golf driving range, that specific proposal is not under review right now. If the amendments are approved, the applicant must then submit a use permit application to allow the driving range. r� GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 3 EVALUATION 1. Land use element policies prohibit development of this site. The Hillside Planning policies in the Land Use Element (LUE) include a statement about the "Calle Joaquin area", which is defined as an area bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, South Higuera Street, and the Froom Ranch road, and which includes this site. The policy says The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill, but no funher development. According to discussion in the Land Use Element (LUE), the intent of this and similar policies is to preserve open space, and specifically hillsides. The applicant proposes to change this wording to permit further development. The applicant has offered to dedicate about 34 acres of open space property if this map change is approved. The City's Natural Resources Manager (Neil Havlik) visited the site and reviewed the offer. His written evaluation (attached) was completed at a time when the actual boundaries of the offer were not known; an assumption was made that the entire county parcel would be included, and that the City would lease back that portion needed for the driving range. The evaluation concludes that the offer would adequately mitigate the loss of grassland associated with the development. The boundaries of the property to be dedicated have since been defined as shown on the attached site plan. Havlik continues to support the offer and the approval of the amendments (see comments on additional area requested, below), because the property to be dedicated is the most sensitive portion of the site and contains valuable native grassland communities. It is appropriate for passive recreational activities, like hiking. And it would add a piece to the City's greenbelt permanently. This part of the proposal is consistent with general plan policies. 2. The site may not end up a driving range. If the property is zoned Tourist Commercial, as requested, it could be developed with a number of different uses. Permanent uses that could be established at the site with no use permit approval are: Amusement arcades (video games) Caretaker's quarters Construction activities Day care Hostels .Motels, hotels, bed & breakfast inns S`O GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 4 Residential care facilities Restaurants, sandwich shops, takeout food, etc. Utility distribution facilities Vending machines Any development at the site would require design approval by the Architectural Review Commission (ARC). This type review should assure that development is in scale with its surroundings, compatible with nearby development, and that lighting and other site features do not create safety hazards. However, the ARC does not have purview over uses. Some of the above-listed uses may not be appropriate for this site. Staff is therefore recommending that a use permit be required for any development of the site (see section 7, below). 3. But if it is to become a driving range, then the Commission and Council should have some idea ahead of time what this entails. The attached site plan shows the generalized layout expected for the site. It includes "zones" where balls are expected to land, based on averages measured on flat driving ranges. (No conversion was made to account for the slope; no formulas were readily available.) Details of the project have not yet been worked out, nor are they strictly required at this stage. The amendments are to our maps and text only. However, the changes should not be made without a clear understanding of the implications of those changes. If the larger site is to be used as a driving range, some issues to consider include: * Lighting of the upper slopes (how high up? how bright?) * grading of hillside areas * irrigation and installation of turf * mowing of sloping areas * extent of building It appears that it may be possible to grade only the lower, flat area and to leave the sloping portions alone. The applicant believes it will be necessary to install a different type turf than is there now, because of the need for the turf to withstand repeated hits by balls. If so, an irrigation system may need to be installed as high as balls will be hit. The business may be open at night, which would involve the need for night lighting of the hillside. The S•9 GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 5 City's policies (and the County's) do not prohibit the installation of turf, irrigation systems, or lighting in Open Space areas. To help the Commission comprehend the extent of activity contemplated for the larger site, and especially for the hillside area, the applicant has had stakes set in the field, indicating approximately how far balls might be hit and turf might be changed. The applicant had not developed plans sufficiently at the time of this report writing to be able to tell staff the type lighting fixtures anticipated or the type turf or grading proposed. If the map and text changes are approved, the applicant will have to return to the Commission for approval of a Planning Commission use permit to allow the driving range and batting cages. The use permit review will allow the Commission to regulate the extent of lighting fixtures, the limits of the development, and any other aspects of the use itself. The Architectural Review Commission will also review lighting, as well as building and site design (site plans are the purview of both commissions). If there are any negative aspects of this proposal that cannot be reasonably mitigated during the use permit process, then the Commission should.recommend denial of the map and text change request. 4. 'Domino effect" not very likely. If a change to the land use designation for the smaller lot is approved, it is not likely to encourage owners of other property nearby to ask for similar changes. This is the last site with any significant development potential in the Calle Joaquin area. The nearby "Irish Hills" hillside planning area is already under review for development of the Froom Ranch area. Dedication of a significant portion of the site to the City would prevent future development on those slopes. Retention of the Open Space designation on the remainder of the county parcel would assure that any contemplated expansion of use in this area would need additional land use designation changes. In other words, if the in-city parcel is changed to Tourist Commercial, development beyond that parcel would have to conform with the City's policies for Open Space parcels (as well as the County's requirements for Agricultural parcels). 5. Is it a good trade? The essence of this request is that in trade for allowing development of a driving range or similar use inside the city limits, the City would gain a large hillside parcel, an addition to a permanent greenbelt around the city. The offer is a good one. The hillside is visually attractive and contains valuable habitat, particularly plant habitat. However, permanent access to the hillside and additional permanent protection of a portion of Froom Creek would enhance the offer. The Natural �0 GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 6 Resources Manager notes that the addition of a small piece of land at the northernmost edge of the property would allow the City to provide access to the dedicated land in the future and would protect the riparian habitat, as well as a large patch of native bunchgrass existing in that area. (See attached map showing additional area that could be included in the dedication offer.) An offer that includes this additional area, which is not suitable for development, would change the offer from "good" to "great" and garner the enthusiastic support of the Natural Resources Manager, as well as the Parks and Recreation Director. At the time that staff discussed the dedication offer with the applicant, the applicant was not prepared to amend the offer to include the area mentioned above. Other investors are involved in the project and may have difficulty with the additional area to be offered. Staff anticipates that the applicant may be in a position, at the Commission meeting, to indicate whether this additional land can be included in the offer. 6. There is history at the site. An archeologist surveyed the site and found the remains of a historic homestead, used probably between 1880 and 1910. The homestead site is on the northerly side of the applicant's site and, according to the archeologist's map, appears to be outside the area anticipated for development. No records were found to verify the uses of this homestead, but the archeologist believes the homestead site is "likely to contain information important to the study of San Luis Obispo County's history and may therefore be significant enough to be listed in the California Register of Historic Resources." Recommended mitigation for development of this site is avoidance of the homestead site or the conducting of a Phase II archeological study to determine its significance and to provide more specific recommendations for it. 7. This may be a good place for the "S" designation. General plan and zoning map and text changes cannot be conditioned, except when the zoning change is to a Planned Development overlay. Therefore, approval of this request may not result in land dedication to the City, the property may be developed with something other than a driving range, and other unanticipated changes could take place. The placement of the "Special Considerations" (S) overlay zone on a site, however, means that an administrative use permit is required to allow any development on the site. The S zone is primarily intended "to assure compatibility of the use with its surroundings or conformance with the general plan, or to determine if a proposed development solves problems such as noise exposure, flood hazard, airport hazard, or slope instability which are particularly severe on a given site. Such development review may also be used to protect area of scenic or ecological sensitivity, wildlife habitat, or wildland fire hazard." GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 7 The ordinance adopting the S overlay zone is required to "specify the considerations to be addressed". In this case, there are four reasons the Planning Commission and City Council may want to consider the Special Considerations overlay zone: 1.) to assure dedication as promised. The applicant has offered the dedication of valuable open space land, but the general plan and zoning changes themselves cannot be encumbered with a condition requiring this dedication. 2.) to assure that uses at the site will be low-intensity. The driving range and batting cages appear to be uses that will be compatible with their surroundings and that will require little actual construction. Requirement of a use permit for any use at the site will prevent development of a more intense use, not envisioned during review of these map changes. 3.) to assure that development avoids the homestead site, or that.a phase lI study is conducted prior to development in that area. 4.) to assure that night lighting, grading, and intensity of use are controlled. ALTERNATIVES The Commission may recommend approval of the changes to the City Council as requested or as modified by the Commission. The Commission may deny the amendments. The action is final unless appealed to the City Council. The Commission may continue action. Direction should be given to staff and the applicants. OTHER DEPARTMENT CONIlKENTS Other departments had no significant concerns with the project. The applicant will be required to meet Building, Zoning, and other codes, and meeting codes will be sufficient to satisfy any present deficiencies in the area (see initial study). �-42- GP/R 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 8 RECOMMENDATION Recommend approval of the following changes to the City Council: 1. General Plan Land Use Element map from Open Space to Tourist; 2. Removal of the site from "greenbelt" status on the General Plan Open Space Element Greenbelt map 3. Zoning map change from Conservation/Open Space, minimum ten-acre home site (C/OS- 10), to Tourist Commercial, with Special Considerations overlay (C-T-S), with the Special Considerations: * to assure dedication of at least 34 acres of hillside land, roughly as shown in the preliminary plans; * to assure that uses and buildings at the site will be low-intensity; * to assure that development avoids the homestead site or that a phase II study is conducted; * to assure that development of the site addresses lighting, grading, and other elements to maintain the natural character of the hillside. 