HomeMy WebLinkAbout01/05/1999, 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, ANNEXATION, AND ZONING FOR LAND IN THE NORTHWEST PART OF THE MARGARITA AREA (ER, ANNX, R 175-98) CONTProperty description (continued)
PARCEL 2:
All that part of Government Lots 3 and 4 and the South 1/2 of the Northwest 114 of Section 2
in Township 31 South, Range 12 Fast, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, partially in the City
of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to the
official plat of the survey of said land approved by the Surveyor General on November 21,
1867, described as follows:
Beginning at the 114 section corner between Sections 2 and 35 on the line between Townships
30 and 31 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian and running thence West
between Sections 2 and 35 aforesaid about 30 chains to post R. No. 2; thence South 40.25
chains to a post marked R. No. 1 on the center East and West line of Section 2; thence East
about 30 chains to the center of said Section 2; thence North about 40 chains to the place of
beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to H.E. McBride in deed dated May 5,
1887 and recorded May 5, 1887 in Book X, Page 58 of Deeds.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Tract No. 1150 as described in the Gift Deed to
the City of San Luis Obispo recorded April 9, 1993 in Book 4068, Page 185 of Official
Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom those portions offered for dedication to the City of San Luis
Obispo, in the documents recorded in Book 2881, Page 726 and in Book 2881, Page 730 of
Official Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING Tract No. 2126, in the City of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, as recorded March 21, 1997 in Book 18, Page 1 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County and Certificate of Correction recorded May 8,
1998 as Instrument No. 1998 -027041 of Official Records.
1 -11
Attachment #3
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING ZONING FOR NORTHWEST MARAGRITA AREA ANNEXATION
(R 175 -98)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on January 5, 1999, and has
considered testimony of interested parties, the records of the Planning Commission hearing and
action, and the evaluation and recommendation of staff, and
WHEREAS, Council has approved a Negative Declaration of environmental impact for
the proposed annexation and zoning.
BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Findings. That this Council, after consideration of the proposed zoning,
and the Planning Commission's recommendations, staff recommendations, public testimony, and
reports thereon makes the following findings:
A. The proposed C /OS zone is consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed C/OS zone is consistent with the intended uses and locations of the zone
as described in the Zoning Regulations.
C. The proposed C /OS zone will be compatible with surrounding land uses.
SECTION 2. Adoption of Zone. The territory to be annexed shall be zoned as shown on
the attached Exhibit A.
SECTION 3. Publication. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of
Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final
passage, in the Telegram- Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This
ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage, but no
sooner than the effective date of the Northwest Margarita Area annexation.
1 -iz
Ordinance No:
Page 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT 1 y the -Council of the City of San Uis
Obispo at its meetingheld on the day of
1999, on a motion of
seconded by and on the following roll call.
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
I
ABSENT:
Mayor Mien, K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney 4Jeff Jorgensen
1_1 3
0
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of San Luis Obispo
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
Attachment #4 A
APN: 076- 341 -010
076 - 341 -011
PRE - ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
SIERRA GARDENS OF SAN LUIS OBISP09 LTD, ET. AL.
FOR PART OF THE MARGARITA AREA
This annexation agreement is made and entered into this day of . 199_,
by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY") whose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401;
and Sierra Gardens of San Luis Obispo, Ltd., et. al., 744 Alta Vista Way, Arroyo Grande,
California, 93420 (hereinafter referred to as "OWNERS "), pursuant to the authority of the
City Charter, and Section 56000 and following sections of the California Government Code.
CITY and OWNERS shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "PARTIES."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Sierra Gardens of San Luis Obispo, Ltd., et. al., are the owners in fee of certain
real property in the County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as the northwest part of the
Margarita Area and generally indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Vicinity Map (Assessor's
Parcel Numbers 076- 341 -010 and 076- 341 -011), and which is fully described in the attached
Exhibit B, and referred to herein as the "subject property;" and
WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo
(City File No. 175 -98); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the area covered by the Margarita Area Specific
Plan, which CITY is preparing and anticipates adopting within six to nine months; and
WHEREAS, OWNERS desire to be annexed to the City in advance of completion of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan, and in consideration of such early annexation have agreed to
enter into this Pre- annexation Agreement; and
1-15"
Pre- annexation Agreement (Margarita/Sierra Gardens)
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent with the
General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be annexed to the City
pursuant to terms and procedures of the California Government Code 56000 and following
sections; .
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements
stated herein, PARTIES agree as follows:
1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall be entitled to the full range of
City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire protection,
and general government services, some of which are described below in more detail.
Water Service. CITY agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide water service to the
subject property, as available, for fire - fighting and domestic purposes, subject to the same
laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar
circumstances, including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Use of any existing on -site
groundwater wells for potable or non - potable use(s) may contimie, provided they meet County
Health Department standards. Use of groundwater for new development will comply with
applicable City policies. Non - potable water may be used for landscape irrigation. If well(s) fail
or are abandoned, OWNERS shall comply with applicable State and County regulations
regarding well abandonment.
Sewer Service. City agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide sanitary sewer service, as
available, to the subject property, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
Fire Protection. City agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide fire protection service, as
available, to the subject property, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the property will be subject
to the same rules, regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other properties in the
City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations, Building Code, Fire Code, environmental regulations (California
1 -I b
Pre- annexation Agreement (Marganta/Sierra Gardens)
Page 3 of 6
Environmental Quality Act), fees, taxes (including Business Tax and Utility Users tax) and
other provisions of the Municipal Code and State laws.
