The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/07/1996, C-1 - AUTHORIZATION OF APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM OF THE RESOURCES AGENCY IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISTION OF BISHOP PEAK FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT PURPOSES council 7_ r j ac enaa nepoat C I TY O F SAN LU I S O B I S P O FROM: John Dunn, City Administrative Officer Ken Hampian, Assistant City Administrative Officer Prepared By: Neil Havlik, Natural Resources Manager'-14 SUBJECT: AUTHORIZATION OF APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM OF THE RESOURCES AGENCY IN SUPPORT OF THE ACQUISITION OF BISHOP PEAK FOR PUBLIC BENEFIT PURPOSES CAO RECOMMENDATION Adopt a resolution authorizing staff to complete and submit an application for grant monies in amount of$350,000 from the State Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program, which, if successful, would be used in support of the acquisition of part of the Bishop Peak property. DISCUSSION Overview Pursuant to direction from the City Council in May, the staff has pursued negotiations with three major landowners in the San Luis Obispo Greenbelt area: the Maino family, John Guidetti, and Raymond Bunnell for a portion of the Bishop's Peak property. The Council has acted with respect to the Maino family and Mr. Guidetti; however, with Mr. Bunnell, staff has not advanced as rapidly. Our discussions with Mr. Bunnell are continuing, and staff envisions at least four scenarios of possible acquisition at the site; all of these assume receipt of State grant monies. We are confident that Bishop Peak's high scenic -- and symbolic -- value will make it an excellent candidate for these and other monies for this project. Staff'is now recommending that we pursue a second State grant to assist in the acquisition of portions of the Bunnell property. Pursuing the first of these programs, the Habitat Conservation Fund, was approved by the Council in October and a grant application has been submitted. The current matter before the Council involves the second program, known as the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program. Pmnosed Grant Pmeram: Process and Matchine Funds. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program was enacted by the Legislature in 1989. Among other things, the legislation created a funding source (the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Fund) that annually makes available $10,000,000 statewide for highway landscaping projects, resource land acquisition, and roadside recreational projects. Given staffs previous experience with this program and size of the grant funds available statewide, staff has concluded that it is reasonable to apply for the allowable maximum of $350,000. The grant timetable is that successful applicants are notified generally in March or April (1997, in this case). Funding is contingent upon an allocattion in the State budget by the Legislature (in recent years there have been unsuccessful efforts to eliminate the funds). Following action by the Legislature and Governor on the budget, the California Transportation Commission must approve the allocation. Then a contract is signed with the State Department of Transportation, a"second vote" is made by the Transportation Commission appropriating the funds, and only then can the funds be expended. Assuming a normal budget process, if this grant is. successful, authorization to expend the funds will occur in November or December of 1997. There is no required non-State match. However, projects with other contributing monies are likely to receive higher rankings than those without such contributions. Staff intends to indicate that a City contribution of at least$100,000 is likely to be brought to the project (depending upon the size of the ultimate transaction and the availability of other non-State City resources, the City contribution could be somewhat higher, e.g. $130,000). The $100,000 amount represents the required match for the first grant application to the Habitat Conservation Fund program. Thus, if we were totally successful with both grant applications, $100,000 in City funds would leverage $450,000 in State funds. Even if we do not get all that we are asking for, the leverage ratio should still be quite favorable. In terms of the source of the City's match, as indicated in the agenda report relative to the first grant, local funds can come from Measure O proceeds (if that measure is passed) or from other sources, such as non-State grant funds or open space in-lieu fees. For example, $88,000 was recently collected as an in-lieu open space contribution with the T.K. Annexation and those funds could be available for the project. In any case, if and when either grant application receives a tentative approval, staff will return to the Council with a specific recommendation for appropriating the matching funds. FISCAL EffACr There is no fiscal