HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/1989, 4 - APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S DETERMINATION GRANTING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITGATIONS FOR THE PROP MEETING DATE:
1111ialoilpall i city of San WIS OBISp0 2-21-89
ON& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT ITBA NUMBER
FROM Michael Multari, Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Appeal of the Director's determination granting a Negative Declaration with
mitgations for the proposed Stoneridge II pre-zoning, general plan
amendment annexation, and preliminary development plan.
CAO RECOMMENDATION: Deny the appeal and uphold the Negative Declaration.
Summary
John King has applied for the second phase of the "Stoneridge" development; this second
phase involves a planned development, general plan amendment and minor annexation. The
proposal referred to as "Stoneridge II" involves the development of 65 residential units
on about 10 acres inside the urban reserve, and the concurrent dedication of about 50
acres in the South Street Hills as open space.
In September the staff approved a Negative Declaration with mitigations for this
proposal. The Negative Declaration was appealed by Don Smith, who expressed concern with
the possible impacts of the project on the city's water supply and indicated that a
focused EIR should be prepared to address this issue. In this case, the appeal of the
environmental determination is heard by the City Council because the Council will make
the final decision on the proposal itself.
At that time, I interpreted the city's environmental regulations to say that this type of
appeal should be heard at the same time that the proposal itself is considered by the
City Council. Since then, I have concluded that the regulations intend that this kind of
appeal should be heard prior.to consideration of the proposal itself. (We will clarify
this ambiguity for the future.)
In this case, because the project had progressed so far in the review process already,
staff recommended to the Planning Commission that the environmental appeal should be
considered with the project itself so that the Council could review both related items
together. However, the Commission was uncomfortable with this approach and voted
unanimously to postpone further analysis of the project until the environmental appeal
was heard by the Council.
It is important to emphasize that the issue of the appeal is not whether the annexation
is timely or whether it should be approved or not. The appeal is strictly on whether or
not a focused EIR covering this project's impacts on overall water supply should be
prepared. Review of the project and its merits will return to the Council at a later
date.
For the various reasons discussed further in the staff report, staff recommends that the
Negative Declaration be upheld.
Significant Imnacts
Since the decision is simply whether a focused EIR needs to be prepared, no impacts
related to this item are expected at this time.
Conseauences of Not Taking the Recommended Action
If Council upholds the appeal, a focused EIR on the water supply impacts of this project
would be required. The costs of this report would have to borne by the applicant.
Further processing of the project would be postponed until the focused EIR is completed.
i
11111141,1111 city of san pais osispo
0096 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Environmental Appeal
Page 2 --�
Background/Discussion
1. Process. When staff receives an application for any development proposal (except
certain minor ones which are exempt), an initial study of potential environmental impacts
is prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's
own environmental regulations.
If the staff determines that no significant environmental impacts are likely, they may
approve a "negative declaration". In cases where staff finds that there might be
significant environmental impacts, but that with certain changes to the project these can
be eliminated or reduced to non-significant levels, they may approve a "negative
declaration with mitigations". The applicant must agree to incorporate the mitigations
into the project.
If necessary, staff can require the applicant to submit more information than normally
necessary for an application so that identified impact areas can be further analyzed. A
common example is a project-specific traffic analysis which becomes an addendum to the
initial study. This procedure is called an "expanded initial study".
If the staff finds that there may be significant environmental impacts which might not be
mitigated by changes to the project, then an Environmental Impact Report is required.
The EIR can be "focused" to cover the particular area of concern.
All staff decisions to approve Negative Declarations are published in the newspaper and
people have 10 days to appeal that decision. Further, at anytime until the final action,
individuals may appeal the granting of a Negative Declaration.
The purpose of appealing the Negative Declaration is to require an EIR. The purpose of
an EIR is to provide decision-makers with information about environmental effects, so
that impacts on the environment are avoided or reduced. An EIR also provides an extended
public forum for discussion about the potential environmental consequences of an action.
As explained in my memo to the Planning Commission, I interpreted the regulations to mean
that all such-appeals are heard at the time the project itself is considered. I now
believe that the regulations intend that appeals filed within the first 10 days should be
heard as soon as possible, independent of the project itself; and, that appeals filed
after the first 10 days should be heard concurrently with the project itself.