3. AGREEMENT FOR WELL WATER AND CITY SEWER. Once annexed, if
OWNERS propose to use a private well for domestic water supply and a CITY sewer
connection for wastewater disposal, for a commercial activity, OWNERS shall enter into an
agreement with CITY concerning metering and billing for sewer service, including installation
of a meter in compliance with CITY standards.
4. PROPERTY IMPROVEM04TS. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it
shall be the responsibility of the OWNERS to install or pay for improvements and pay fees
which may be required by permit, law, rule, or regulation at that time, or which are required
by the anticipated Margarita Area Specific Plan.
5. SPECIFIC PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE FEES. These fees are the anticipated, net
allocated costs to CITY of specific plan preparation, environmental review, and public
facilities site acquisition and development, excluding facilities expected to be constructed by
OWNERS. The adopted specific plan will identify the amount and time of payment for these
fees. OWNERS agree to pay these fees in the amount and manner provided. (The specific plan
may call for establishment of an assessment district or other benefit district as a method of
financing these costs, instead of or in addition to impact fees collected at the time of
annexation, subdivision, or development; see also part 8 below.)
A. Public Park Dedication and Improvement. Upon obtaining construction permits,
OWNERS shall pay to CITY $5,453.00 per single - family dwelling and $4,298.00 per
multifamily dwelling to be used by CITY for acquisition or development, or both, of park land
within the Margarita Area. These amounts shall be adjusted annually by increases in the U.S.
Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, from March 1998 until construction permits are
issued. If the number or density of dwellings differs in the adopted specific plan, OWNERS
shall pay to CITY or CITY shall refund to OWNERS the appropriate amount based on
$5,453.00 per potential dwelling in the low- density land -use category and $4,298.00 per
potential dwelling in other land -use categories. These amounts represent $2,999 in land costs
and $2,454 in improvement costs per single - family dwelling, and $2,364 in land costs and
$1,934 in improvement costs per multifamily dwelling. If OWNERS dedicate or improve
Pre- annexation Ageement (Margazita/Sierra Gardens)
Page 4 of 6
public park land, or do both, or if OWNERS provide private recreational facilities that serve
public park functions, CITY may grant OWNERS a credit toward the identified park fees. The
amount of any such credit shall be proportional to the park or recreational facilities provided
by OWNERS compared with the total park obligation of OWNERS, according to CITY
policies and based on the population expected to reside in OWNERS' development.
B. Neighborhood Elementary School Site Dedication and Development. Upon annexation,
OWNERS shall pay to CITY $102,980, to be used by CITY for acquisition of a public
elementary school site within the Margarita Area. This amount is based on $610.00 per
potential dwelling in the low -density land -use category and $482 per potential dwelling in the
medium- and medium -high density land use categories, as provided in the April 1998 Draft
Margarita Area Specific Plan. If the number or density of dwellings differs in the adopted
specific plan, OWNERS shall pay to CITY or CITY shall refund to OWNERS the appropriate
amount based on $610.00 per potential dwelling in the low- density land-use category and $482
per potential dwelling in other land -use categories. OWNERS acknowledge that this site -
acquisition fee is separate from and in addition to any impact fee established by the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District. If the school district proposes to establish an assessment or
benefit district to finance construction of the school, OWNERS and their successors agree to
support the formation of such a district. Prior to formation of any such district, OWNERS
shall have the right to comment on the amount and method of cost assessment and to negotiate
with CITY concerning an amendment of this agreement.
6. LAND DEDICATION. Upon recordation of final tract map(s), OWNERS shall dedicate to
CITY creek corridors as delineated m the adopted Margarita Area Specific Plan and as further
defined in approved tentative and final subdivision maps.
7. ZONING IN COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN. PARTIES anticipate that the
subject property will be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation. Upon adoption of
the Margarita Area Specific Plan, CITY shall zone the subject property in conformance with
the specific plan. No additional application fee shall be required of the applicant for that
rezoning.
1-19
Pre- annexation Agreement (Marganta/Sierra Gardens)
Page 5 of 6
8. POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. within the next six to nine months, the City
expects to adopt a finalized specific plan and infrastructure improvement fees, form an
assessment district or other funding mechanism, or implement some combination of funding
mechanisms, to finance certain areawide public improvement costs. OWNERS and their
successors agree to support the formation of such a district or other funding mechanisms. Prior
to formation of any such district, OWNERS shall have the right to comment on the amount and
method of cost assessment and to negotiate with CITY concerning an amendment of this
agreement. Further, OWNERS shall have the option of completing identified improvements,
subject to approval of plans and inspection of work by CITY and with reimbursement by other
benefiting properties if appropriate, rather than funding such improvements through an
assessment district.
9. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the effective
date of the annexation. The agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by
mutual consent of the PARTIES. If the annexation does not become effective for any reason,
this agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect, as if it had never been entered into
by the PARTIES.
10. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be recorded with the
County Recorder and shall bind and inure to the benefit of the successors, heirs, assigns, and
personal representatives of the PARTIES.
11. AMENDMENTS, THE EXTENSION, OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may
be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their
successors in interest.
1 -11
Pre- annexation Agreement (Margarita/Sierra Gardens)
Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis
Obispo, California.
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED.
Include title after typed name if signing as a trustee, business partner, or officer of a corporation.