4. General Plan Text change: The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the g hat►id.:aavu:d :.::ea.,.::..en :>ol"ahe _.:1 ....... . . ,�7 are.P..retra Crac .ga�rcel: at.tie:fgis ofthei, but no further development. Attached: vicinity map greenbelt evaluation by Natural Resources Manager site plan showing dedication offer and possible additional dedication area archeological site map showing homestead location environmental initial study applicant's statement (letter to council members) S-/3 „`, 0 10 AN � � I � I 1 � o 0/O cv _ }� tr•r r _ M1 .17 y� I y4 ,/ Cie at, ° C/OS-10 o z 1�G S. 3 � � v o V j O r LM,rs O O VICINITY MAP GP/R 7-96 ”°W" 1695 CALLE JOAQUIN CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO GREENBELT PROGRAM BIOLOGICAL EVALUATION JOHN FRANKS PROPERTY adjacent to Calle Joaquin Ave. by Neil Havlikfi Natural Resources Manage City of San Luis Obispo Introduction. The applicant is seeking City approval of a commercial recreational development on the edge of the City of San Luis Obispo, and has indicated a willingness to donate the majority of the property to the City in fee as part of this approval. Location and General Description. The John Franks property occupies approximately 63 acres adjacent to Calle Joaquin in the southern portion of the City of San Luis Obispo and unincorporated land. The site consists of gently to steeply sloping hills and associated flats. Vegetation is primarily grassland with small areas of wetlands and brush. Elevations range from approximately 100 feet above sea level on the floor of Los Osos Valley to approximately 425 feet above sea level at the western boundary of the property. The site is fully fenced and is currently used for livestock grazing. Natural Resources. The site consists almost entirely of grassland. In addition to the areas of grassland, there are about four or five acres of brush, and one to two acres of wetlands. The grassland is mostly typical California annual grassland, dominated by non-native annual grasses such as wild oats, barley, brome, and rye, with occasional native and non-native wildflowers. On the steeper slopes, however, native grasses and wildflowers are much more in evidence and comprise a significant portion of the grass cover. Purple needlegrass, California oatgrass, and . red fescue appear to be the dominant native grasses; wildflowers include poppies, buttercups, lomatium, red maids, fritillary, brodiaeas, and wild onions. Further to the west the slopes become more rocky and shrubs, primarily California sagebrush, become dominant. There is a small but good quality wetland arising in roughly the center of the site along a watercourse, and continuing to the southern boundary of the property along Calle Joaquin. This wetland consists of willows, sedges, yellow monkeyflower, and various marsh grasses. Aside from the willows there are only a few trees on the property: two leather oaks, and one coast live oak, both near the western boundary of the property. Wildlife of the site is typical of grassland habitats, but also showed some surprising occurrences, such as a great blue heron and a pair of mallards observed on March 5, 1996. Also, what appeared to be a prairie falcon or merlin was observed flying over the site. No ground squirrels were observed; they perhaps have been the victims of past pest control programs often conducted on agricultural lands. Cultural Resources and Impacts. The property has been used mostly for cattle grazing, and there are numerous terraces on the hillsides resulting from livestock movements. Some grading, apparently for road base rock,has been done on portions of the property in the past; and that area is experiencing some erosion damage on the main hillside. There are nopermanent improvements on the property. Community Benefit Uses. The property is on the edge of the urban area, and dedication of the open portion of the site to City ownership would serve to permanently protect a portion of the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt in the Irish Hills and provide an opportunity for management of the site for public benefit purposes. Similar dedications of land on adjacent parcels with development potential is a reasonable expectation. Together with those future dedications, this property could form a major public open space reserve in this area. Conclusion and Recommendation. It is conclusion of the writer that the current proposal would have minimal impact on the overall site, and that the proposed land dedication would permit resource enhancements which would adequately mitigate for the loss of annual grassland occasioned by the project. Further biological assessment does not appear necessary. It is recommended that City staff pursue the concept of dedication in fee of the majority of the John Franks property in conjunction with the granting of development entitlements to the portion of the site within the Urban Reserve line. Dedication would include a setback and access area along Froom Creek and the property's northeastern boundary, and setback from the wetland areas along Calle Joaquin, and would allow a recreational use easement for the driving range area. The dedicated property would continue in agricultural use under City leasing arrangements, and could have public access at an appropriate future time. The recreational use easement would expire if the use were discontinued for some length of time (say two years). The City would take fee ownership of the parcel and grant a conservation easement to the Land Conservancy to ensure the site's permanence as open space. i ?&&ore I;n e nscfi�I�e .4t�tst ctfc4 Agricultural Zoning ea spa Amp 4 \� name #vett1;4_ /tetter 1\ t Zoni�g Countf�_LUR Motel City.Li � \ mits / Commercial Tourist Zoning /tnservation/ \\ ° —-�— �/ Open Space Zoning �_.--.. — ISL'[. RCCGSS —— �a�oa j U.S. To Saq Luis roposed Central Park GRAPHIC SCALIFF ( m FEer 1 1 ineh a 200 It. Overall Site Plan s!7 �. . . . . . . . I d-edt r'a � D E D I C A T 1 0 N ""� . . \ . 1 rr / f_sub- i c�Pr,�iic i-�zp fCQh�N rw�ow6 mac IDLXW aaso s Bono aos d rurno amr aUBHD= M1 m N GRAPHIC SCALE o m m CENTRAL PARK 11�m,J,� OVERALL SITE PLAN _ J CHIC"° IL� 7I° llg � I[� ]PARK CALLE JOAQUIN CITY & COUNTY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO i State of Calif omia—The Resourl DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RE_ )N Permanent Trinomial: .� ARCHEOLOGICAL SITE Jim. Yr. MAP Odw oaaignotiona: Paw.3 of u iiis 1u e �+ � i r. ' . I J • .ry rt /40 p; 'Z oRAi CYP4 s Loo S _DiR 7— 1 q ✓F- I f NwY ,a DPR 422 F (Rev.4186) /9 II city of sAn luis oBispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin 1. Project Title: Central Park Driving Range 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: Judith Lautner, Associate Planner (805) 781-7166 4. Project Location: 1695 Calle Joaquin APN: 53-161-10 Portion of Lot 69, City of San Luis Obispo Rancho Los Osos and Laguna 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: John Franks 1190 Marsh Street #F San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Open Space 7. Zoning: Conservation/Open Space, minimum residential parcel size: 10 acres 8. Description of the Project: The project is the construction of a driving range on two adjacent properties, containing approximately 63 acres, partially within and partially outside the city limits. The project is to include / The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. SJv �Illllllill�ll�ll I�����������II I�I II�I�HI 1111111 II Alcity of sAn luis omspo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 ► Approximately 36 driving tees and six or more batting stations, using assorted softball and hardball pitching machines ► Snack bar with retail sales of golf and baseball items ► covered picnic tables and benches A dedication of approximately 34 acres of open space to the City The project is planned to use well water for irrigation. Required to build this project are approvals of the following discretionary applications: General plan and zoning map amendments to change the designations of the property from open space to a more appropriate designation (Tourist Commercial or Recreation) and to move the Urban Reserve Line (URL); General plan land use element text change to allow further commercial development in the Calle Joaquin hillside planning area; ► Environmental review of map changes. Planning Commission use permit to allow a driving range and batting cages ► Architectural review of site improvements 9. Surrounding Land uses and Setting: The site is on the southerly end of Calle Joaquin, next to Highway 101, at the base of a hill. Calle Joaquin terminates at the top of the hill, in a parking lot for a building previously used as a restaurant and nightclub. North of the site are motels (Motel 6 and Howard Johnson's). The site is about 1,000 feet south of Los Osos Valley Road. 10. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None. Although county property is affected, the City is the lead agency in this case. If the amendments are approved and the open space dedication accepted, the City may choose to annex the portion that is currently outside the city limits. / The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. V� Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805) 781-7410. 5-421 ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 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. Land use and Planning X Biological Resources Aesthetics Population and Housing Energy and Mineral X Cultural Resources Resources Geological Problems Hazards Recreation Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of Significance Air Quality Public Services Transportation and Utilities and Service Circulation Systems DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there X will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. A MITIGATIVE 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. 3 S'� ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 4 I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effects) on the environment, but at least one effect(1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there WILL NOT be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. April 8, 1996 Z4t�de Date Ronald Whisenand, Development Review Manager Arnold Jonas, Community Development Dir. For EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS: 11 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) "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. 4) "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may be cross- referenced). 5) Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEOA process, an effect has been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or negative declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D). Earlier analyses are discussed in Section 17 at the end of the checklist. 4 s-J3 ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 5 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. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 5 .spy Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 6 Mitigation Incorporated 1. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would.the proposal: a) Conflict with general plan designation or zoning? 