In this case, the appeal was filed within 10 days of the decision, so it may be heard
prior to and independent from the project consideration. In my memo to the Planning
Commission, I recommended concurrent processing as the best approach because the proposal
had proceeded so far through the review prosess. The Commission, however, was
uncomfortable making a recommendation on the project without the environmental appeal
settled by the Council.
Thus, the appeal of the Negative Declaration is before the Council, now, separate from
the issue as to whether or not the project itself is timely or should be approved. The
question before you is whether a focused EIR is required.
11111moir l city of San as osIspo
WNG& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Environmental Appeal
Page 3
2. Issues. The appeal statement is attached. In it, Mr. Smith feels that this project
will have a significant cumulative impact on the city's water supply. He also feels that
existing lots in the city should have a "superior right" to water allocations over any
newly annexed land. He also raises several questions about the city's calculation of
safe annual yield, which he feels has been significantly underestimated primarily because
of two factors, incorrect assumptions about the minimum pool and downstream releases.
First, it should be pointed out that a preference that existing lots have a superior
right to newly annexed lots in terms of water allocations is essentially a policy
determination and not directly related to the need for an EIR.
The question of cumulative impacts because of incorrect information about the safe annual
yield, on which the staff's analysis of the significance of the environmental impact was
based, is the focus of the appeal.
Again, please keep in mind that the issue at hand is not whether the project should be
approved, but whether an EIR is necessary.
Staff felt that the potential impact from this proposal in terms of long term water
supply was not significant for several reasons:
1. The projected demand for the project is about 23 acre feet or about .003 of the
then-current SAY estimate and about .0028 of the current use. This increment is
very small and probably not significant in itself.
2. A mitigation is proposed to require water conserving landscaping and irrigation;
thus, actual water demand will be even lower than the estimate noted above
without this mitigation.
3. The annexation does not in itself approve any water use but only makes the area
eligible for water like other city lots. If there are water restrictions,
either long- or short-term, the annexed area would be subject to them. (This is
analogous to approving tentative tract maps within the city; by doing so, the
city does not commit to issuing building permits if water-related restrictions
are necessary later on.)
4. The Water Management Element and its EIR as well as the Water Allocation
Ordinance and its EIR all address cumulative impacts from incremental increases
up to and beyond the SAY. They, along with the Annual Operations Plan, set up
safeguards to make sure that unacceptable increases due to new development do
not occur. This project, if it were approved, would be subject to the policies
and limitations built into the Water Element, Allocation Ordinance and Annual
Operations Plan.
5. The Council adopted minor annexation policies last summer, and an attendant
Negative Declaration (which referenced the Water Element and its EIR). These
policies spell out the way minor annexation requests such as this should be
handled. In adopting these policies, the Council evaluated, in general terms,
the environmental risk of considering minor annexations.
11XQIIIIJJ!,W J city of san Lids osispo
Ms COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Environmental Appeal
Page 4 r
Besides the arguments listed above, there is another reason why a focused EIR does not
seem necessary. The questions raised by Mr. Smith were important ones, which he
addressed to the Council in other contexts. In response to these questions, at least in
part, the Council retained a consultant, Leedshill-Herkenhoff, to evaluate SAY.
The report of the consultant was recently presented to the Council. Thus, it is not
clear that a focused EIR on cumulative impacts on water supply relative to the SAY
calculation would be very much different from the consultant report just completed. The
Council may want to reference this report in the initial study if a separate EIR is
deemed not useful.
The consultant's report, as you may recall, did conclude that our SAY estimate was
reasonable, and that with some improvements to the Whale Rock operations, should even be
increased. There was some debate about the consultant's conclusions and caution about
their implications. But, again, in terms of the case at hand, it does not seem that
another report on SAY (which would, I assume, be the thrust of a focused EIR) is
necessary.
3. Consequences of arantins the appeal. If the Council still feels that significant
environmental impacts may result from the project, the appeal should be granted and a
focused EIR will be required. The EIR would cover cumulative impacts on water supply,
alternatives to the proposal, and recommend mitigations if the impacts are found to be
significant.
The EIR would be prepared at the applicant's expense. The EIR would likely take several
months to prepare (the work would need to be bid out) and to circulate for comments.