.@ 11 W _`�
BY:
type name:
BY:
type name:
type name:
BY:
type name:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation
BY:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
Sao
Exhibit B
Property Description
That portion of Lot 30 of the San Leis Obispo Suburban Tract, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State
of California, according to map recorded February 7, 1906 in Book 1, Page 92 of Records of Sruveys, in
the office of the County Recorder of said county, described as follows:
Beginning at stake "S81," at the Northeast corner of said lot, and running on North line of lot, North 89
1i3 degrees West, 4.991!2 chains to a point; thence through said lot, South 0 degrees, 10' Fast, 20.04
chains to center of 30 foot road running along the South side of said lot; thence along centerline of said
lot, Ent 4.991/2 chains to a point; thence taring road, North 0 degrees, 10' West, 15 feet to stake "S 78"
on North side of road, 20.00 chains to the point of beginning.
1 -3n
RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND
WHEN RECORDED RETURN TO:
City of San Luis Obispo
City Clerk's Office
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249
Attachment #4 -B
APN: 076- 331 -015
PRE - ANNEXATION AGREEIIH!,,NT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
JOHN E. SING & CAROLE D. KING
FOR PART OF THE MARGARITA AREA
This annexation agreement is made and entered into this day of . 199
by and between the City of San Luis Obispo, a chartered municipal corporation, (hereinafter
referred to as "CITY ") whose address is 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401;
and John E. King and Carole D. King, whose address is 290 Pismo Street, San Luis Obispo,
California 93401 (hereinafter referred to as "OWNERS"), pursuant to the authority of the City
Charter, and Section 56000 and following sections of the California Government Code. CITY
and OWNERS shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "PARTIES."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, John E. King and Carole D. King are the owners in fee of certain real property in
the County of San Luis Obispo, commonly known as the northwest part of the Margarita Area
and generally indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Vicinity Map (Assessor's Parcel Number
076- 331 -015), and which is fully described in the attached Exhibit B, and referred to herein as
the "subject property ;" and
WHEREAS, the subject property is proposed for annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo
(City File No. 175 -98); and
WHEREAS, the subject property is within the area covered by the Margarita Area Specific
Plan, which CITY is preparing and anticipates adopting within six to nine months; and
WHEREAS, OWNERS desire to be annexed to the City in advance of completion of the
Margarita Area Specific Plan, and in consideration of such early annexation have agreed to
enter into this Pre- annexation Agreement; and
1 -a3
Pre - annexation Agreement (Margarita/King)
Page 2 of 6
WHEREAS, to provide for the City's orderly growth and development, consistent with the
General Plan, the PARTIES anticipate that the subject property will be annexed to the City
pursuant to terms and procedures of the California Goverment Code 56000 and following
sections;
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises, covenants and agreements
stated herein, PARTIES agree as follows:
1. URBAN SERVICES. Upon annexation, the property shall be entitled to the full range of
City services, including but not limited to water and sewer services, police and fire protection,
and general government services, some of which are described below in more detail.
Water Service. CITY agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide water service to the
subject property, as available, for fire - fighting and domestic purposes, subject to the same
laws, rules, regulations, and fees applicable to other new users in the City under similar
circumstances, including but not limited to retrofit requirements. Use of any existing on -site
groundwater wells for potable or non - potable use(s) may continue, provided they meet County
Health Department standards. Use of groundwater for new development will comply with
applicable City policies. Non-potable water may be used for landscape irrigation. If well(s) fail
or are abandoned, OWNERS shall comply with applicable State and County regulations
regarding well abandonment.
Sewer Service. City agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide sanitary sewer service, as
available, to the subject property, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
Fire Protection. City agrees, upon request of OWNERS, to provide fire protection service, as
available, to the subject property, subject to the same laws, rules, regulations, and fees
applicable to other new users in the City under similar circumstances.
2. COMPLIANCE WITH CITY STANDARDS. Once annexed, the property will be subject
to the same rules, regulations, laws, and fees that would be applied to other properties in the
City under similar circumstances including, but not limited to, Subdivision Regulations,
Zoning Regulations, Building Code, Fire Code, environmental regulations (California
I -9e
Pre- annexation Agreement (Ma garim/King)
Page 3 of 6
Environmental Quality Act), fees, taxes (including Business Tax and Utility Users tax) and
other provisions of the Municipal Code and State laws.
3. AGREENIENT FOR WELL WATER AND CITY SEWER. Once . annexed, if
OWNERS propose to use a private well for domestic water supply and a CITY sewer
connection for wastewater disposal, for a commercial activity, OWNERS shall enter into an
agreement with CITY concerning metering and billing for sewer service, including installation
of a meter in compliance with CITY standards.
4. PROPERTY IMPROVEMENT'S. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it
shall be the responsibility of the OWNERS:to install or pay for improvements and pay fees
which may be required by permit, law, rule, or regulation at that time, or which are required
by the anticipated Margarita Area Specific Plan.
5. SPECIFIC PLAN AND INFRASTRUCTURE FEES. These fees are the anticipated, net
allocated costs to CITY of specific plan preparation, environmental review, and public
facilities site acquisition and development, excluding facilities expected to be constructed by
OWNERS. The adopted specific plan will identify the amount and time of payment for these
fees. OWNERS agree to pay these fees in the amount and manner provided. (The specific plan
may call for establishment of an assessment district or other benefit district as a method of
financing these costs, instead of or in addition to impact fees collected at the time of
annexation, subdivision, or development; see also part 8 below.)