impact from the application itself. Upon contracting with the Department of Transportation there is a period in which to secure the matching monies, and specifics can be addressed at that time, as discussed above. If, for whatever reason, the City chose not to appropriate matching funds, then the grant would simply go to another applicant. Since the acquisition would be for open space purposes, operational costs are expected to be minor and absorbed within the existing operational programs for the adjacent Ferrini Ranch Open Space. ALTERNATIVES The Council could decide not to pursue the grant monies. There is nothing to lose by applying for these funds. However, if we do not apply, this may send a message to Mr. Bunnell that we are no longer interested in discussions with him. Staff does not recommend that course of action. Attachments 1. Resolution 2. Grant Program Summary NOTE: The draft grant application is available for review in the Council Reading File. RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AUTHORIZING APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FOR THE ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM UNDER SECTION 164.56 OF THE STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE FOR THE PROJECT KNOWN AS BISHOP PEAK ACQUISITION WHEREAS, the Legislature of the State of California has enacted AB 147 (Chapter 106 of the Statutes of 1989), which is intended to provide $10 million anually for a period of ten years for grant funds to local, State, and Federal agencies and nonprofit entities for projects to enhance and mitigate the environmental impacts of modified or new public transportation facilities; and WHEREAS, the Resources Agency has established the procedures and criteria for revieweing grant proposals and is required to submit to the California Transportation Commission a list of recommended projects from which the grant recipients will be selected; and WHEREAS, said procedures and criteria established by the Resources Agency require a resolution certifying the approval of application by the applicant's governing body before submission of said application to the State; and WHEREAS, the application contains assurances that the applicant must comply . with; and WHEREAS, the applicant, if selected, will enter into an agreement with the State of California for acquisition or development of the project; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo hereby: 1. Authorizes the filing of an application for the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program for grant assistance for the above project; and 2. Certifies that said applicant will make adequate provision for operation and maintenance of the project; and 3. Appoints the Natural Resources Manager as agent of the City to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the aforementioned project. Approved and adopted this 7th day of November, 1996. On motion of . seconded by and on the following roll call vote: C:��d AYES: NOES: ABSENT: The foregoing.resolution was adopted this _ _- day of ,1996. Allen K Settle, Mayor ATTEST: Bonnie L. Gawf, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: ®rse ity omey--- RESOURCES AGENCY 1416 Ninth Street, Suite 1311 State of California Sacramento, CA 95814 916-653-5656 ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROGRAM PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA 1997-98 GRANT CYCLE I. PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY These procedures and criteria guide the evaluation and selection'of projects under the Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program. This program provides grants to local, state and federal agencies and nonprofit entities to mitigate the environmental impact of modified or new public transportation facilities.. The Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation Program was established by the enactment of the Transportation Blueprint Legislation of 1989 (AB 471, Katz). This legislation states that it is the intent of the Legislature to allocate $10,000,000 annually to this program for grant purposes for a 10-year period from Fiscal Year 1991-92 to Fiscal Year 2000-01. The Resources Agency prescribes procedures and criteria to evaluate grant proposals. Based on its evaluation, the Resources Agency prepares and submits a list of proposals recommended for funding to the California Transportation Commission. The Commission annually awards grants to fund proposals from the Resources Agency's list. II. ELIGIBLE APPLICANTS Any local, state or federal agency or nonprofit al entity may apply for and receive grants. The agency or entity is not required to be a transportation or highway related organization but must be able to demonstrate adequate charter or enabling authority to cavy out the type of project proposed. Two or more entities.may participate in a project. A/Eligible non-profit organizations are those classified under Section 