Further processing of the proposal would be postponed until the EIR is complete.
When the EIR is done, the proposal would return to the Planning Commission for
recommendation and then on to the City Council for final action.
4 Consenuences of denvina the appeal If the appeal is denied, the Negative Declaration
would stand. The proposal would return to the Planning Commission for recommendation on
the project itself. Numerous issues need to be discussed including drainage, aesthetics,
density, impacts on neighbors, circulation, timeliness, and compliance with the minor
annexation policies.
Council might recall that under the minor annexation policies, a proposal which does not
supply its own water (or conserve in existing development twice the estimated demand of
the new project) should be denied unless it provides such significant public benefits
that the incremental increase in water demand is outweighed.
In this case, no onsite water or offsetting conservation is proposed. The significant
public benefit suggested as warranting annexation now is dedication in fee of about 50
acres of open space. Determining if this benefit is worth annexation at this time will
be, in many ways, the crux of the decision about this proposal. i
o'1111IQpWl§ city of san Luis osispo
MIGe COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Environmental Appeal
Page 5
Alternatives
1. The Council may grant the appeal and require a focused EIR to be prepared before the
project continues further in the review process.
2. The Council may deny the appeal, in which case the project will return to the
Planning Commission for recommendation on the merits of the proposal itself.
3. The Council may continue the appeal; if this item is continued, Council should
indicate what additional information or analysis is needed to reach a decision.
Resolutions for options (1) and (2) are attached.
Recommendation
Deny the appeal and uphold the Negative Declaration.
Attachments: ppeal statement by Don Smith
Initial Study (Negative Declaration with Mitigations)
Director's memo to PC on processing options
Draft resolutions
Vicinity map"and project site plan
mm/appeal
I
0
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO DENYING
AN APPEAL OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL
F A NEGATIVE DECLARATION WITH MITIGATIONS FOR A MINOR
ANNEXATION ("STONERIDGE II") (ER 62-87)
WHEREAS, the Community Development Director did approve a Negative Declaration with
Mitigations for a proposal for a PD, General Plan Amendment and Minor Annexation for
property located at the terminus of Stoneridge Drive (referred to as "Stoneridge II")
(case no. ER 62-87); and
WHEREAS, Don Smith appealed said approval because of concerns about the significance
of the cumulative impacts on the City's water supply; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did conduct a Public Hearing on said appeal on February 21,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did find that based on the Initial Study, Public Testimony
and Staff Report (including the reports referenced therein) no significant environmental
impact would likely occur from the proposal.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The appeal is hereby denied and the Negative Declaration with mitigations
is affirmed.
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call vote: ,
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
r
Resolution No.
Page 2
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of February, 1989.
Mayor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk -
APPROVED:
City A inistrative Officer
�y}c.City Atto ey
Community Development Director
i
' RESOLUTION NO.
C
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUISOBISPO GRANTING AN APP
OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S APPROVAL OF A NEGATIVE DECLARA
WITH MITIGATIONS FOR A MINOR ANNEXATION ("STONERIDGE II") (ER 62-87) AND
REQUIRING A FOCUSED EIR
WHEREAS, the Community Development.Director did approve a Negative Declaration with
Mitigations for a proposal for a.PD, General Plan Amendment and Minor Annexation for
property located at the terminus of Stoneridge Drive (referred to as "Stoneridge II")
(case no. ER 62-87); and
WHEREAS, Don Smith appealed said approval because of concerns about the significance
of the cumulative impacts on the City's water supply; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did conduct a Public Hearing on said appeal on February 21,
1989; and
WHEREAS, the City Council did find that based on the Initial Study, Public Testimony,
Appeal Statement and Staff Report significant environmental impacts may occur from the
proposal related to cumulative effects on the City's water supply.
NOW, THEREFORE, the council resolves as follows:
SECTION 1. The appeal is hereby granted and an Environmental Impact Report is
required, focused on the cumulative impacts of the proposal on water supply._
On motion of seconded by and on the
following roll call voter
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
V o
Resolution No.
Page 2 J
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this 21st day of February, 1989.
Mayor, Ron Dunin
ATTEST:
City Clerk
APPROVED:
C#Ainistrative Officer
�ity Atto ey
Community Development Director
a
® Oct . 10 , 1988
Vi
111 Vista Lago
San Luis Obispo, Ca .