A. Public Park Dedication and Improvement. Upon obtaining construction permits,
OWNERS shall pay to CITY $5,453.00 per single - family dwelling and $4,298.00 per
multifamily dwelling to be used by CITY for acquisition or development, or both, of park land
within the Margarita Area. These amounts shall be adjusted annually by increases in the U.S.
Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, from March 1998 until construction permits are
issued. If the number or density of dwellings differs in the adopted specific plan, OWNERS
shall pay to CrfY or CITY shall refund to OWNERS the appropriate amount based on
$5,453.00 per potential dwelling in the low- density land -use category and $4,298.00 per
potential dwelling in other land -use categories. These amounts represent $2,999 in land costs
and $2,454 in improvement costs per single - family dwelling, and $2,364 in land costs and
$1,934 in improvement costs per multifamily dwelling. If OWNERS dedicate or improve
,-as
Pre- annexation Agreement (Margadt vKing)
Page 4 of 6
public park land, or do both, or if OWNERS provide private recreational facilities that serve
public park functions, CITY may grant OWNERS a credit toward the identified park fees. The
amount of any such credit shall be proportional to the park or recreational facilities provided
by OWNERS compared with the total park obligation of OWNERS, according to CITY
policies and based on the population expected to reside in OWNERS' development.
B. Neighborhood Elementary School Site Dedication and Development. Upon annexation,
OWNERS shall pay to CITY $73,200, to be used by CITY for acquisition of a public
elementary school site within the Margarita Area. This amount is based on $610.00 per
potential dwelling in the low -density land -use category, as provided in the April 1998 Draft
Margarita Area Specific Plan. If the number or density of dwellings differs in the adopted
specific plan, OWNERS shall pay to CITY or CITY shall refimd to OWNERS the appropriate
amount based on $610.00 per potential dwelling in the low -density land -use category and $482
per potential dwelling in other land -use categories. OWNERS acknowledge that this site -
acquisition fee is separate from and in addition to any impact fee established by the San Luis
Coastal Unified School District. If the school district proposes to establish an assessment or
benefit district to finance construction of the school, OWNERS and their successors agree to
support the formation of such a district. Prior to formation of any such district, OWNERS
shall have the right to comment on the amount and method of cost assessment and to negotiate
with CITY concerning an amendment of this agreement.
6. LAND DEDICATION. Upon annexation, OWNERS shall dedicate to CITY the land
identified in the April 1998 Draft Margarita Area Specific Plan as "hills open space."
PARTIES anticipate that minor adjustments to the southerly boundary of the hills open space
parcel may subsequently be made with the recordation of a final tract map, in conformance
with the adopted Margarita Area Specific Plan. Upon recordation of final tract map(s),
OWNERS shall dedicate to CITY creek corridors as delineated in the adopted Margarita Area
Specific Plan and as further defined in approved tentative and final subdivision maps.
7. ZONING IN COMPLIANCE WITH SPECIFIC PLAN. PARTIES anticipate that the
subject property will be zoned Conservation/Open Space upon annexation. Upon adoption of
the Margarita Area Specific Plan, CITY shall zone the subject property in conformance with
the specific plan. No additional application fee shall be required of the applicant for that
rezoning.
-a b
Pre- annexation Agreement (Margarita/King)
Page 5 of 6
8. POTENTIAL ASSESSMENT DISTRICT. Within the next six to nine months, the City
expects to adopt a finalized specific plan and infrastructure improvement fees, form an
assessment district or other funding mechanism, or implement some combination of funding
mechanisms, to finance certain areawide public improvement costs. OWNERS and their
successors agree to support the formation of such a district or other funding mechanisms. Prior
to formation of any such district, OWNERS shall have the right to comment on the amount and
method of cost assessment and to negotiate with CITY concerning an amendment of this
agreement. Further, OWNERS shall have the option of completing identified improvements,
subject to approval of plans and inspection of work by CITY and with reimbursement by other
benefiting properties if appropriate, rather than funding such improvements through an
assessment district.
9. TERM OF AGREEMENT. The term of this agreement shall begin upon the effective
date of the annexation. The agreement shall remain in effect until modified or terminated by
mutual consent of the PARTIES. If the annexation does not become effective for any reason,
this agreement shall terminate and have no force and effect, as if it had never been entered into
by the PARTIES.
10. SUCCESSORS, HEIRS, AND ASSIGNS. This agreement shall be recorded with the
County Recorder and shall bind and mare to the benefit of the successors, heirs, assigns, and
personal representatives of the PARTIES.
11. AMENDMENTS, THE EXTENSION, OR CANCELLATION. This agreement may
be amended, extended, or canceled at any time by mutual consent of the PARTIES or their
successors in interest.
-al
Pre - annexation Agreement (MargaritaiKing)
Page 6 of 6
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this agreement is executed on the date above stated at San Luis
Obispo, California.
ALL SIGNATURES MUST BE NOTARIZED.
Include title after typed name if signing as a trustee, business partner, or officer of a corporation.