501(c)(3), Internal Revenue Service Code. 1 ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT& MITIGATION PROGRAM — PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA 111. IMPLEMENTATION TIMELINE In order for projects to be considered for the 1997-98 fiscal year(July 1, 1997 through June 30, 1998), applications must be postmarked no later than November 12, 1996 or delivered to the Resources Agency by 5:00 p.m. that day. By May 1, 1997, the Resources Agency will send a list of recommended projects to the California Transportation Commission for funding consideration. All project applicants will be notified of the status of their project at that time, and will be asked to submit appropriate grant project environmental clearance documents to the Commission. Projects for which environmental clearance documents are not completed will not be considered for funding by the Commission in this grant cycle. Applicants may resubmit projects for reconsideration by the Resources Agency in a subsequent grant cycle. It is anticipated that in July 1997 the Commission will give preliminary approval to projects to be funded in that year, with funding allocations to be considered at a subsequent Commission meeting upon contract approval. The Department of Transportation (CALTRANS) administers Commission approved grant project . contracts. Grant funds should be expended as soon as possible after the grant award by the Commission, preferably within the first year, and in no case later than two years after the fiscal year in which the contract between the state and the applicant is signed. IV. MAXIMUM GRANT Grants for individual projects are generally limited to $350,000 each. Under unusual circumstances applications may be recommended for awards exceeding the $350,000 amount based on consideration of, but not limited to, the following factors: • The project involves the acquisition of resource lands of substantial size. 2 ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT& MITIGATION PROGRAM — PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA • Mitigation would be achieved to offset the environmental impacts of more.than one related transportation project. • This grant cycle presents an immediate, one-time opportunity for maximum mitigation benefits that could not be achieved in the future. V. NORTHISOUTH SPLIT In keeping with the provisions of Sections 187 and 188 of the Streets and Highways Code, an attempt will be made to allocate 40 percent of the total amount recommended to projects in northern counties and 60 percent of the total amount to projects in southern counties. The southern counties are: San Luis Obispo, Kern, Mono, Tulare, Inyo, Santa Barbara, Ventura, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, San Diego and Imperial. For purposes of this north/south split, all other counties are considered northern counties. VI. ELIGIBLE ENHANCEMENT AND MITIGATION PROJECTS Categories of environmental enhancement and mitigation projects eligible for funding are: A Highway Landscape and Urban Forestry These are projects which are designed to offset vehicular emissions of carbon dioxide through the planting of trees and other suitable plants. Projects may be within or outside the right-of-way of a related transportation facility. However, reimbursement for the cost of vegetation planted within public road right-of-way is limited to trees. B. Resource Lands This category includes the acquisition, restoration or enhancement of resource lands to mitigate the loss of, or the detriment to, resource landsf lying within or near the right-of-way acquired for proposed transportation improvements. Resource lands include natural areas, wetlands, forests, woodlands, meadows, streams, or other areas containing fish or wildlife habitat. Additionally, such areas may contain features of archaeological or historical value. Enhancement of resource lands may include the restoration of wildlife corridors. 3 ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT& MITIGATION PROGRAM — PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA C. Roadside Recreational These are projects-which provide for the acquisition and/or development of roadside recreational opportunities, including roadside rests, scenic overlooks, trails, trailheads (including related parking facilities), sno-parks (see Public Resources Code, Section 5091.02), and parks. VII. RELATED TRANSPORTATION FACILITY To be eligible for consideration, each environmental enhancement and mitigation project must be directly or indirectly related to the environmental impact of modifying an existing transportation facilitylz/ or constructing a new transportation facility (related transportation facility). For purposes of this program, a transportation facility is defined as a public street, highway, mass transit guideway or their appurtenant features (e.g., park-and-ride facilities, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, transit