93401
O Mr. Michael Multari , Director
Community Development
City of San Luis Obispo
990 Palm St .
San Luis Obispo, Ca . 93401
Subject: Appeal of Negative Declaration for Annexation of 56 . 24 acres ,
500 Stoneridge Drive, ER 62-87 .
Dear Mr. Multari ,
I am appealing this env4ronmental negative declaration because
of the dangerous and very damaging cumulative impact of this annexation
and other developments on the city ' s water supply , and because other
infill projects should have a superior right to any water which might
be available for development . The city admits that its water supply
is at least l0% overdrafted ( 110% total) , and water rationing will be
needed to reduce water consumption by 50% starting next spring unless
we have more than normal rainfall this winter; so that the reservoirs
will be less apt to run dry within two years .
If the rainfall is not greater than normal this winter and n^xt
winter, then will the city ration then be only 25% of normal water use?
And if the rainfall is only normal a fifth winter, then will the city
have to go to 15% ration? Are these severe and dangerous environmental
and economic impacts? How would you handle them?
What happened to the City ' s water supply that was supposed to
last through a 6.6 year drought with out rationing? (We had a 6.6
year drought in the- 1945-1951 time period, which is the basis of the
safe annual yield calculations. )
Isn' t the city already overdrafting its water supply by about 150%,
including wells , as can be shown by three independent means of analysis ,
using data from the last four drought periods?
Doesn' t data from this current mild drought, with normal rainfall ,
indicate that the city ' s water supply will only last about 4 .4 years
without rationing , and with wells; while it is supposed to last
6.6 years? Doesn' t this indicate that the city has only 2/3
enough water to service exi.sting development without rationing?
Doesn ' t this mean that the city 's water supply is being overdrafted by
a factcx of 3/2 , or 150%. Doesn' t this mean that the city has
allowed 50% more development than it has water to serve it without
rationing?
In a second check of the safe annual yield, can ' t it be shown
that the overdraft is 150% if the city ' s 13 year old safe annual
yield report is corrected and updated to reflect two factors as
follows? a) a minimum pool must be left in the bottom of the
reservoirs, and b) the down stream releases to Atascadero, Paso Rcbles ,
and Montery County are about 1600. acre feet per year more in drought
years, than assumed in the safe annual yield report? Doesn' t this
extra down stream release mean that the equivalent of another city
of 8000 people is using the water supply assumed to be available
to San Luis Obispo?
In a third check of the safe annual yield, can ' t it be shown
that the overdraft is greater than 150% because the Salinas Reservoir
Ck has not been" nearly as effective in storing water in drought years
for San Luis Obispo, compared to what was assumed in the 13 year
old safe annual yield study? A O
Sincerely ,
794
Donald I . Smith �
CODV t0 C.C.
DATA ON SALINAS RESERVOIR PRODUCTIVITY IN FOUR PERIODS OF DROUGHT
I. 6 dry winters, 7 summers (1945-1951) (From Salinas Pam "Water Sipply Yield Study, 1975
Water- INFLOW TO STCRAGE RELEASE D(7-11 Ratio,
years AC.FT. AC. FT. FTRF.+M,Ac. Ft. Av. Storage/Release
(Jun-Jul)
1945-46 7214 6970. 244.
1946-47 3880 3455. 425-
190-48 857 331. 526.
1948-49 3757 3172. 585.
1949-50 6993 6541. 452.
195C-51 1.544 1346. 198.
TOTALS 24245 21815. 2430.
Average 4C4.1. 3636. 405. 9/1
II: 3 dry winters, 4 summers (1958-1961 (From Salinas Dam "Water Supply Yield Study, 1975
Water . Inflow To RELEASE DOWN
Years Storage STREAM.
1958-59 3106. 204. 702
59-60 3663 2942. 721
6Q41 963 777
TOTALS 7732 5532. 2200
2577 1844 733 2.5/1
III. 2 dry winters, 3 summers (1975-77) (County Reports, Oct.-pep)
1975-76 996. 234. 762.
1976-77 1049 24 1024
TOTALS 2045 2518. 1787.