1,2,3 X The request is to change the designations from Open Space (Land Use Element map) and Conservation/Open Space (Zoning map) to Tourist (LUE map) and Tourist Commercial (Zoning map), for that portion of the property that is within the city limits. The remainder of the property would stay in the Open Space designation. Land use element: CONSISTENCY WITH HILLSIDE STANDARDS Policy 6.2.6 of the Land Use Element (LUE) says 6.2.6 Hillside Planning Areas Hillside policies apply to all hills in and around the City. Specific policies to address particular concerns for the areas as shown on Figure 6, (are)listed below. For each of these areas, land above the development limit line should be secured as permanent open space. Figure 6 shows several hillside planning areas around the edges of the city, including area G, designated "Calle Joaquin", which is bounded by Los Osos Valley Road, South Higuera Street, and the Froom Ranch road which enters from Los Osos Valley Road. The development limit line, defined as the limit beyond which the City will not allow development, follows Calle Joaquin and excludes the site. Policy 6.2.6.G says: The Calle Joaquin area should allow the continuation of a commercial use for the existing building on the hill, but no further development. The proposal includes a request to amend the LUE to allow additional development in the Calle Joaquin hillside planning area and to move the development limit line to include the site. If this change is approved, there would be no conflict with these policies. 6 .S'-0161' Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 7 Inco porated ation Land use element. CONSISTENCY WITH TOURIST COMMERCIAL POLICIES CONSIDERATION OF`fRECREATION"DESIGNATION AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO TOURIST COMMERCIAL The request is to change the portion of the property that is inside the city limits to Tourist Commercial. The county portion would remain designated Open Space. Policy 3.4.2 says: 34.2 Locations Visitor-serving uses should be integrated with other types of uses, including overnight accommodations downtown, near the airport, and near the train station;small-scale facilities (such as hostels or bed- and-breakfast places)may be located in Medium-High Density Residential and High-Density Residential Districts, where compatible. Visitor-serving uses are especially appropriate where.such uses have already concentrated:along upper Monterey Street;at the Madonna Road area;at certain freeway interchanges,and in the downtown. If the use is determined to be primarily "visitor-serving", then the location could be seen to be consistent with this policy. The use may be more appropriately described as"recreational", however, appealing to both members of the community and visitors. The LUE describes Recreation as"a land-use category for publicly or privately owned recreation facilities, either outdoors or buildings within a park-like setting."The element does not describe what zoning would be appropriate within the"recreation" category, but the designation has been applied to those properties that are public parks, zoned "Public Facilities". If the property were to be zoned "Public Facilities", it would need to be consistent with the intent of that zone. According to the Zoning Regulations, 17.36 010 Purpose and apprcation A. The PF zone is intended to provide for the wide range of public uses likely to be located on public property. Public uses are those conducted by governmental or nonprofit agencies. However, this zone will also provide for complementary private and commercial uses which, within the overall guidance of the general plan,provide a public benefit. B. The zone is further intended to protect neighboring private uses from potentially incompatible public uses. It will be applied to areas designated 'public/semipublic"and `bark"on the general plan map. Conclusion.Either the Tourist Commercial or the Recreation designations may be seen as appropriate for the intended use. The Public Facility zoning designation that corresponds to a Recreation LUE designation does not appear appropriate for the site, however. The Public Facilities designation is intended for, and has traditionally been used for, public property only, even when private uses are established on that property. 7 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 8 Mitigation Ineorporated Land use element. CONSISTENCY OF PROPOSED USE WITH OPEN SPACE DESIGNATION The request is to change the land use designations oh just the in-city portions of the site. The county area is planned to remain in its present designation: Open Space. A part of the Open Space area would be used, if developed according to present plans, as an area to receive golf balls that are hit from below. No buildings or other improvements would be made to the property; although some change in turf type may occur. LUE policies say: 6.1.2 Open Space Uses Lands designated Open Space should be used for purposes which do not need urban services, major structures, or extensive landform changes. Such uses include: watershed protection; wildlife and native plant habitat,grazing;cultivated crops;and passive recreation. Buildings, lighting, paving, use of vehicles, and alterations to the landforms and native or traditional landscapes on open space lands should be minimized, so rural character and resources are maintained... Conclusion: The use of a portion of the county land as a receiving area for golf balls does not appear inconsistent with this policy, provided no grading is undertaken or structural improvements made. No mitigation is necessary. 8 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact Joaquin Pae 9 Mitigation 1695 Calle Joa 4 9 Incorporated Oven Space Element: The property is dominated by grasslands. The Open Space Element (OSE) defines a "grassland community" as: 'a community of plants of varying size, physical structure, abundance, distribution, and taxonomic affinities typically dominated by herbaceous species but also consisting of grasses and forbs introduced during the Spanish colonial period and a mixture of native California grasses and forbs. Grassland communities provide adequate cover, range, and food products for the plants and animals that typically live in the Valley Grassland communities that can be found in Central California, the interior valleys of the Coast Ranges, and along the coast of central and southern California. Grassland communities within the City's planning area typically contain many of the following native perennial grasses: ...[list deleted; can be found in chapter 5 of the OSE]' Policies in the OSE (D. Policies, p. 39) say: 1. Within the city limits the City should, and outside the city limits the City will encourage the County to: C. encourage donation or exchange of lands (or portions of lands) containing native grassland species, unique resources or sensitive habitat, to non-profit environmental organizations or responsible agencies. 2. in areas that contain existing grasslands, the City should, and should encourage the County to: A. Preserve grassland communities as habitat buffers and open space. B. Protect grassland communities by requiring public and/or private development to: 1. Preserve grassland communities through easements or dedications. Subdivision parcel lines or easements shall be located to optimize grassland protection. Easements as a condition of discretionary development approvals shall be required in grassland areas only for structural additions or new structures, not for accessory structures or tree removal permits, and in a manner consistent with acquisition policies contained in Chapter IV of this element. If the grassland community is within a proposed open space parcel or easement, allowed uses and maintenance responsibilities within that parcel or easement should be dearly defined and conditioned prior to map or project approval. 2. Designate such easements or dedications as open space. 3. Enhance preserved or protected grassland communities by: (1)maintaining these areas in a natural state; (2) employing restoration and/or revegetation techniques where needed to achieve a natural state: (3) utilizing site or region specific native grasses, herbs and shrubs; 9 _S� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 10 Mitigation Incorporated 4. prohibiting the planting of invasive, non-native plants (such as Vinca spp. and Eucalypus spp.l witihin grassland communities. C. Protect grassland communities from development impacts by requiring a habitat buffer around these areas. The habitat buffer should.• 0)be located betweeen the grassland community and proposed, existing, or potential development; (21 be a sufficient width and size to protect the species most sensitive to developmnet disturbances and to compensate for project impacts as determined by a qualified biologist during the initial planning phase of development;and 0 be designed to complement the habitat value associated with the grassland community. The site contains areas of sensitivity. The majority of the site is grassland, dominated by non-native annual grasses, with occasional native and non-native wildflowers (see sources). The native materials are in greater evidence on the steeper slopes, comprising a significant portion of the grass cover. The lower slopes, where development is proposed, do not meet the Open Space element's definition of a grassland community that must be preserved, according to the City's Natural Resources Manager (source 3). The upper slopes do. The applicant intends to dedicate to the City those portions of the site that contain sensitive grassland. These portions of the site are on the upper slopes, in the Open Space designation, and outside the city limits. Conduslon. Such a dedication would be consistent with the policies of the OSE. Because the property would continue to be designated Open Space, no change will be made to the uses that are allowed in that area and therefore no mitigation is needed. 10 s--az 9 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues unless Impact ation 1695 Calle Joaquin • Page 11 Incorporated Water& Wastewater Management Element Policy 6.1 of the WWME says 6 1 Supplemental Water Requirement The City shall develop additional water supplies to meet the projected demand at build-out of the City's General Plan (Table 6)and to establish the reliability reserve and to offset water yields lost due to siltation (Table 7). The supplemental water supply amount shall be based on the adopted per capita water use figure identified for planning purposes in policy 2.3. The WWME says that the city will provide adequate water for the ultimate build-out under the current general plan. This total assumes development of all areas within the adopted development limit line. Any change to the development limit line would mean a change to the amount of water expected to be needed. The change to the development limit line to allow development of the site would increase the area open to development, and hence increase the demand for water. The projected "required safe annual yield" (Table 6) for build-out is 9,096 acre- feet. If the irrigation needs of the site are supplied by private wells, then the domestic water use requirement is projected to be about one-half acre-foot per year for the driving range or a similar use. According to the Utilities Department, the additiori of this amount to the projected safe annual yield would not be noticeable, and if the water is supplied by strofitting plumbing fixtures or through new sources, will not require an amendment to the WWME. Conclusion. Less than significant. d) Affect agricultural resources or operations (e.g. impact to X soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land uses)? The property has been used for grazing. The use of the lower portion of the site for commercial purposes will not affect the use of nearby land for such purposes, nor will building on a small part of the land affect its agricultural value in the future, should the driving range use be discontinued. e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an X established community (including a low-income or minority community)? 2. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the proposal: a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or local population X projections? [b:) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or X indirectly (e.g. through projects in an undeveloped area or major infrastructure? 11 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 12 Mitigation Incorporated The project is expected to attract persons from within and outside the city who are looking for recreational opportunities. The land use change would affect only this property, which is immediately adjacent to developed property. It is not expected to encourage additional development in this already developed area. c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X No housing exists on the site. Nor would this project affect housing elsewhere in the city. 3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to potential impacts involving: a) Fault rupture? 19,16, X 17 The nearest significant fault, the San Andreas, is about 40 miles away from the city. The other active faults in the area, Nacimiento, Rinconada, and Hosgri, all lie outside the city limits and are expected to have a negligible effect on the city. Under the Alquist-Priolo Special Studies Zones Act, the State Geologist is required to delineate appropriately wide special studies zones to encompass all potentially and recently-active fault traces deemed sufficiently active and well-defined as to constititue a potential hazard to structures from surface faluting or fault creep. In San Luis Obispo County, the Special Studies Zone is limited to a zone along the San Andreas fault. The edge of this study area touches the westerly city limitr line, near Los Osos Valley Road, but is present nowhere else in the city. No fault lines exist on the project site. b) Seismic ground shaking? 4 X The site sits in an area of "very high seismic hazards", according to the informational map atlas. Much of the southerly part of the city and portions of the remainder are in high or very-high seismic zones. This means that seismic ground shaking during an earthquake is highly likely. Building codes require new structures to be built to resist such shaking or to remain standing in an earthquake, which should mitigate effects as much as possible. The site is not subject to any hazards that are not common in much of the city. c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard? X e) Landslides or mudflows? 4 X The developable part of the site is flat, susceptible to little soil and no wind erosion potential. f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil conditions 4 X from excavation, grading or fill? The site is not susceptible to earth or wind erosion, soil depths are to an average of 50 feet, and the soil has "no limiting factors". g) Subsidence of the land? X 12 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 13 MitigationIncorporated h) Expansive soils? X i) Unique geologic or physical features? 4 X 4. WATER. Would the proposal result in: a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the X rate and amount of surface runoff? Any development on the site will result in changes to drainage patterns to some degree. Building codes will assure that such drainage is directed to the creek or other appropriate disposal point and that the changes do not cause harm for other properties in the vicinity. b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards 15 X such as flooding? The property is in an"A"flood zone, according to the Flood Insurance Rate Map (Source 15). This means it is an area that experiences 100-year floods, where flood elevations have not been determined. Any buildings on the site will be subject to the City's Flood Management Regulations, which require adequate flood-proofing to minimize damage to people and buildings. At the time of use permit review, a hydraulic study must be completed to determine the flood elevations and therefore how the buildings must be designed to avoid flooding. The study must also analyze effects of building on properties upstream and downstream of the site. Most of the property is expected to remain undeveloped with buildings. If developed as a golf driving range, much of the property will be under water in rainy seasons, but customers normally do not use driving ranges in the rain and therefore will not be affected. Conc/uaron. City regulations requiring analysis and design to avoid flooding, onsite or elsewhere, will mitigate flooding concerns. No additional mitigation is required. c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of X surface water quality (e.g.temperature, dissolved oxygen or turbidity? No discharge to surface waters is planned. d) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X body? During rains, the amount of water present in Froom Creek is expected to rise, and any construction on this site may increase the flow into that creek. However, because limited hard surface areas and buildings are proposed, the amount of increase is expected to be insignificant. e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X movements? No changes to present flows are anticipated. 13 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 14 Mitigation Incorporated f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through X direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability? The development may include use of a well for irrigation. The well would reduce the amount of groundwater, but not significantly. g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X h) Impacts to groundwater quality? X Fertilizers and other chemicals may be used on plants on the site. Such chemicals may seep down to the groundwaters below, but the layers of earth are likely to filter contaminants from water before it reaches those levels. Effects are not expected to be any more significant than the effects of chemical treatment of landscaping anywhere else in the city. -T i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X otherwise available for public water supplies? Some groundwater may be used for irrigation of the driving range, up to the 175' elevation. However, this water is not among the supplies currently used by the City for public use. 5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an 5,14 X existing or projected air quality violation (Compliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)? 14 x=33 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 15 MitigationIncorporated Any violation of air quality standards would come from automobile trips to and from the site. Therefore, it is necessary to estimate the number of trips. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (1987+) does not contain a category for golf driving ranges. The property could be used for a range of park-like purposes, so for purposes of calculating average trips for a range of uses possible on the site, the statistics for parks were used. Trip Generation describes the characteristics of parks used in the studies: "...some had lakes and pools, as well as ball fields, camp sites, and picnic facilities."The description appears to be adequate for many uses possible at this site. The portion of the site proposed for use contains about 1.9 acres within the city limits. This is the area that would be most actively used. Beyond the city limit line, about three acres would be used to receive golf balls. Estimated number of trips, then, would be: 36.55 trips per acre (weekday) X 5 acres = 182.75 = JM trips per weekday 75.81 trips per acre (Saturday) X 5 acres = 379.05 = =trips per Saturday The Air Quality Handbook(source 5) sets thresholds beyond which air quality impacts are expected to be significant. That threshold is reached when a project causes the emission of over ten pounds per day of reactive organic gases (ROG), oxides of nitrogen (NOx),sulfur dioxide (S02), or fine particulate matter (PM 10). Generally, any use that generates vehicle trips in excess of 350 is having an impact on air quality. The average number of trips per day can be calculated 183 X 5 + 379 X 2 = 1673/7 = 239 trips per day. This number is below the threshold of significance determined by the APCD. Conclusion. Less than significant. b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants X There are no sensitive receptors, such as schools or homes, in the vicinity. c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause X any change in climate? d) Create objectionable odors? X 6. TRANSPORTATION/CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in: 3) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion? X 15 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 16 Mitigation Incorporated Estimates of trips are contained under"Air Quality", no. 5, above. The Public Works Department has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on traffic or congestion in the area, and that no improvements or fees beyond those required by ordinance will be required. b) Hazards to safety from design features (e.g. sharp curves X or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment))? c) Inadequate emergency access or access to nearby uses? X The Fre Department says the use can be adequately accommodated by existing resources. d) Insufficient parking capacity on-site or off-site? X Parking for any project at the site will be required to meet City standards. e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists? X -7 f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? The proposal is a map change, which would allow an application to develop a golf driving range or other compatible use. The ultimate project is not fully developed at this time, but would be required to meet all city standards, including those for bus turnouts, bicycle parking, and other alternative transportation techniques appropriate to the project. g) Rail, waterbome or air traffic impacts (e.g. compatibility 7 X with San Luis Obispo Co. Airport Land Use Plan)? The project site is located at the boundary between areas 5 and 6 in the Airport Land Use Plan. The Airport Land Use Plan says that golf courses, parks, and playgrounds and picnic areas are "compatible" with all areas owned by or affected by the county airport. A representative of the County of San Luis Obispo attended early an early meeting on the amendment requests and indicated that the County would have no concerns with it. The project was later referred to the County for review of airport land use issues and any other concerns. No response was received. There is no rail or waterborne traffic near the site. 7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal result in: a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats 3,12 X (including but not limited to plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? The site contains grassland communities that are of value to native wildlife, and one to two acres of wetland. A change to the open space designation for this property will invite development, which will affect wildlife. No endangered threatened, or rare species have been observed on the site, according to the noted sources. b) Locally designated species (e.g. heritage trees)? 3 X 16 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 17 Mitigation Incorporated No locally-designated species have been observed on the site. c) Locally designated natural communities (e.g. oak forest, 3,12 7 TX coastal habitat, etc.)