stations). Additionally, the transportation facility to which the environmental impacts relate must be: 1) a project where construction began after January 1, 1990; or 2) a project which is not yet under construction but is included in an adopted state transportation program or in a locally adopted and certified capital outlay program. If a transportation facility is to be constructed in separate and distinct phases, each phase may be considered a separate project for purposes of this definition provided that each phase creates an operable transportation improvement. p/Constitution of Califomia, Article XIX, section 1. SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 1 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: BUNNELL (Correspondence item#38; Request#38 in EIR) SUMMARY OF REQUEST Ray Bunnell submitted a request to change the land use category for his property on the flank of Bishop Peak from Agriculture to Residential Rural to enable an undetermined number of clustered homesites. As part of the request, he posed the possibility of the city or other public agency receiving the portion of Bishop Peak he owns, either through purchase or dedication. RECOMMENDATIONS Reviewing agency Recommendation/Comment City of San Luis Obispo Denial Planning & Building Department Denial of requested change, but approval of standards allowing clustering of 8 new dwellings if all dwellings transferred to below 600 foot elevation Planning Commission Denial of requested change, but approval of standards allowing clustering of 17 new dwellings if all dwellings transferred to below 600 foot elevation SITE INFORMATION Planning Area: San Luis Obispo Community: Rural Parcel Location: Northern side of Bishop Peak to Highway 1, adjacent to city limits Area: approximately 270 acres Topography: Mostly steeply sloping, some gently sloping Vegetation: Grasses, oak forest, chaparral Water Supply: Proposed on-site well/s and community water system Sewage Disposal: Proposed conventional community or individual sewage systems Hazards: Flood Hazard (FH), Geologic Study Area (GSA) Existing Use and Improvements: Cattle grazing, horse boarding, five dwellings Fire Response Time: Five minutes Soils: Mostly Classes VI and VII, some Class III SURROUNDING LAND USES North: California Mens Colony East: Cal Poly agricultural areas South: Single family dwellings in city limits West: Bishop Peak and its western side (down-slope) SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: BUNNELL (Correspondence item #38; Request#38 in EIR) GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION Land Use Category: Agriculture Combining Designation: Sensitive Resource Area and Geologic Study Area Planning Area Standards: Rural Areawide Standards #1 &2 (Development Plan projects to concentrate development on moderate slopes and underground utilities); SRA Standards (preserve scenic and other environmental values) Open Space Plan Categories: Scenic Restrictive (higher areas) and Rangeland (lower) MAJOR ISSUES The major issues in this request include community separation and protection of important biological and scenic resources from residential development. Bishop Peak is not only an important scenic resource, it also contains relatively undisturbed habitat areas which are also connected to continuous habitat areas along the Morros. In recognition of these values, Mr. Bunnell approached the city and county, asking for 11 to 20+ homesites in exchange for selling or dedicating an 80-acre portion of the property that includes part of the peak. However, finder the existing San Luis Obispo Area Plan, the entire ownership can be approved only a few more homes (without transferring development through the county TDC program). The upper portions of the property are very steep, and probably could not be built upon under county rules. Thus, while public ownership of, and access to, the mountainside would represent a valuable public benefit, it might not be worth the number of homesites Mr. Bunnell wants. Also, approving a Residential Rural land use category on the site might set a precedent for other properties in the Morros. If Mr. Bunnell wishes to build the last few homes possible, he will also be required to record an open space or conservation easement over the property, protecting it from further development in perpetuity. Thus, the habitat and scenic backdrop values the property represents will not be lost. The Planning and Building Department has recommended (in the hearing draft plan) that Mr. Bunnell be allowed a development bonus if all potential homes are located in the least sensitive portions of the site, as identified in the Draft EIR. Alternatively, he could transfer the potential homes away from the site by selling Transferable Development Credits. SAN LUIS OBISPO AR PLAN UPDATE Page 3 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: BUNNELL (Correspondence item #38; Request #38 in EIR) SAM LUIS 0131SPO COUNTY OEPARTNIENT OF PLANNING 6 BUILOING MIJ Ea g�..,;,;� �J r • J `� � �•Fac Mens Colony , e • F dMA1 ' .. :•:' ( s� A4 awe .t bit tion 1 / F Highway 1 AIR MANAVU, ,, ,: *-,. � Z � B 360 r ; �: : 'n>ti?y-:p?Z. '; •iii ;: WL ` C /� '+'• y �. ' ;�l'ti i i+'`F?y`� �� i.