161`lj►1:i
Fo-w
type name:
BY:
type name:
BY: BY:
type name:
type name:
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation
I"
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
City Attorney Jeff Jorgensen
Mayor Allen Settle
-aT
Exhibit B
Property Description
PARCEL 1:
Lot 31 of the Map of the Subdivisions of a Tract of land adjoining the Town of San Luis
Obispo, the Property of W.L. Beebee and C.H. Phillips surveyed by R.R. Harris, November
1874, partially in the City of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of
California, according to map recorded in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to H.E. McBride in deed dated May 5,
1887 and recorded May 5, 1887 in Book X, Page 58 of Deeds.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion conveyed to the City of San Luis Obispo in deed
recorded November 15, 1974 in Book 1806, Page 315 of Official Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom Lots 1 through 40, Lot A, Stoneridge Drive, Bluerock Drive,
Bluerock Court and Rockview Place as shown upon the map of Tract No. 1150, in the County
of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to map recorded in Book 13, Page 48 of
Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Tract No. 1150 as described in the Gift Deed to
the City of San Luis Obispo recorded April 9, 1993 in Book 4068, Page 185 of Official
Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING Tract No. 2126, in the City of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, as recorded March 21, 1997 in Book 18, Page 1 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County and Certificate of Correction recorded May 8,
1998 as Instrument No. 1998-027041 of Official Records.
All that part of Government lots 3 and 4 and the South 1/2 of the Northwest 1/4 of Section 2
in Township 31 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian, partially in the City
of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis Obispo, State of California, according to the
official plat of the survey of said land approved by the Surveyor General on November 21,
1867, described as follows:
Beginning at the 1/4 section corner between Sections 2 and 35 on the line between Townships
30 and 31 South, Range 12 East, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian and running thence West
between Sections 2 and 35 aforesaid about 30 chains to post R. No. 2; thence South 40.25
chains to a post marked R. No. 1 on the center East and West line of Section 2; thence East
about 30 chains to the center of said Section 2; thence North about 40 chains to the place of
beginning.
EXCEPTING therefrom that portion thereof conveyed to H.E. McBride in deed dated May 5,
1887 and recorded May 5, 1887 in Book X. Page 58 of Deeds.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom that portion of Tract No. 1150 as described in the Gift Deed to
the City of San Luis Obispo recorded April 9, 1993 in Book 4068, Page 185 of Official
Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING therefrom those portions offered for dedication to the City of San Luis
Obispo, in the documents recorded in Book 2881, Page 726 and in Book 2881, Page 730 of
Official Records.
ALSO EXCEPTING Tract No. 2126, in the City of San Luis Obispo, in the County of San Luis
Obispo, State of California, as recorded March 21, 1997 in Book 18, Page 1 of Maps, in the
office of the County Recorder of said County and Certificate of Correction recorded May 8,
1998 as Instrument No. 1998 -027041 of Official Records.
I- SA
CAttachment #5
INITIAL STUDY
ER 175 -98
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: King - DeBlauw Annexation
2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401 -3249
3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner
805 781 -7165
4. Project Location:
The project site is the northwestern part of the Margarita Specific Plan Area, and
extends from the ridge of the South Hills to the area east of Margarita Avenue (Figure
#1).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
John E. King
King Ventures
290 Pismo Street
San Luis Obispo CA 93401
Richard DeBlauw
Sierra Gardens /DeBlauw Construction
411 El Camino Real
Arroyo Grande CA 93420
6. General Plan Designation:
Representative:
David Watson
246 Encanto Ave
Pismo Beach CA 93449
The site is within the urban reserve line. The hills are designated Open Space, while
the gently sloping lower area is designated Residential Neighborhood.
7. Zoning:
Since the site is outside the city limits, City zoning has not been applied. Upon
annexation, the area would be zoned Conservation /Open Space. Upon adoption of the
proposed specific plan, the area would be zoned consistent with that plan
(Conservation /Open Space, Public Facility, Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, and Medium -high Density Residential, all with the Specific Plan overlay
zone).
1-31
8. Description of the Project;
9.A Relationship to Other Environmental Review;
9.6 Project Entitlements Requested:
The subject property is within a residential expansion area that is identified by the
City's General Plan. The City certified an environmental impact report (EIR) for updates
of the General Plan Land Use Element and Circulation Element in 1994. The proposed
action is to bring the land inside the city limits, making it subject to City land use
regulations and eligible for City utilities and services. No change-of use or development
is proposed as part of this action. Under City policy, development of the subject
property cannot begin until a specific plan is adopted. The specific plan will prescribe
land uses, development standards, streets, parks and other public facilities, phasing,
and financing of public facilities in more detail than the General Plan. The forthcoming
EIR will evaluate several alternate features for the specific plan.
The City is preparing the Margarita Area Specific Plan for the site and neighboring land
to the south and east (Figure #1). The City Council has approved a draft of the specific
plan as the project description for an environmental impact report. That EIR is being
prepared in conjunction with work on the Airport Area Specific Plan, which covers land
south of the Margarita Area. Once the Margarita Area Specific Plan is adopted, phased
subdivision and development of the area may proceed, subject to adequate services
being available. The subject property is expected to accommodate about 320 dwellings
out of a total 1,100 dwellings in the specific plan area. The hills and creek corridors
would be dedicated as open space, and streets and utilities would be extended into the
area in accordance with the specific plan.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The approximately 130 -acre site consists of rocky hills and alluvial grazing land, cut by
several seasonal creeks. High - voltage electrical transmission lines run through the
DeBlauw property. To the north is hillside open space dedicated as part of the
Stoneridge project. Mobile home parks and houses are to the west. Land to the east
and south, within the Margarita planning area, is alluvial grazing land with a few ranch
houses.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
Approval of the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) is required for the
annexation. LAFCo staff have indicated that the EIR for the 1994 General Plan update
is adequate for annexing the Margarita Area. Completion of the annexation depends on
the County of San Luis Obispo and the City having a tax - sharing agreement.