? The site is mostly grassland. The lower slopes contain small patches of native species, but not in large enough quantities for the flatter areas to qualify as valuable grassland communities. On the steeper slopes, however, the percentage of valuable native grasses increases dramatically. The steeper slopes, all of which are outside the city limits, should be protected from development. The applicant is offering to dedicate the significant grassland areas to the City as open space. Such a dedication would protect them adequately. The property needing protection is within the Open Space designation, and this designation is proposed to remain. Policies in the Land Use and Open Space elements allow only those uses that protect the habitat value. Conclusion.The present designation or the proposed dedication will protect sensitive grassland communities. No mitigation is needed. J) Wetland habitat (e.g. marsh, riparian and vernal pool? 2,3,12 X A good quality wetland exists along Froom Creek and along the edge of the property bordering Calle Joaquin, extending further westerly into the property (see sketch attached to the City's Natural Resources Manager's memo, source 3, and map in floristic survey, source 12). Wetlands have been eliminated through most of California. Care must be taken to protect those that remain, as they are good habitat for a wide variety of wildlife, including some rare species, such as the Pacific Pond Turtle and Red-legged frog. Policies in the Open Space Element (source 2) call for protection of wetlands and adequate buffering of wetlands from developed property. Conclusion. Significant impact on wetlands unless mitigation incorporated. Recommended mitigation: All development must be set back at least 25' from the top of bank or edge of wetland. The actual setback is to be determined at the time development plans are submitted. e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors? 3 X There is no evidence that the site is part of a migration corridor. The more valuable wildlife habitat is to remain in its natural state,dedicated to the City. The map changes and eventual development of a portion of the site should not have significant impacts on wildlife dispersal or migration corridors. 8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X 17 �-3� Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources . Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 18 Mitigation Incorporated Energy conservation plans are expected to be followed by proposers of any development on the site. The specific use proposed is not expected to involve the consumption of much energy, as the majority of the use would be outdoors, and any buildings associated with it would be small. Driving ranges do not require the use of electric carts, and automated equipment associated with ball pickups and maintenance of the turf is not expected to require an unusual amount of energy in the form of fuel. b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? The map changes themselves will not use resources in a wasteful or inefficient manner. Any development on the site will be evaluated for its potential to waste resources, and restrictions placed on the use accordingly. CEQA allows additional study to be made of a project where the potential for creation of significant effects is high. If further study is warranted for a project on the site, mitigation can be imposed for any significant effects, including restrictions on activities that waste non-renewable resources. c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral X resource that would be of future value to the region and the residents of the State? There are no plans to use any known scarce valuable mineral resources. 9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve: a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous X substances (including, but not limited to: oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation)? Fertilizers and pesticides are expected to be used on the site for any landscape development and maintenance. Normal care and storage of these materials should be sufficient to prevent accidental explosion or release of hazardous chemicals. b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan or X emergency evacuation plan? c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health X hazard? d) Exposuie of people to existing sources of potential health X hazards? e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush, grass X or trees? 18 SOW z :slues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 19 MitigationIncorporated Some portions of the steeper slopes may become dry and flammable in hot summer months. The portion of the property that would be developed would be protected from nearby fire hazard areas by development of buffer areas and other means acceptable to the Fire Department, in accordance with adopted fire codes. No mitigation is required. 10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in: a) Increase in existing noise levels? X b) Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 8 X The site is exposed to traffic noise from Highway 101. According to noise contour maps developed for the draft Noise Element (source 8), the site is expected to receive levels of about 68 Ldn from highway noise at buildout. This number exceeds levels considered normally acceptable for neighborhood parks, but is within acceptable limits for playgrounds. Noise levels up to 65 Ldn are considered acceptable for most outdoor uses, including parks and playgrounds, and are assumed to be acceptable for such uses as a golf driving range. A reduction of up to five decibels can be achieved by construction of a masonry wall strategically located between the noise source and the receiver site. When the site is lower than the noise source, which is the case for much of the usable ortions of the property, noise levels may be lower than indicated on noise contour maps. Therefore, if the site actually does or will in the future be exposed to levels between 65 and 70 Ldn, noise mitigation could be achieved through use of a wall. Conclusion: Development of the site will not expose persons to severe noise levels. Noise levels may be higher than is normally acceptable for the use, but reducing levels to acceptable levels would involve no more than the construction of a block wall or earth berm along the Calle Joaquin property line. A determination of what is needed must be made when an actual project is submitted. No mitigation is required. 11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or altered government services in any of the following areas: a) Fire protection? X There are insufficient fire hydrants existing to serve the site. An additional hydrant will be required (by code) on Calle Joaquin. If any portion of a building is farther than 150' (or 300' if a fire sprinkler system is installed in the building) from a water supply or public street, an additional on-site hydrant will be required, and must be capable of supplying the required fire-flows. Fire density and flow requirements must be met by any development on the site. No mitigation is required. b) Police protection? X Current police services are expected to be adequate to serve development on the site. c) Schools? X Jo housing is expected to be built on the site. Tourist-commercial businesses offer primarily service jobs, which are expected to be taken by residents already in the community. No significant migration of employees is expected to result from development of the site. Therefore, there should be no significant impact on schools. 19 S-3441' Issues and Supporting Information Sources SOurces Potentially Potentially Less Than : No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 20 Mitigation q 9 Incorporated d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X The property is on a public street. As a part of development (or deferred to a later date), sidewalks are required to be installed. These are typical requirements for any development in the city. The street is already being maintained by the city, and would continue to be maintained similarly. e) Other governmental services? X The map changes and expected development are not likely to have significant effects on other governmental services. Development of a driving range is expected to assist the city by providing additional recreational opportunities, thus relieving some of the pressure on existing City recreational facilities, including the Laguna Lake Golf Course. 12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies, or substantial alterations to the following utilities: a) Power or natural gas? X b) Communications systems? X c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X d) Sewer or septic tanks? X The City's sewage treatment plant is adequate to accept sewage from this site. The City requires that all development within the city limits be connected to the city sewer. e) Storm water drainage? X The site is expected to be maintained with essentially the existing drainage pattern. Any changes to existing drainage will be required to conform with City codes. Any project on this site is not likely to require any substantial alterations to the storm drainage system. f) Solid waste disposal? X Solid waste must be disposed of in accordance with City codes on waste. g) Local or regional water supplies? I I I I X The applicant plans to use private wells for irrigation water. Domestic water demand is expected to be about 0..50 acre- feet per year for a driving range or similar use. Developers of new projects can obtain a water allocation by retrofitting existing plumbing fixtures within the city so as to save at least as much water as the new use is expected to use. The Utilities Department says that this demand can be met, if the project developers retrofit existing plumbing fixtures or use new water supplies not yet online, in accordance with the City's Water Conservation Regulations. 13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal: 20 s39 ssues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 21 Mitigation Incorporated a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? 9,10 X The view from Highway 101 to the hills beyond this site is considered of"high scenic value", according to the Circulation Element (source 9). The element calls for preservation of views from scenic roadways. All commercial development that changes the appearance of a site is required to undergo architectural review. This review includes consideration of blocking of significant views. No other mitigation is needed. b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? X c) Create light or glare? X Night lighting could be objectionable for nearby motel residents or a safety concern for vehicles on the highway. Lighting of the hillside for nighttime activities could be distracting and attention-getting, and inappropriate for an open space area. Architectural review includes review of lighting fixtures, including how well the fixtures avoid glare and what type lighting is appropriate. This review should be adequate to mitigate any concerns about night lighting. 14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal: I Disturb paleontological resources? 11 X b) Disturb archaeological resources? 11 X A cultural resources survey was performed on the site and reviewed by staff. Stone tools used by prehistoric people were found at the site. However, the five artifacts are not"significant" or"unique"as defined by the California Environmental Quality Act or the California Register of Historic Resources. The tools have been recorded in the cultural study (source 11). Conclusion: Less than significant. c) Affect historical resources? 