�, 'iii' ~ ` 0810068 Ste y �., '-,," :, .; .,�;,•,y„�^'?,5.>; - ,• i Polytectlgic II�e '. It 300 We )02 AA \ �\.J l 3 'J 2i` Bishop Peak �I' • ��-V=3 <oo L4N.; 1 BUNNELL APN 073-331-19924925 1 Llcj, o?Sa/n Lina Obispo � AgtoRR PROJE EXHIBIT SAN LUIS OBISPO '� AREA PLAN MATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 1 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: LAGUNA 1HLL ESTATES (Correspondence items #36a & b; Request #32 in EIR) SUMMARY OF REQUEST In 1988 the Board of Supervisors authorized processing for a general plan amendment (with the city as lead agency) under the name "Laguna Hill Estates" covering about 236 acres adjacent o the city on Los Osos Valley Road. While that amendment did not proceed to hearings, it was considered as a property owner request in the area plan update and EIR. Owners of portions of the site designated Residential Suburban (RS) and Residential Rural (RR) subdivided those portions. The remaining parcel is designated Agriculture (Ag) and comprises about 118 acres along Los Osos Valley Road. The owner's agent (Carol Florence) recently clarified the request to be a change in the 118-acre parcel from Ag to RS to allow about 45 clustered homesites. RECOMMENDATIONS Reviewing agency Recommendation/Comment City of San Luis Obispo Denial Planning & Building Department Denial Planning Commission Denial SITE INFORMATION Planning Area: San Luis Obispo Community: Rural Parcel Location: Los Osos Valley Road between Bear Valley Estates and city limit Area: 118 acres Topography: Mostly gently rolling, steeply sloping at southern part of the site Vegetation: Grasses Water Supply: Proposed on-site well/s and community water system Sewage Disposal: Proposed conventional community or individual sewage system/s Hazards: Flood Hazard (FH), Geologic Study Area (GSA) Existing Use and Improvements: Caitle grazing Fire Response Time: Between five and ten minutes Soils: About half class H (if irrigated), half class III SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Bear Valley Estates (5-acre RR parcels with an open space Ag parcel) East: Grazing and crop land across Los Osos Valley Road South: Single family dwellings in city limits West: Residential Rural & Residential Suburban land, Prefumo Canyon Road beyond SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: LAGUNA HILL ESTATES (Correspondence items #36a & b; Request #32 in EIR) GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION Land Use Category: Agriculture Combining Designation: Sensitive Resource Area and Geologic Study Area Planning Area Standards: Rural Areawide Standards#1 & 2 (Development Plan projects to concentrate development on moderate slopes and underground utilities); SRA Standards (preserve scenic and other environmental values) Open Space Plan Categories: Marginal cropland, marginal rangeland MAJOR ISSUES The major issues in this request include community separation, provision of urban services and removal of land from the stock available for agricultural uses. The edge of the city is very distinct at this location. Two-story, single family dwellings exist just inside the city limit adjacent to the site, in contrast to this vacant 118 acre parcel. This is consistent with city policy, and the city has indicated an unwillingness to consider annexation of the site. The applicant's agent has indicated that the proposed 45 dwellings would be clustered away from the city edge (close to Bear Valley Estates) and screened with landscaping. However, the development of 45 clustered dwellings and necessary access roads would substantially change the rural appearance of the site, and would conflict with the community separation goal. The county previously published in its Public Review Draft San Luis Obispo Area Plan a map and text suggesting that the city should consider establishing this site as a future residential expansion area in order to accommodate additional housing. The city considered the proposal and chose instead to continue showing the site as undeveloped and outside the future city limits. Thus, approval of this request would conflict with the community character chosen by the city for this area. Provision of urban services to this site through community water and sewage disposal systems would conflict with the city's plans. The city provides urban services to land adjacent to this site. Provision of community water supply and sewage disposal systems on this site would set a precedent for proliferation of such systems (and suburban development) around the city. While the site is not particularly productive agriculturally, its conversion to residential development would contribute to the cumulative reduction in agricultural lands. SAN LUIS OBISPO ARI PLAN UPDATE Page 3 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: LAGUNA IULL ESTATES (Correspondence items #36a & b; Request #32 in EIR) GAN WI5 On16P0 COUNTY OEPARTMENT Or- PLANNING 6 BUILOINO • e 17F? :...