The Airport Land Use Commission will review the specific plan. Depending on such
features as wetlands mitigation and the designation of Prado Road as a state highway,
the approval of agencies such as Caltrans, California Fish and Game, and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers may be required for those features of the specific plan.
2
1-3.L
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED:
This project would potentially affect the environmental factors checked below, involving
at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist
on the following pages.
FISH AND GAME FEES:
FThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
9 on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
F-1 The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
3
t -33
Land Use and Planning
Biological Resources
Aesthetics
X
Population and Housing
Energy and Mineral
Resources
Cultural Resources
Geological Problems
Hazards
Recreation
Water
Noise
X
Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality
Public Services
Transportation and
Circulation
Utilities and Service
Systems
FISH AND GAME FEES:
FThere is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
9 on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
F-1 The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment
of Fish and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
3
t -33
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 will not be a significant effect in this case .because the mitigation measures described on
attached sheets will be part of the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be
prepared.
I find that the proposed project may have a significant effect on the environment, and an
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment,
but at least one effect (1) has been adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to
applicable legal standards and (2) has been addressed by mitigation measures based on the
earlier analysis as described on attached sheets, if the effect is a °Potentially Significant Impact'
or is "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is
required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed.
I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment,
there will not be a significant effect in this case because all potentially significant effects (1)
have been analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided
or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are
imposed upon the proposed project.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment,
but (1) the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact
report pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for
X
some potential cumulative impacts and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding
considerations have not previously been made have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that
earlier EIR.
Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director
Printed Name
/�
Date
1- 34
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately
supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the analysis in each section. A"No Impact"
answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does
not apply to projects like the one involved (for example, the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A
"No Impact' answer should be explained where it is based on project- specific factors as well as general
standards (for example, the project will not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on a project -
specific screening analysis).
2. All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including impacts that are off -site as well
as on -site, cumulative as well as project - level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as
operational.
3. "Potentially Significant Impact' is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant.
If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR
is required.
4. "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation
measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant
Impact." The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures, and briefly explain how they reduce
the effect to a less than significant level (mitigation measures from Section 17, "Earlier Analysis," may
be cross - referenced).
5. Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other 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.
6. Lead agencies are encouraged to incorporate into the checklist references to information sources for
potential impacts (such as general plans, zoning ordinances). Reference to a previously prepared or
outside document should, where appropriate, include a reference to the page or pages where the
statement is substantiated. A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals
contacted should be cited in the discussion.
5
� -3S
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentiatly
Potentially
Less Than
Nolmpaa
X
designation, or zoning?
Significant
Significant
Significant
4
]slues
Unless
Impact
X
King - DeBlauw Annexation
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
Mitigation
4
Incorporated
X
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING - Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan
1, 2,
X
designation, or zoning?
3,4
4
X
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
4
X
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity?
d) Affect agricultural resources or operations. (such as
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from
4,16
X
incompatible land uses)?
4
X
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community (including a low- income or
minority community)?
a) General plan & zoning
The General Plan encourages annexation of land within the urban reserve, particularly when
permanent open space protection and affordable housing will result. Development will be subject
to the specific plan, which will be consistent with and help implement the General Plan.
d) Agricultural resources
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. The developable part of
the site is shown as "farmland of local potential," meaning it has some characteristics of prime
land or land of statewide importance but it has not been cultivated.
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
indirectly (for example, through projects in an
1,4
X
undeveloped area or major infrastructure)?
X
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing?
a) The additional resident population enabled by the annexation (about 650) is within the
General Plan's projection, and has been addressed in the EIR on the 1994 Land Use Element
Update.
3. GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal result in or expose people to
potential impacts
involving:
a) Fault rupture?
X
X
b) Seismic ground shaking?
X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction?
X
d) Seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard?
X
e) Landslides or mudflows?
4,7
X
f) Erosion, changes in topography or unstable soil
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
X
g) Subsidence of the land?
X
h) Expansive soils?
X
i) Unique geologic or physical features?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Impacts of eventual
development are adequately addressed by the 1994 EIR and code requirements. The City of San Luis
Obispo is in a seismically active region. Strong ground shaking is expected during the life of
structures, which must comply with seismic design criteria in the Uniform Building Code. No known
faults pass under or close to the site. The site is not subject to landslide, liquefaction, seiche, tsunami,
or volcanic hazards. It does not contain unique features.
1-36
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentib..,
Potentially
I ass liian
No Impact
X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
Significant
Significant
Significant
4, 8, 9
Issues
III
Unless
Impact
X
King - DeBlauw Annexation
such as .flooding?
itigation
ncorporated
Soil erosion and expansive soils are common concerns at construction sites in the San Luis Obispo
area. They are addressed by requirements of the Uniform Building Code.
4. WATER.. Would the proposal result -in:
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the
4
X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
4, 8, 9
X
b) Exposure of people or property to water related hazards
such as .flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (including temperature, dissolved
X
oxygen or turbidity)?
X
d) Changes -in the amount of surface water in any -water
body?
X
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through
4
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception
X
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through
substantial loss of groundwater recharge capability?
X
g) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater?
X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?
X
i) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater
otherwise available for public water supplies?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative drainage
impacts from development were addressed in the EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update.