Average 1022 129 893. •14/1
IV. Drou6ht of 1986, 87, 88 ?) To date, 2 dry winters, 3 summers (County Reports (July-J»n
1986-87 2776 731• 2045
1987-88 486 15C4. 1982
TOTALS o2 2. 2235. 4027
Average 3131. 1117 2C13 .55/1
SUMMARY: SLO City's Salinas Reservoir Safe annual yield is based on down stream
reltses averaging 405. Acre Feet per year which is supposed to leave the
city a safe annual yield of 4800 Acre feet per year (including siltation).
But in the present drought, County Engineering Department has released
an average of 2013 acre feet per year down stream, with large volumes
going into Monterey County in Feb. 1968. How much does this change the
safe annual yield of the reservoir for San Luis Obispo? Why, and to what
extent has the County changed it 's down stream release policies in the
last 15 years: What are the State authorizations in that respect?
s e qe
city o� san tins oBispo "
INITIAL STUDY 'OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
SITELOCATION Drive APPucA-nONNO.ER 62-87
PROJECT DESCRIPTIONtf of 56.24 acres adjacent to the city limits at the end of
Anne-maStoneridge Drive, plus a general plan amendment and prezoning of the DroRgzx c0
Low-density resident'al and Conservation/Open Space (See attached description).
APPLICANT
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
V NEGATIVE DECLARATION X MITIGATION INCLUDED
EXPANDED INITIAL STUDY REQUIRED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT REQUIRED
PREPARED BY Judith Lautner, Associate Planner DATE Rept PmhPr 71 , 19R
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR'S ACTION:
DATE 9/28/88
Negative declaration with mitigation included
SUMMARY OF INITIAL STUDY FINDINGS
I.DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
U.POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW POSSIBLE ADVERSE EFFECTS
A. COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS ....................... NOW
S. POPULATION DISTRIBUTION AND GROWTH.......................................... NONE
C. LAND USE ..........................................................................
NONE
D. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION :............................................... NONE*
E. PUBLIC SERVICES ..........................................._..................... ..
F. UTILITIES........... ........................._........................... —
NON
G. NOISE LEVELS ............... ...................... NONE -
H. GEOLOGIC&SEISMIC HAZARDS 3 TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS ...................... NONE
1. AIR QUALITY AND WIND CONDITIONS................................................ NONE.
J. SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY .................. NONF*
K. PLANT LIFE_........................................................................ NONE*
L ANIMAL LIFE,......................................................:.....,.........
NONE*
M. ARCHAEOLOGICAL/HISTORICAL ................................................... NONF
N. AESTHETIC .................... ..................................................
NONE*
O. ENERGYIRESOURCEUSE ........................................................... NnNF*
_ P. OTHER .... ..........._.......................................
111.STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Negative declaration of environmental impact, with mitigation.
sees
'SEE ATTACHED REPORT '/�
ER 62-87 •
Page 2
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
The owner of property at the end of Stoneridge Drive, adjacent to the city limits, wants
to develop 65 dwelling units on a portion of the property. The project includes:
1. A general plan amendment and prezoning that would change the general plan designation
of an 8.7-acre area adjacent to the city limits, from Interim Conservation/Open Space
to Low-density Residential and prezone the property to R-I-PD, low density
residential with a planned development. The amendment would also prezone the
adjacent 47.5 acres of hillside land (a portion of the South Street Hills) to C/OS, a
conservation/open space zone consistent with the existing general plan designation.
The amendment includes modifying the development limit line (DLL) to coincide with
the 325' elevation throughout the property. Currently, the line is coincidental with
this elevation, except for where it intersects with an imaginary extension of Meadow
Street, affecting a portion of one lot in the subdivision.
The prezoning request, for a "planned development" prezoning, includes a development
plan. The plan is to develop 65 units on 8.72 acres' for an overall density of 7.45
units per gross acre, or 9.25 units per net (minus streets) acre. The planned
development application; therefore, includes a requestfor a density exception. Such
an increase may be granted by the council if one of several specific findings are
made for the development plan. The city requires prezoning for all property
requested for annexation to the city.
2. Annexation of a total of 56.24 acres of land adjacent to the city limits on two sides
(north and east). By the city's land use element criteria, the annexation is
considered "minor'.
The site and grading plans and developers' statement further describe the project, and
are included in this description by reference.