•.::••:. • 0 pJ� V1 2. —•... a f� � ..;•, (( .,n•; � :eie:•. 60 1k 1111/ ,. "1:�:.. ,> ��»:i / .:• •► •W° . 1111/, ////.y / ...:'Y ,// ,..• � /„/,///✓//,////J:':»:: ..• //,/////,/N,,,1111::•• //, / \ 1111// //,/`fir J(-_/(/`/l////Jl•_ / 1111// /////////////• �/. •. � '`rF 1111// // 1111/ ••»' w/ /////////////�::::• / -. .� � . ,/,///„/,/// „//,,,�i/r, 1111 /r,,,//s//// //L:. ,• / / ,/,/,/////,/r,///„/,/////r/ ,// 1111/,r,// /iiiii:;:•L•• 'i • ::. /��> �� 1111,r!//,/,/,,,,,,///„//// ,/„v"I�//,///,1111/•. .."::• .::i 1//I// lar„r// /////,/„//,,,,/„� .:=/ ///11/1.1 /!• /7.,,/, ,,,,,,,/,/////,/,/ /� / /.////„//,///,/,/7•:r,':;• r// 1111 /,/ 1111/ „/,//////'//'�””"”' '::::iiiiii..iiii/:`' .� ,/J///,//„/// ,,,,/,//,/, /,/„///////////,••• ............ .. •,// ,/, /,///,/ /,,,,,,///,/ / Ir iiiiiiii •..., Jiiiiii/ii Iii:I'll, ii •„/ 11/11 ,/,/� /„/„......,/,Y /,//////,,,, .. ,,,, /,r/ „///,//„//,,,,,///N/// /„/ri/ •/ Ff/// 11/11 / ,,,/,/ r/,,,,///„///,,,,.,,,/„/., ..1111/„ S i///!T/�•f/i//”/'/::iiii iiii:iiii/♦ l��ii iiii// , 'ii iii iii / SCO •'!V///,,,/,,,,/ , , 1111 ii 1111,, • 'i ' /�//! /,,,/„/,///,/✓ /..////,/,///„ ,/ 1111 , /,// O,FFnL.LiJ,. „ 1111,/„ /, Y, , ,//,,,//,/„1 ///. / / 1111// // C089-305 . '/ 1111 /. 1111,,. //// /.//. ' ::�•.• tJ>/ ,/,1111, 1111 r„ // /N/,,,/ir,/, 'i /' '�%fr !J .4�.:•' ! 'if „ /// ,,, 1111 /„/l.//1 /1 O� • /. :e /� „ ,/ ,,, , 1111, /,/o/, 11/11/, /,1111,I, / / , A:.... •..• �... l3 ', 1111,, „� �r,s,,,.1 /,,;.,,,,,// 1 2. • „ .1111, ,,. /, ,//. •„///.,,,,/ iii1 v , 1 — SITE — • . . City ;an Luis Obispo .` .•• —/ -;�• Laguna Hill Estates � APN 067-221-044 - 3.w yon o AG to RS PROJECT EXH 1 BIT SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN MATE ) PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 1 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: TRACT 681 OWNERS (Correspondence item #2; request #2 in EIR) SUMMARY OF REQUEST The owners of 17 parcels comprising Tract 681 on Orcutt Road (near Johnson Avenue) submitted a request to change the land use category on their parcels from Residential Single Family (RSF) and Residential Rural (RR), both subject to a 10-acre minimum parcel size, to Residential Suburban. Their goal is to enable the existing parcels (averaging 5.6 acres in size) to approximately 2.5- acre parcels. RECOMMENDATIONS Reviewing agency Recommendation/Comment City of San Luis Obispo Approval Edna Area Group No comment Planning & Building Department Denial Planning Commission Approval SITE INFORMATION Planning Area: San Luis Obispo Community: Partially within San Luis Obispo Urban Area, part Rural Parcel Location: Along eastern side of Orcutt Road, adjacent to city limit Area: 95 acres Topography: Gently rolling Vegetation: Grasses Water Supply: Afuero de Chorro Mutual Water Company Sewage Disposal: On-site septic systems Hazards: None Existing Use and Improvements: Dwellings on parcels averaging 5.6 acres, some vacant Soils: Mostly class III, some class VII SURROUNDING LAND USES North: Single-family dwellings within the city limits East: Agriculture category land in larger.parcels South: RSF land subject to 10-acre minimum parcel size, with scattered dwellings West: RSF land subject to 10-acre minimum parcel size, with scattered dwellings GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION Land Use Category: RSF, RR Combining Designation: Airport Review Area (AR) Planning Area Standards: RSF Standards #1 through 4 (annexation required prior to SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: TRACT 681 OWNERS (Correspondence item #2; request #2 in EIR) urban development, land divisions to facilitate future annexation and urban development, 10-acre minimum parcel size until annexed); Rural Areawide Standards #1 & 2 (Development Plan projects to concentrate development on moderate slopes and underground utilities); Airport Review Area Standards #1-3 (implementing Airport land Use Plan) Open Space Plan Categories: Non-Open Space MAJOR ISSUES The major issue in this request is whether this arca should continue to be subject to county standards which act to preserve larger parcels for future intensification with annexation the city. Another issue is whether water supplies will be adequate for the proposed future homesites. Since 1980, the portion of this site within the Urban Reserve has been designated for single-family residential development upon annexation to the city. However,just before the 10-acre minimum parcel size became effective, the property was divided into parcels averaging 5.6 acres in size. While the county did require this division to recognize possible future intensification, some of the dwellings were placed such that future urban