Development would increase construction- related erosion and the amount of impervious
surfaces. Development will be required to detain peak storm flows, so post - development runoff
will not exceed pre - development conditions. Redirecting some runoff from the area north of El
Camino Estates will prevent overflows of existing culverts, which has been a problem. A
"general construction activity storm water permit" is required for all storm water discharges
associated with construction activity involving five or more acres.
5. AIR QUALITY. Would the proposal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an
existing or projected air quality violation
X
(noncompliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?
4, 10,
X
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants
11
X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or temperature, or cause
any change in climate?
X
d) Create objectionable odors?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
development were addressed in the EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Update. The annexation
would not enable development beyond that anticipated in the County Clean Air Plan.
6. TRANSPORTATION /CIRCULATION. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increased vehicle trips or traffic congestion?
X
b) Hazards to safety from design features (such as sharp
curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses
X
(such as farm equipment)?
X
c) Inadequate general or emergency access?
4,12
X
d) Insufficient parking capacity on -site or off -site?
X
e) Hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists?
r -37
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Somas
po=tiauy
Potentially
Less Than
No impact
transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
Significant
Significant
Significant
5
!=sues
Unless
IMP=
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts .(incompatibility
King - DeBlauw Annexation
Mni gazion
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Eventual development of
the specific plan area will make a substantial contribution to neighorhood and citywide traffic,
as discussed in the 1994 EIR. A key issue for the specific plan is phasing of development in
incorporated
The type of residential development intended for the annexation area is compatible according to
the Airport Land Use Plan. Issues remain to be resolved for build -out of the specific plan area,
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative
X
transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
5
X
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts .(incompatibility
with Airport Land Use Plan)?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Eventual development of
the specific plan area will make a substantial contribution to neighorhood and citywide traffic,
as discussed in the 1994 EIR. A key issue for the specific plan is phasing of development in
relation to road improvements.
The type of residential development intended for the annexation area is compatible according to
the Airport Land Use Plan. Issues remain to be resolved for build -out of the specific plan area,
since both the draft specific plan and the Airport Land Use Plan are being revised.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal affect:
a) Endangered, threatened or rare species or their habitats
X
(including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)?
X
b) Locally designated species (such as heritage trees)?
X
c) Locally designated natural communities (such as oak
4
forest, coastal habitat)?
X
d) Wetland habitat (marsh, riparian and vernal pool)?
X
e) Wildlife dispersal or migration corridors?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. City policies and
standards for creeks and wetlands protection will apply.
8. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans?
X
X
b) Use non - renewable resources in a wasteful and
inefficient manner?
4
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?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone.
9. HAZARDS. Would the proposal involve:
a) A risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous
substances (including oil, pesticides, chemicals or
X
radiation)?
X
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan
or emergency evacuation plan?
X
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health
4
hazard?
X
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of potential
health hazards?
X
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush,
grass or trees?
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
10. NOISE. Would the proposal result in:
a) Increase in existing noise levels?
X
b) Exposure of people to "unacceptable" noise levels as
4,14
defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise
X
Element?
1-38
Issues and Supporting Information Sources
Sources
Potentia„y
Potentially
Less Tban
No Impact
X
Significant
Significant
Signi& ant
X
X
Impact
Kin DeBlauw Annexation
9 '
X
Mitigation
Mines
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal resuk in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
Incorporated
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal have an effect upon, or result in a need for new or akered
.government services in any of -the following areas:
a) Fire. protection?
b) Police protection?
c) Schools?
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including roads?
e). Other governmental services?
4
X
X
X
X
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal resuk in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas?
b) Communications systems?
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution
facilities?
d) Sewer or septic tanks?
e) Storm water drainage?
f) Solid waste disposal?
g) Local or regional water supplies?
4
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
13. AESTHETICS. Would the proposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway?
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect?
c) Create light or glare?
4
X
X
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
14. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources?
b) Disturb archaeological resources?
c) Affect historical resources?
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which
would affect unique ethnic cultural values?
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the
potential impact area?
4
X
X
X
X
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
15. RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks
or other recreational facilities?
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities?
4
X
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR. Park demands will be mitigated by
dedication and improvement of parks.
l -39
Issues and Supporting Information ziources
Sources
Potentially
Potentially
Less Than
NolmpaeC
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
Significant
Significant
Significant
habitat of a. fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
Issues
Impact
King - DeBlauw Annexation
wildlife population to drop -below self - sustaining levels,
N;�
st on
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the,
quality of the environment, substantially reduce the
habitat of a. fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or
wildlife population to drop -below self - sustaining levels,
threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,
X
reduce the number or restrict the.range of a rare or
endangered plant or animal or eliminate important
examples of the major periods of California.history.or
prehistory?
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short-
term, to the disadvantage of tong -term, environmental
X
goals?
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually
limited, but cumulatively considerable? ( "Cumulatively
considerable" means that the incremental effects of a
project are considerable when viewed in connection
4
X
with the effects of the past projects, the effects of
other current projects, and the effects of probable
future projects)
More intense development under City jurisdiction does have a potential to cumulatively degrade
the quality of the environment, despite City policies and standards. This issue was addressed by
making findings of overriding considerations when the 1994 EIR was certified.
d) Does the project have environmental effects which will
cause substantial adverse effects on human beings,
X
either directly or indirectly?
10
/ -Slb
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to thetiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). In this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a) Earlier analysis used_. Identify earlier analyses and state .where they are available for review.