11 X 21 Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 22 Mitigation Incorporated The remains of a building, presumably a home, were found at the northeastern end of the parcel (shown on map included in source study).The site is marked by three cypress trees, a concrete slab and water tank, wild rose bushes, and buried remains of household trash and structural material. A study of records did not reveal the origins or uses of this home, or reveal its importance in the history of the area. However, the remains of the homestead are likely to contain information important to the study of this county's history and may be significant enough to be listed in the California Register of Historic Resources. Conclusion: Potentially significant unless mitigation incorporated. Recommended midgation: Development of the site should avoid disturbance of the homestead site. Avoidance can be practiced by leaving the site as is or by compacting adequate fill over the homestead site to allow construction of a foundation entirely without disturbing the foundation or other materials. If avoidance of the homestead is not possible, a phase II study must be conducted by a qualified archeologist, approved by the City Community Development Director, to determine the significance of the homestead site. Recommendations made by the archaeologist must be considered by the Community Development Director in his determination of the ultimate use of the homestead site. d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which 11 X would affect unique ethnic cultural values? e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the 11 X potential impact area? 15. RECREATION. Would the proposal: a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X or other recreational facilities? A driving range or similar use on the site should reduce demand for recreational facilities, and take some of the pressure off the Laguna Lake Golf Course. b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? X The possible project will increase recreational opportunities. 16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality 3,11, X of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a 12 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? 22 issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No Significant Significant Significant Impact ER 7-96 Issues Unless Impact 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 23 Mitigation Incorporated Refer to sections 5, 7, 10, and 14 of this report. Recommended midgatfon. Same as listed under section 14, above. b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-term, X to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? Short-term and long-term goals are the same. c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, X 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) he effect of several similar requests to change the location of the urban reserve line (development limit line) would increase the demand for water inside the city limits. If retrofitting were not available, this water would have to come from new supplies, because existing supplies are not sufficient to accommodate any new development at this time. Other projects are currently under review at this time, including the Prefumo Creek Homes and the Goldenrod annexation, that together with this project could have cumulative impacts on the city's water supply. City regulations do not allow development unless a water allocation is available for the use. Therefore, if these map changes are made but water is not available, either through new supplies or through retrofitting, development of the sites will not be allowed. These regulations prevent overuse of the city's supply. No mitigation is needed. d) Does the project have environmental effects which will X cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? There is no indication that any use contemplated for the site would cause substantial adverse effects on human beings. 17. 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 •hould identify the following items: a) Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review. 23 3-41 ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 24 No earlier analysis used. 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. No earlier analysis used. 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. No earlier analysis used. Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3, 21093, 321094, 21151;Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff v. Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990). 24 5-53 ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 25 18. SOURCE REFERENCES 1 General Plan Land Use Element, pages 39-40, 58, 62, 65, City of San Luis Obispo, 1995 2 General Plan Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo, pages 19, 25, 37-40, January 1994 3 City of San Luis Obispo Greenbelt Program.biological evaluation, Neil Havlik, City of San Luis Obispo, March 1996 (available in project file) 4 Informational map atlas, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975 5 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Air Pollution Control District, August 1995 6 Trip Generation, Institute of Traffic Engineers, 1987 plus addenda 7 Airport Land Use Plan, San Luis Obispo County Airport Land Use Commission, December 1973 8 Draft Noise Element for the City of San Luis Obispo, Brown-Buntin Associates, September 1991 9 General Plan Circulation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, Nov. 29, 1994 10 Municipal Code Section 2.48.170, Architectural Review Commission Jurisdiction 11 Cultural Resource Investigation of the Pereira-Garcia Property, Parker & Associates, 1996 12 Pereira Ranch Property Floristic Community Survey, The Morro Group, Inc., March 1996 13 General Plan Seismic Safety Element, City of SLO, 1975 14 Paul LeSage, City of SLO Recreation Director, conversation March 1996 15 Flood Insurance Rate Map, Federal Emergency Management Office, July 7, 1981 16 Final Environmental Impact Report for Stoneridge II Subdivision and Annexation Project, pages 4-48 -4-52, ERC Environmental and Energy Services Co., April 1992 17 Environmental Impact Report on the Draft Hazardous Waste Management Plan for San Luis Obispo County, pages IV-6 - IV-9, Engineering-Science, October 1988 25 ER 7-96 1695 Calle Joaquin Page 26 19. MITIGATION MEASURES/MONITORING PROGRAM 1 Mitigation Measure: All development must be set back at least 25' from the top of bank or edge of wetland. The actual setback is to be determined at the time development plans are submitted. Monitorina Proaram: The actual setback will be determined at the time development plans are submitted, relying on current regulations. Plan checks will assure that the setback is met. 2 Mitiaation Measure Development of the site should avoid disturbance of the homestead site. Avoidance can be practiced by leaving the site as is or by compacting adequate fill over the homestead site to allow construction of a foundation entirely without disturbing the foundation or other materials. If avoidance of the homestead is not possible, a phase II study must be conducted by a qualified archeologist, approved by the City Community Development Director, to determine the significance of the homestead site. Recommendations made by the archaeologist must be considered by the Community Development Director in his determination of the ultimat use of the homestead site. Monitorina Program: Building plans will be reviewed through the plancheck process to assure compliance with this measure. The above mitigation measures are included in the project to mitigate potential adverse environmental impacts. Section 15070(b)(1) of the California Administrative Code requires the applicant to agree to the above mitigation measures before the proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration is released for public review. I hereby agree to the mitigation measures and monitoring program outlined above. Applicant Date 26 s'313' 9�c QG6' Fs`� August 7, 1995 G F If Councilmember Bill Roalman0� C/o City of San Luis Obispo, 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Dear Councilmember Roalman: I am writing to memorialize our recent telephone conservation of August 6, 1995. As you may recall, I am currently under contract to purchase a 63.4 acre parcel of unimproved land located in the Southwestern section of San Luis Obispo, between Motel 6 and the old Spirit Restaurant The property consists of 1.9 acres with frontage on Calle Joaquin, which is in the City of San Luis Obispo and is currently zoned "C/OS." The remaining 61 "back"acres are in the County and are Zoned "AG." As 1 may have mentioned, I have been involved and working on this project concept for more than three years now. To date, this is the first suitable parcel 1 have found that lies within the City limits of San Luis Obispo. My hope would be to work with the City to re-zone the 1.9 acre portion of the property to allow a facility to be built which would include a golf driving range, baseball batting machines and other various support buildings. Project Highlights In general terms, the facility is envisioned to initially include approximately three dozen practice golf"driving tees" and six or more batting stations, which will include an assortment of softball and hardball pitching machines. A "clubhouse"type snack bar facility, to provide an array of golf and baseball related items for retail sale, is also planned. The anticipated design of the facility will create a park-like setting with an abundant array of floral colorscape to be maintained at the entrance to the range and short"golf-course like" grass planted on the driving range itself. Tree and shrub selection will emphasize their abilities to mature in such a manner as to effectively screen portions of the facility's improvements from the freeway and, most importantly, from neighboring businesses. Covered picnic tables and benches will be placed at various vantage points around and near the "driving tees" and will be used by snack bar customers or those who are waiting for their tum on the"driving tees." The driving:range will be designed to.resemble a golf course!and will be installed in stages with faux greens, sand traps, bunkers, fairways and multi-colored flag pins to denote distance from the "driving tees." For driving range and batting patrons, instructors will be available upon request Facility lighting will be designed and carefully arranged in a manner that reflects the facility's sensitivity both to area neighbors, as well freeway traffic to the East. We stand committed to working with the City s Park and Recreation Department, San Luis' youth baseball:programs and the San Luis Obispo School District to provide complete use of the facility through various discount price programs. The project has no immediate need for city water or sewer as the property should easily support a water well and septic system. As we also briefly discussed during our telephone conversation, my family and I strongly support the City's ongoing "Greenbelt Program" and, in part, because of our commitment to this program we are prepared to reserve by dedication approximately forty five (45) acres of this property to the City of San Luis Obispo for inclusion in the "Greenbelt Program." In return for this dedication, I would hope to receive from the City a development agreement that will place this entire project on a "fast track"toward the granting of entitlements and approvals while also allowing us the benefits of reduced processing fees and costs. I hope you will agree that our proposed facility will provide a much needed recreational service to area residents and would be a positive addition to the City's "Greenbelt Program" Sincerely, John W. Franks 669 Pacific Street Suite F2 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 (805) 541-5371 Draft CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES WEDNESDAY,APRIL 24, 1996 CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The regular meeting of the San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:00 p.m. on Wednesday, April 24, 1996 in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Pat Veesart,Janet Kourakis, Charles Senn,Paul Ready, David Jeffrey, and Chairperson Barry Karleskint Absent: Commissioner Mary Whittlesey Staff Present: Associate Planner Judith Lautner, Development Review Manager Ron Whisenand, and Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik Also present in the audience was City Council Member Dodie Williams. ACCEPTANCE OF AGENDA: The Planning Commission agreed to hear Items#2 and#3 before Item#1. ACCEPTANCE OF THE MINUTES: The Planning Commission Meeting minutes of March 27, 1996 were accepted as amended. PUBLIC COMMENTS ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS: No public comments were made. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION: 2. Staff ro Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 2 Ron Whisenand,Development Review Manager, told Commissioners of the items scheduled on the May 8th and 22nd agendas, and said that the two meeting dates in June would be appropriate for a Commission-staff retreat. Whisenand agreed to place the retreat discussion on the next agenda. In answer to a question from Commr. Veesart, Whisenand said that packets of information describing the history of the TK Annexation would be received from the printers April 25th and would be distributed to Commissioners as soon as possible, to allow time for review before the May 8th meeting. Whisenand noted the return of a new project on the "Fairview Station" site, and commented that plans had been received for Hudson's Express on Foothill. 3. Commission: Commr. Karleskint noted that the Cultural Heritage Committee would be conducting a tour of three adobes in the City on Friday. He told of recent City Council actions, and of coming conferences. Commr. Karleskint mentioned that the City's former Parks and Recreation Director, Jim Stockton, had died of a heart attack and that a memorial service is to be held on April 25th at 2:00 p.m. at the Jack House. Commr. Ready noted that a report on open space funding opportunities had been distributed, and that there would be a discussion of alternatives at the library soon. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. 1965 Calle Joaquin: GP/R 7-96: General Plan land use element map amendment from Open Space to Tourist Commercial and incorporation of property within the Urban Reserve, General Plan Land Use Element text amendment of developmental policies, amendment of Open Space Element Greenbelt Map to remove the site from the greenbelt, and zoning map change from Conservation/Open Space,ten-acre minimum (C/OS-10)to Tourist Commercial ( C-T);John Franks, applicant. Commr. Senn refrained from participation because of a potential conflict of interest. Judith Lautner presented the staff report, recommending approval of the amendments to the City Council, as amended by the addition of the "Special Considerations" overlay zone to the site. 3-119 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 3 Commr. Ready asked staff if it would be inappropriate for the Commission to condition granting the application based upon the deeding of the open space area. Lautner stated that conditions cannot be placed on rezoning. One way to assure that dedication is a part of the project is by adding the"Special Consideration" overlay to the C-T zone. Manager Whisenand said one of the benefits of the S-zone is that even if development doesn't occur for another 10.15 years, the S-zone ordinance will define the reasons for the designation. Lautner confirmed, in answer to a question by Commr. Jeffrey, that the Architectural Review Commission will consider lighting and other site design issues. Manager Whisenand added if the Commission has a concern with the proposal, it could be added to the S-zone ordinance, and when the project does go to the ARC or the Hearing Officer, the specific concern would be addressed. In answer to a question from Commr. Jeffrey, Lautner said it would be premature to discuss hours of operation. Commr. Veesart asked if the Urban Reserve Line and the City Limit Line are the same in this case. Lautner demonstrated on the overhead where the two lines are. Whisenand demonstrated on the General Plan map where the lines are. In answer to a question from Commr. Veesart, Lautner said the area where the golf balls are actually going to be landing is currently zoned agricultural in the County. Commr. Kourakis confirmed that the S overlay, as recommended, could require low-intensity uses. Commr. Kourakis said the environmental initial study discusses where the golf balls would go, and attached to the report is a statement from the Natural Resources Manager which says there is no need for further biological assessment. She asked if this is approved and if it comes in for a use permit will additional environmental work be needed? Whisenand stated, in this case,there are a lot of unknowns. We have a map showing approximately where the balls would land and we don't have a lot of specific information about the improvements. He anticipates the project will be subject to additional environmental review. If there are certain areas the Commission would like to see addressed, they could be added under the S category. When we get specific plans, we will evaluate the plans and see how they relate to the resources. Draft Mmutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 4 Commr. Kourakis asked how this specific piece of property fits into the Open Space Plan and the Greenbelt Plan. Whisenand pointed out the conservation open space and greenbelt areas on the City's General Plan map. He stated the property that is proposed for development and the property that is proposed for dedication is all designated Open Space. The applicant would like to change the lower portion to Tourist Commercial. The remaining portion would remain in Open Space. The dedication would allow the City to have ownership of one piece of property in a series of parcels that surround the City, making up the greenbelt. Commr. Kourakis asked staff is there is anything adjacent or close to it that the City does own. She asked if the City has a policy for acquiring land in the greenbelt area. Whisenand stated there are several methods to obtain open space. There are sites that the City would be interested in acquiring and, in those cases, there is a priority system set up to allow the City to concentrate its resources on higher-priority land. In this case, the land would be deeded to the City. It may not adjoin any other City-owned open space at this time, but this is one piece of the puzzle, and over time the puzzle will be completed with an entire ring around the City in greenbelt. He cited page 88 of the Open Space Element. He showed the Commission a map showing existing City-owned Open Space land. Commr. Kourakis stated the Commission is being asked to make a trade. We're being asked to change a recently-adopted General Plan and to allow uses that were not considered, and there are some uses that are really quite far from what is usually envisioned in the Open Space zone. There are many reasons why this is a good proposal. She stated she is looking for patterns and connections that make this reasonable. Whisenand said he didn't feel we're going to see much in the way of a connection or pattern this early in the City's program of acquiring and obtaining a greenbelt around the City. This is an issue the Commission needs to evaluate. This is a policy decision that the Commission needs to make. Certainly,the applicant's dedication of a large portion of open space would be beneficial to the City. Natural Resources Manager Havlik displayed a map to the Commission, saying the map represents an assessment of open space values that was done by the Land Conservancy of San Luis Obispo County under contract to the City last year. The Land Conservancy identified a series of landscape units, based upon primarily visual criteria. Each of the areas was evaluated for approximately 20 different criteria: the occurrence or existence of rare plants and animals, scenic characteristics, and others. The map reflects the various landscape units in relative importance. This map was created to take discussion away from the notion of individual properties or individual property ownerships, Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 5 and put it on the basis of individual resources. In either the Land Use Element or the Open Space Element, dedication of land in conjunction with development is seen as a primary method of securing greenbelt for the Irish Hills area. The applicant's offer is consistent with that particular guideline. Commr. Kourakis asked if further biological assessment will be necessary. Havlik stated that, for the evaluation of the map and text changes before the Commission tonight, further evaluation or investigation of biological resources is not necessary. Commr.Kourakis asked if further concerns would be taken care of through the use permit process. Havlik said that the City's permitting process and review process will adequately address further biological concerns. Commr. Jeffrey asked about the possible implications of a phase II archaeological study. Havlik stated he is aware that there is an archaeological site there. He did not know the results of the phase one study of that site. The public hearing was opened. Bruce Elster,representative, stated they started this application process some time ago and there has been a significant amount of dialogue between the applicant and the staff. The applicant has proposed a golf practice range and a batting cage facility on the 1.9 acres that is within the city limits. The applicant felt it made sense to include the dedication of those portions of the property that the County has designated"sensitive resource areas." Mr. Elster stated that when they first tendered the idea of the dedication, they didn't contemplate all the excitement that such a dedication would generate. The applicant sees the dedicated area as an open-space area,which someday in the future may open up to a pedestrian or hiking activities or for biological access for class studies. If it were to be used for active recreational use, additional easements would be required. The applicant has no aversion to more active use. By the time the applicant returns with a physical development plan,the uses for the open space should be determined. Mr. Elster stated, that if someday the City decides to use the open space for an active recreational area, it may want to move the Urban Reserve Line back, to include it. Mr. Elster said golf courses are a permitted use in the County portion of the property. They are asking only for this area where the balls would be landing. This property is not big enough to do anything else with. S-sem Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 6 Mr.Elster stated there was a question from a commissioner about whether it would be inappropriate to condition theapplication to require the open space. The open space dedication is a part of the project description. Mr. Elster stated a phase one archeological study was done. The archeological site was a residence built in the 1930's for a ranch hand. He felt that the significance of the site had not yet been established, but if further research leads to the conclusion that it is, then the site will be avoided or impacts mitigated. Mr. Elster stated there will be lighting because people do like to practice in the evenings. The hours of operation will be determined so as not to be in conflict with adjoining uses. The applicant will be happy to work with staff to lessen any impacts of such lighting. Mr. Elster stated if there is any aspect of the project of the project that changes between tonight and the time that a use permit application comes back that would change anything stated in the environmental documents significantly, then additional environmental review will have to be done. Commr. Kourakis asked Mr. Elster if they are asking for the entire parcel to be within the Urban Reserve Line. Mr. Elster answered no. They felt it may be in the City's best interest. The City may need to include all of the parcel within the Urban Reserve Line if the City chooses to plan for recreational activities on the dedicated portion. Ron Whisenand clarified that the City has no intent to use the dedicated property for anything more active than hiking. Melvin Caldwell, 565 Woodland Dr., Arroyo Grande,District 50 Little League Staff Coordinator for Health, Safety, and Instruction of Baseball Fundamentals, said his district encompasses Lompoc to Paso Robles. His job is to make sure that the Little League children from 6-18 have a good environment and a place where their parents can be assured that the children will be safe. The staff of District 50 sent him to this Commission meeting to applaud and promote this facility. This facility will