development may be difficult to accommodate, and the current owners are opposed to future annexation. The property owners provided input to the city during its Land Use Element update, and the city accommodated their request by removing their properties from the city's urban reserve, reflecting that the area is not expected to be annexed, and applied a general plan designation which would not conflict with 2.5 acre parcels while under county jurisdiction. The mutual water company Afuero de Chorro provides these parcels with water. The company is seeking additional water through the Nacimiento Water Project, since local groundwater supplies are limited. In response to the issue of limited water supplies, the property owners suggested that the county could approve their request without increasing potential buildout of the area by prohibiting secondary dwellings. In other words, since each of the existing 5.6 acre parcels could now request approval for a primary and secondary dwelling, allowing 2.5 acre parcels with just one dwelling each would not substantially increase potential water demand. Staff has not changed its recommendation, which remains denial, since secondary dwellings are limited in size, and therefore their smaller occupancy potential could result in lower water demand than larger dwellings. Also, secondary dwellings can provide some affordable rental housing. Nevertheless, the primary reason why staff previously did not support this request was the conflict with the city's plan, and that conflict has now been resolved. SAN LUIS OBISPO ARF- ALAN UPDATE Page 3 PROPERTY OWNER REQUEST: TRACT 681 OWNERS (Correspondence item #2; request #2 in EIR) SAM LUIS Ou16P0 COUNTY OEPAQTMENT OF PLANNINO G BUILOING IAR— G5 1 � 1 � 11 I SRA SIP I I , nRIVF v V GREGORY o � CEDAR 18 I � r Johnson `; 1� Street �' 125 SITE 19 126 O rcutt Road �8 a b. `a b , R R 126 03 Cr ca 1s. RR —AR 132 1 1 129 131 20• EL. URL U Railroad Tract 681 Owners 7 2. APN 076-532-003 h 30 COAL 6e-0e3 J AG —AR through j (except 28 - PGE) RSF, RR to RS PPOJECT Ex141131T SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UDATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SLO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 1 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLINXALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS SUMMARY OF REQUESTS These four requests have been included in a group evaluation because they are similar in type, in that they all requested a change at the existing urban reserve around the airport area from Agriculture (Ag) to Commercial Service (CS) or Industrial (Ind)... A location map exhibit is attached to show where they are in relation to each other and the airport area. Individual maps also are attached. While these are evaluated together, action by the county on them need not be identical in each case, depending on the facts of each case. RECOMMENDATIONS Reviewing agency Recommendation/Comment City of San Luis Obispo Denial Edna Area Group No.consensus Planning & Building Department Denial Planning Commission Polin/Caltrans: approval (10 acres Ag to CS) Avila Family Ranch: approval (170 acres Ag to Ind; 10 acres Ag to PF) Maddalena: approval (17 acres Ag to Ind) Filbin: denial (13 acres Ag to Ind) East Airport Area Owners: denial (85 acres Ag to CS; 51 acres Ag to RS) SITE INFORMATION Planning Area: San Luis Obispo Community: Rural (except Filbin, which is in urban area & recommended for rural) Parcels' Locations: Adjacent to southern urban reserve line around the airport area Area: 356 acres Topography: Mostly level Vegetation: Crops on Avila, grasses on others Water Supply: On-site wells Sewage Disposal: On-site septic systems Hazards: Flood Hazard (FH) on Avila and Polin Existing Use and Improvements: Avila and Polin are in crops, East Airport Area in grazing Soils: Filbin is all Class II (if irrigated), but concrete has been deposited; Polin is Class II (if irrigated); Avila has some Class II (if irrigated), but mostly Class III; Maddalena has some Class I (if irrigated), Class II (if irrigated) and Class III; and East Airport Area is mostly Class III, with some Class II (if irrigated). SLO AREA PLAN UPDATE Page 2 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS SURROUNDING LAND USES North: The airport area South: Agricultural uses GENERAL PLAN INFORMATION Land Use Category: Agriculture (Ag) Combining Designations: Airport Review (AR), Flood Hazard (FH) on Polin, Avila Planning Area Standards: Rural Areawide Standards #1 & 2 (Development Plan projects to concentrate development on moderate slopes and underground utilities); Airport Review Area Standards #1-3 (implementing Airport land Use Plan) Open Space Plan Categories: Marginal cropland MAJOR ISSUES The most significant issues in this request are conversion of agricultural land, traffic circulation, visual impacts, and whether the inventory of commercial land needs to be increased. While each of