POTENTIAL IMPACT REVIEW
COMMUNITY PLANS AND GOALS
General plan elements:
LAND USE:
The policy sections that most pertain to this development are-annexation policies and
hillside planning standards.
I/�
ER 62-87
Page 3
ANNEXATION POLICIES (Section C.l.c)
Policy: A minor annexation area shall be contiguous to existing developed land
within the city.
Analysis: The Stoneridge II annexation area is contiguous to existing developed land
within the city.
Policy: The area shall be located outside the major expansion areas shown on the
Land Use Element map:
Analysis: It is.
Policy: The area shall accomodate no more than twenty-five acres for urban
development...Urban development areas must be contiguous to existing developed land
within.the city.
Analvsis: The total area involved in the annexation is about 56 acres. The area
intended for urban use is less than nine acres. This nine-acre portion is next to
existing developed land on both sides (north and east) where it touches the city
limits.
Policy: The area shall enable urban development in accord with applicable hillside
planning criteria.
Analysis: Hillside standards consistency is discussed below.
Policy: The area shall include the preservation of permanent open space equal to at
least four times the amount of developed area proposed to be annexed—This open
space area may be provided within the annexed territory or in other areas consistent
with the land use element map; and shall be secured by dedication of fee title or
perpetual easement.
Analysis: The proposed open space area amounts to over 47 acres, or 5.8 times the
amount of developed area. It is to be dedicated in fee to the city. The council.
will determine if the location and amount of open space area is adequate, or if more
will be required.
Policy: The area shall avoid increased demand for city water supplies, either by
using an on-site water source or by providing water use reductions within existing
developed city areas equal to twice the amount of water used by proposed development
within the area to be annexed.
Analysis: The project's applicants do not propose; any method for avoiding increased
demand for water. The element goes on to say that the council may exempt an
annexation proposal from meeting some of the policies if certain criteria are met.
The applicants are asking the council to exempt the proposal from meeting the water
requirement by determining that the annexation will provide compensating public
benefits that outweigh the inability to meet the water requirement. The applicants
are offering:
ER 62-87
Page 4
' An open space in-fee dedication that would extend to the ridge line of the South
Street Hills..
' Drainage improvements that would lessen continuing problems for the Lawrence
Drive neighborhood.
' An improved trail system and viewing platform.
Mitigation measure: The council must determine if these benefits offset the concern
regarding water. If the city has adopted a development moratorium based on limited
water, according to the annexation policies the, annexation shall not be approved.
HILLSIDE PLANNING STANDARDS (Section D.3 and D.4.g)
The Hillside Planning Policies and Standards section of the Land Use Element sets out
"general" standards for all hillside areas and specific standards for each "planning
area". The area included in the annexation proposal is part of the "Stoneridge"
planning area.
Policies that relate to this development are:
Poli • The urban reserve line (URL) is the extent of city utilities and urban
development around the city...All building sites must be located totally within the
urban reserve line.
Analysis: In this area (north of the airport area), the "development limit line"
(DLL) serves the same purpose as the URL. The development proposal meets this
standard, except for one lot at the far end of Stoneridge Drive. The request
includes adjusting the DLL to allow development.on this one lot. If the request is
approved. the standard will be met. If it is denied, the lot will not be developable
as designed. No mitigation measures are necessary.
Policy: When this section designates all or a portion of a planning area as a
"sensitive site" ..., the plans for development shall require the approval of the
Architectual Review Commission. Housing plans shall be reviewed according to
identified criteria. The Stoneridge Planning Area policy section says that sensitive
sites are those that are included in the "residentially-designated area west of the
end of Lawrence Drive".
Analysis: There is no "residentially-designated" land west of Lawrence Drive on the
current land use element map, although there was at the time the hillside standards
were adopted. The proposal does not include residential uses for land west of the
end of Lawrence Drive. The developable portion ends adjacent to the end of Lawrence
Drive. Therefore, the hillside standards for housing design are not required for
this area. The council may designate all of the sites "sensitive sites" and require
consistency with the hillside planning standards as part of the approval of the
planned development prezoning for the site, if it determines these standards are
appropriate for the development. Staff determined that it was not necessary to
evaluate the design of the subdivision and housing for its consistency with hillside
housing criteria at this time.