allow the children of the north and south county to have a place where they would have a positive environment and have instructional baseball fundamentals promoted. He said, many ex-major league players have offered to lend their services to this facility to promote baseball and work with the children in District 50. He said that there weren't other public batting cages in the vicinity and that the high school cages are not supervised. Christine Mulholland, 1334 Diablo Drive, San Luis Obispo, stated she has major concerns with this project. We continue to get bombarded with requests to change our General Plan. There are .s�3 Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 7 inconsistencies with our City policies. She said that the City Council put eight years into the Land Use Element which was just adopted in 1994. There was no discussion of the Circulation Element in the environmental study. At the request of an individual or a group of investors, it seems over and over again our City is willing to throw away our policies. General Plan policies are like our constitution. They should be changed only for the greater good and the benefit of the community. These people bought property that is zoned Open Space outside the Urban Reserve Line. Now we're being asked to change our General Plan, the Land Use Element, and the greenbelt map. We should live with the policies that have been created. She felt that if we can't be assured that any of our current policies will be followed, an S zone won't offer any more assurances. She felt that land use, planning,air quality, transportation, and circulation were not adequately addressed. She expressed concern about the intersection at Calle Joaquin. She felt that CEQA is being circumnavigated. She said a City Gateway Study was funded by the City in 1994, yet nobody in the City Planning Department was able to show her a copy of it or find it. There is a letter from the applicant stating he is willing to give approximately 45 acres in dedication and now that offer is reduced to 34 acres. She recommended denial of the amendments. She felt this requires an EIR. Phil Ashley, 1586 La Cita Ct., a local fish and wildlife biologist, said he felt this project requires an EIR and this is the appropriate stage to do it. We know it is going to be a golf course. They are asking for lighting and 30 tee spaces and the area needs to be considerably larger. We seem to finding out about projects like this late in the game. An attachment to the staff report states no ground squirrels were seen at the site. He was at this site a couple weeks ago and saw many ground squirrel, gopher, and rabbit signs. He expounded on the nature of the ecosystem, noting that rodents provide food chain predatory birds and mammals. He doesn't see any mitigation in this project that compensates for the loss of this deep valley soil and the damage to the ecosystem. Hawks, owls, weasels,bobcats, and foxes will be affected. He felt the quality of the valley soil was superior to the thin steep soil open space that would be dedicated. He wanted a wildlife study performed on the site, especially if there will be public access and trails. He felt an EIR should be required for a change to three General Plan elements and the zoning map. Mr. Ashley stated the grasslands that are in the valley is a habitat and will be disturbed. Mr. Ashley cited a statement from the environmental study completed for the El Chorro Golf Course, which said that non-native grasses are functionally equivalent to native grasslands. Commr. Ready asked Mr. Ashley if he has anything positive to say about the prospect of the City obtaining 34 acres with native grasslands in an area that has already been identified as a greenbelt candidate. Mr. Ashley said he has positive things to say about acquiring open space. But, he is not willing to sacrifice wildlife or even native grasses to get open space for people. Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 8 Mr. Elster displayed a map from the floristic survey done at the site, showing the native and non-native grasslands and the area proposed for development. He noted that only the non-native areas are under consideration for development. In an answer to a commissioner question, Mr. Elster said the area outside of the practice range is outside the limit within which a P.G.A.-qualified golfer would be able to drive a ball. He said there would be control fences to corral the balls in any case. Mr. Elster explained the golf ball retrieval process, saying a small cart with a scooper and a vacuum is used. Some areas may not be feasible for cart retrieval and may require physical hand retrieval. Commr.Kourakis asked Mr.Elster to comment on the area to the left of the identified wetlands and asked if there were a mitigation measure that asked for the dedication of that land, would it be appropriate? Mr. Elster stated no, the County has already designated the dedicated portions as a "sensitive resource area." Other parts of the site do not have the same ecological value. The public hearing was closed. Whisenand repeated that the applicant is asking for the ability to process an application and it involves a policy decision. Staff did a thorough CEQA analysis of General Plan issues. Additional analysis will be done when there is a specific project to review. He noted that because this is a General Plan amendment, a"super-majority" or four votes is required for a recommendation to be forwarded to the Council. Neil Havlik stated he had the opportunity earlier today to discuss this matter at length with Mr. Ashley. Mr. Ashley's questions prompted him to go out and take another look at the property. Havlik displayed an overhead to the Commission showing the slope areas of the property. He stated much of the property is flat or gently sloped. This applicant is proposing to dedicate a large area to public ownership and protection. He looked at the soil and looked at the soil survey for San Luis Obispo. He described the three major soil types found on this property to the Commission. On his first visit to the site he saw no ground squirrels. On later visits he did notice some ground squirrels. This is a rich site and there will be impacts, but he felt they would be minor in relation to the site. He felt the dedication to the City would be of great value. He felt there should be access to the public . for hiking or other low-impact uses. Commr. Kourakis asked if the area most valuable for wildlife and nature protection is the area to the left of the wetlands, would that be the best area for mitigation. S�� Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 9 Havlik stated the applicant made the dedication offer consistent with various economic considerations. There is no development or activity being proposed on those areas, which means it could remain in its current condition. What is being offered is very generous and it is not a requirement of application. Commr. Jeffrey stated when the Commission was going through the LUE there was great emphasis placed on visual aesthetics. He asked if the dedicated areas were primarily a visual resource. Havlik said some parts are visually valuable, others as habitat. Commr. Veesart said he appreciates Havlik's comments that this is a very generous offer. He also appreciates the quality of this proposal and the work that went into it. He feels this is a policy decision for the Commission. He didn't feel that pushing the urban reserve line further out or allowing urban or commercial development in the greenbelt area is the way to save the greenbelt in San Luis Obispo. He appreciated the offer of the dedication of the open space to the City, but he was concerned that rezoning something that is already zoned open space might set a bad precedent. We put a lot of great language and a lot of work into our policy documents and then we constantly make exceptions. He said he would not be supporting this project request. Commr. Ready said one of the things that frustrates him is that everyone seems to agree that we want a greenbelt and open space but how do we get it? Resources to obtain the land are not available and it seems to be an impossible dream. Almost any piece of property within the City of San Luis Obispo has some biological value. The Commission is looking at 1.9 acres of real property that is next to a motel and Highway 101. The applicant is offering 34 acres which has important serpentine outcroppings that support important species of plants and animals. It has wetlands, a spring, and visual value. The Commission is not approving any particular use or waiving the ability to impose significant conditions on future uses. He supported the requests. Commr. Jeffrey felt the gift of the 34 acres would benefit the community as a whole. Accommodations for children to play and enjoy life in San Luis Obispo are limited. He felt there can be a balance between wildlife habitat and careful use. He said he would support the requests. Commr. Kourakis has some strong concerns about CEQA procedures in the City. She said she is concerned about offhandedly amending the General Plan. She felt, though, that the Open Space Element includes policies designed for this kind of situation. She said she is aware that you can never draw all boundaries correctly on City maps. There are always adjustments that have to take place over time. She can support this request. She does see a need to do a better environmental evaluation later. The creek area may need to be protected. She feels that the S- zone gives the kind of protection that we need. She would like to be assured access from Calle Joaquin to the dedicated open space. Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 10 Chairman Karlesldnt stated he concurs with Commr. Ready's comments. The use certainly is a benefit for the community and it certainly has minimal disturbance. He feels circulation is becoming a concern and the intersection is becoming a problem. He would like cumulative traffic and circulation impacts included in the list of concerns. Whisenand stated Public Works and CalTrans were involved in the review and it had been determined that this project would not create a significant amount of traffic nor would it significantly affect that intersection.. Commr. Jeffrey wants to be sure that noise and hours of use is addressed at the time the use permit is considered: Commr. Ready moved that the Commission recommend approval of the following amendments to the City Council. 1. General Plan Land Use Element map from Open Space to Tourist; 2. Removal of the site from "greenbelt" status on the General Plan Open Space Element Greenbelt map; 3. Zoning map change from Conservation/Open Space, minimum ten-acre home site (C/OS-10) to Tourist Commercial, with Special Considerations overly (C-T-S), with the special considerations: * to assure dedication of at least 34 acres of land and access to it from Calle Joaquin; * to assure that uses and buildings at the site will be low-intensity, and that adequate cumulative traffic impacts will be addressed; * to assure that development of the site addresses lighting, grading, mowing, irrigation, and other elements to maintain the natural character of the hillside; and * to evaluate specific environmental resources to be studied with the use permit review, including but not limited to wildlife, wetland, and grassland resources. Commr. Kourakis seconded the motion. AYES: Commrs.s Ready, Kourakis, Jeffrey, and Chairman Karleskint NOES: Commr. Veesart REFRAINED Draft Minutes Planning Commission Meeting April 24, 1996 Page 11 FROM ACTION: Commr. Senn ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey Commr. Senn refrained from participating and voting because of a potential conflict of interest. ADJOURNED at 9:30 p.m. to a regular meeting of the Planning Commission, scheduled for May 8, 1996 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber of City Hall, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California. Respectfully submitted, Leaha K. Magee Recording Secretary