All of the annexation area is covered by the City's General Plan Land use Element and Circulation
Element, which were comprehensively revised in 1994. A final EIR for those updates was
prepared in 1994. That EIR is available at the City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401.
b) Impacts adequately addressed. Identify which effects from the above checklist were within the scope
of and adequately analyzed in an earlier document pursuant to applicable legal standards, and state
whether such effects were addressed by mitigation measures based on the earlier analysis.
Status in Land Use Element/
Topic Circulation Element Updates EIR - -
---------- -- ---- - ----------------
1. Land Use and Planning, : Agricultural land conversion significant, adverse: overriding
including agricultural land : consideration
- ° +-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Population and Housing Further imbalance in workers compared with residents: overriding
i consideration (The annexation area would have a beneficial impact since
- - : it is exclusively residential.]
+-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Geologic Problems No particular impacts for annex-
- - + ation area; routine mitigation through development review
-------- ----------------
4_ Water Runoff contamination: mitigated by creek buffers in annexations
-- - ----- ----- - - - -- ------ ----------- ----------------
5. Air Quality : Construction air pollution: miti-
gated through development review
- -- -- ------ ----------- --- - - - -- +- -- --- ----
6. Transportation /Circulation : Cumulatively, traffic on most arterial streets and their intersections
would have unacceptable levels of service, unless unacceptable street
widenings are done: overriding consideration
------------------------- ----- -- ------ - +------ --- ---- --- --
7. Biological Resources : Impacts will not be significant with CEQA review and code compliance
at the level of development projects
- ---
------------------------------------ -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Energy & Mineral Resources : No impacts
- -- - ------------------ ---------� --- --------- -----9 ---------------- -- ---------- ------- ------- - - - --- -------------------
9. Hazards : Impacts not significant with CEQA review and code compliance at the
level of development projects
- °- - --- --- - -- +- ------------------------ --- ------- --- -- ----------- - - ---- ------------------------------
10. Noise : Construction - generated noise and residential exposure to traffic noise:
impacts will not be significant with CEQA review and code compliance
at the level of development projects
- - --------- ----------- -- -------------------
11. Pubiic Services : Cumulative impacts on transit, police and fire protection, water, sewer,
general government, and schools: mitigated by code requirements,
impacts fees and /or special assessments, and various program- changes
- -- +.... -- -------------------------- --------- ------- --------- - -- --- - -
12Ut_il_it_ie_s__ &__S_e__rv__i_c_e Systems :See P_ubli_c_ Services _ _ _ _
t .. .
13. Aesthetics : Cumulative change from rural to urban character: overriding
consideration
----- --- ------------------------------- - -- — -- --- -- ------- ---- -- - --------- - -------------------------------------------------
14. Cultural Resources : Impacts will not be significant with policies added to General Plan, plus
CEQA review and code compliance at the level of development projects
---------------------------------------•-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
15. Recreation : No significant impacts to park land availability
101
c) Mitigation measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated,." describe
the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to
which they address site - specific conditions of the project.
Several of the impacts of development that is consistent with the 1994 Land Use Element
update are mitigated by policies and programs included in the updated element. Since the
previous EIR was certified, the City has made progress on standard mitigation measures for the
following impact topic areas, which apply to all development under City jurisdiction.
Biological Resources - Wildlife Habitats - Riparian: Creek setbacks standards added to Zoning
Regulations.
Cultural Resources: Archaeological Resource Preservation Guidelines adopted.
Noise Exposure and secondary impacts of noise potential mitigation measures (sound walls) -
Noise Element update and Noise Guidebook adopted.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087. .
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino,. 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988); Leonofff v.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1.
General Plan Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 (as amended through May
1998.
2.
General Plan Open Space Element, City of San Luis Obispo, January 1994 (as amended through
November 1997).
3.
Zoning Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February 1997.
4.
Final Environmental Impact Report: 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates, City
of San Luis Obispo, August 1994.
5.
Airport Land Use Plan, S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Commission, 1973 (as amended in 1977).
6.
General Plan Seismic Safety Element, City of San Luis Obispo, 1975 and update in progress.
7.
Uniform Building Code, International Conference of Building Officials, 1994, as amended by the
Sate of California and the City of San Luis Obispo.
8.
"Flood Insurance Rate Map," panel 060304 0625 C, July 1985, and panel 060310 0005 C, July
1981, Federal Emergency Management Agency,.
9.
Flood Damage Prevention Regulations, City of San Luis Obispo, February, 1997.
10.
CEQA Air Quality Handbook, San Luis Obispo County Air Pollution Control District, 1995
11.
San Luis Obispo County Clean Air Plan, S.L.O. County Air Pollution Control District, 1995.
12.
General Plan Circulation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, November 1994 (as amended through
July 1997).
13.
General Plan Energy Conservation Element, City of San Luis Obispo, April 1981 (as amended
through March 1982).
14.
General Plan Noise Element, City of San Luis Obispo, May 1996.
15.
Historic and archaeological resource maps, City of San Luis Obispo Community Development
Department, various dates.
16.
San Luis Obispo County Important Farmland 1996 (map), California Department of Conservation.
19. MITIGATION MEASURES & MITIGATION MONITORING
No mitigation measures are proposed as part of this environmental study. City zoning and a pre- annexation
agreement with the land owners will assure that development in the annexed territory will be subject to
mitigation measures approved by the City when the EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan is certified.
12
/ -4z
ILL
2,A
W€
t
C
G
a!
I
8 '`7
QZ g
o �
O
Figure t
® ' 7
co
a
Q
s
ffl
1
C
U
i
K 11
1 �
I III
r
I -445