these individual requests may indicate that production agriculture is not profitable on their sites, conversion of all these sites would contribute to a substantial loss in existing or potential farmland or grazing land. Conversion of these sites to urban uses would also conflict with the county's goal of maintaining separation between communities. Urban development would be spreading out, instead of building on the existing vacant land in the airport area. The proposed plan update would result in an adequate inventory of CS and Ind land in the airport area. In fact, environmental impacts from the commercial and industrial uses allowed under the proposed plan already will be significant and unavoidable, especially traffic-related impacts. A consultant studied absorption of such land in the airport in the late 1980's and concluded that there was more than enough inventory. Also, an economic strategy study recently prepared for the county identified the need for commercial and industrial with services, but these sites are on the fringe of the airport area, so they are less likely to receive urban water and sewage disposal services than other sites within the airport area. Increasing the inventory at these location would appear unnecessary. �11�.� �0 �0�� ;1111-ate '-•�� •_. ��, � ' IIIF�fiA• '�� •,/�'.:;,;eye �, + i�-- ' •;�I� �% X005'0»��, / f I�� Land Use Categories Area Planproposed in Hearing Draft ior the airport area . o it MOT 0��. gN�L"kx�A a:.ow�.;akawb�l Ch"Yem�a�dsaS�ll� ��►` '` � � 1Liie;P).�ir rre 4x Fr�r�i1G)\YET � a4 Fir I e��Fllll®IIE'�� '�•�� i acres Ag to PF i acres Ag to Ind + SAN LUIS OBISPO x �lPROPERTY OWNER REQUESTI AREA PLAN UDATE Y' SLO AREA PLAN UPDJ Page 4 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS GAM WIG OGIGPO COUNTY OEPAP-rMENT OF PLANNING G GUILOING ♦ ♦�� Ali- G 4 ' h BAN an � :y rM47' 2090 . , `�``♦♦♦ � 6 1 169 f 28 27 26 25 214 Sp C12 -___- �r _ !SRA, _=_=_ �� ====_ SITE \j ' _ Q _=_=_= _ i r, 3 , o CL vl / ee POLIN/CALTRANS a. Portion of APN 076-071-016 Ag to CS PROJECT �� ¢xralalr SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN MATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SLO AREA PLAN UPW Page 5 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS BAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 6 BUILOING • �r -3 •. 3 • . .. .9 • • - -- - 40� 41 • • �' • 101 �'< r.crs ci 39 ••� _ _— —_r�•. /•' w 45 `y e an .43 42 53 54 7rallnr 6 0 52 Park co - ly6n G i n51 :ell 47 I 2 4Y . San LuisObl•poSuburt ` " •�• •• /z FARR Cat1 9Uoch.11 Tract 2 RS TA K %% � M r / . , ` 1:% ��,. 091 r %%%% / W 198 i �— ` y 1 1, U 63 62,' 6 A Rt1 , f :' Ir ^ 2090 •• on 410'col• _ 3,1 O d8 27 26 25 2 • . , O •_ -- _ _ —• :� 12 64 65 ZONE 3'_ ••. 2069 54 — --___--____– 6 It 4 12 • COAL 91 I60 - I AVILA FAMILY RANCH - APN 076-361-003 (A) AG TO PF (B) AG TO IND PROJECT EXHIBIT SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UDATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SLO AREA PLAN UPD. i Page 6 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS BAN LUIS OBISPO CGUNTY nEPARTMENT OF PLANNING C BUILDING 1. d z. COAL 87-311 2 1 >Isee�P COAL 83 24 A A C0760 68 I 1 i 69 1 i z C074 141 SITE I A 0 C I. S. 65 SAN LUI 0 C087-332 COUI AIRP( ' AGi C085-181 ><r o r 4 1 1 n I I i I 2 3 2 I FILBIN P290 P291 P49: APN 076-371-012 4 1 Ag.to Ind P283 HAZA iv SLO AREA PLAN UPI ; Page 7 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FII.BIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS p. SAN LUIS OSISPO COUNTY OEPARTMENT OF PLANNING V. SUILOING 66 .. a •-1. z• •+we • a. w•. 107 2 17 fi rwsl sn s. 76 1 d c ° 7 ' A 2063 6a wa+;G4 106 ... :'•• e 9 ° Rooln uazTr. �• ./• 1we: 69 * .nI P�Q•p.•� • f G R• IL 91 �. o...- • O LOOP 1 e k 64 65 SAN LUIS OBISPO o COUNTY AIRPORT c l mom. 156M0 ROAD .9 BRAI : o Eaet•Santa Fe .�• 1 L iB6 �0. ' 8 h ae .. ;: ::::. 1e0 '"" " ° SITE z06 1 5 >r I .. 2 Tr et 1 w,n... . 4 s 1 M .. `... 6 Maps 20 p? ' S O� • lz \ W " � SERPA RANCH � I = .T-, rtK 1 � PWi z.....1.. - race... ... '� •. .. ,...,.j `'. • " �. 4 IJ �� ``�`• /� H01 I ISTEF TRACT V �^ �__�� ill J DEEDS 367 MADDELENA, BEN APN 076-061-050 AG TO IND l PROJECT EXHIBIT SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UDATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS SLO AREA PLAN UPDA-• Page 8 PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS: POLIN/CALTRANS, AVILA FAMILY RANCH, FILBIN, MADDALENA, EAST AIRPORT AREA OWNERS BAN LUIS OBIBPO COUNTY O@PARTMENT OP PLANNING 6 BUILDING c v� 109 I t�'O C—17-Y LIMITS ss+s3 4 v � D TA`1C 8 A oTa n sLO i AG IC NIS A . x7!34 E G 1 . mss.....�_ V ,�0 9 •,�;.ice ✓N�.s •••••••• ZONE3 Ic . 'Q� IIaPORT EVIEW AR ••��refs'•• SEC. 7 EG.613, SEC,. 18 �� ''' • •• • • • a •• � � •.'•4.. • • . � :OT : AGRICUI,.;U1L'-• a0 ` IMt3 UR 00 EAST AIRPORT AREA 07 •. MULTIPLE APN'S �0, ' • (A) AG TO RS (B) AG TO CS 3 _ (C) IND TO CS pgG,�LsCT �� EXM161T SAN LUIS OBISPO AREA PLAN UDATE PROPERTY OWNERREQUESTS