_J
' 1
ER 62-87
Page 5
G
Policy: Prior to or concurrent with any further subdivision or development of
commonly held land inside the urban reserve, the city will require that land beyond
the urban reserve be secured as permanent open space....
It is an objective of the city to encourage the preservation of scenic hillside areas
beyond the urban Reserve Line...
Analysis: The offer to dedicate open space up to the ridge line is consistent with
the policy.
OPEN SPACE ELEMENT
The Open Space Element defines the South Street Hills as "scenic open space" worthy
of preservation. The annexation area includes a portion of these hills. The Open
Space Element maps are small in scale, so an accurate determination of boundaries
cannot be made. However, it appears that the area proposed for development is not
included in the "scenic open space" area.
The proposal, including the dedication of land extending to the ridgeline as open
space, appears to be consistent with the open space element policies.
ENERGY CONSERVATION ELEMENT
i Policy: The Energy Conservation Element says that in new residential subdivisions,
the longest dimension of each lot should be oriented within 30 degrees of south;
unless the subdivider demonstrates sufficient reason for exceptions.
Analvsis: The proposed subdivision doesn't meet this requirement. The lots adjacent
to the Lawrence Drive lots are oriented perfectly to take advantage of solar
radiation. The remainder of the lots will be shaded by the hillside much of the
time; and are not ideally located. However, the size of the subdivision and the
existing orientation of the surrounding streets and lots preclude a more desirable
lot orientation for these lots.
Mitigation measure: To approve the subdivision, the council must find that an
exception to the lot orientation requirement is warranted.
Policy: The element requires solar access easements for all new subdivisions,unless
one of three conditions exist:
• The subdivision incorporates a building development plan which would assure
desirable solar access.
ER 62=87
Page 6
' The subdivision contains a notation for additional yard or height standards
designed to assure desirable solar access, supplementary to the zoning
regulations, which would make a system of easements for each lot unnecessary.
' Solar exposure will be adequately protected by the city's zoning regulations.
Mitigation measure: The subdivision must contain solar access easements, or one of
the three conditions must be met.
PARKS AND RECREATION
The Parks and Recreation Element calls for a trail connection "acquired by open space
dedication", linking the Rockview Drive area with Meadow Park through the South
Street Hills.
The proposal includes such a trail. The actual routing and improvements to the trail
will be considered by the council along with the subdivision.
The element also requires developers to contribute to new parks, either by dedicating
and improving land, or by paying park-in-lieu fees. The council must determine if
the dedication of open space and installation of a trail system meets the developer's
requirement in this case, or if additional fees or dedication will be required.
SEISMIC SAFETY
The Seismic Safety Element map shows the annexation area as underlain by the
"Franciscan Formation" The element says there is a "very high" potential for
landslides in such areas, and says the city should:
"require site-by-site soils and geologic engineering studies for proposed
development projects in areas of moderate, high and very high landslide risk to
assess natural and graded slope stability"
The soils report submitted by the project applicant (prepared by Buena Engineers)
confirms that the hillside units would be underlain by serpentinite bedrock. The
report notes that the proposed 1:1 cut slopes are "considered to be grossly
stable...However, there is a moderate to high potential for surficial instability in
the form of gravel to boulder size raveling and sloughing." The report recommends
excavation to firm bedrock where topsoil/colluvium is exposed at finish grade. Where
more than five feet of colluvium is exposed, alternative stabilization methods are
recommended, "such as rock bolted wire mat along the slope face". The report also
recommends a french drain be placed along the downslope structural building wall or
along the toe of slopes to collect any seepage or groundwater that may accumulate in
the winter months.
ER 62-87
Page 7
The soils and geology report (attached to this report) should be sufficient to
address this topic at this time. More detailed studies may be needed when a
subdivision for the area is submitted.
WATER AND WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
The city's Water and Wastewater Management Element states:
Policy 1.2: The urban reserve line (the outer limit to urban development)
includes areas which the city may annex in the future. Water service adequate
for potential uses allowed by the Land Use Element (including hillside planning
provisions) shall be provided for all areas within the urban reserve line.
The developable portion of the project, with one minor exception, is within
the urban reserve line.
Policy 1.8: The city will not annex an area unless the safe annual yield of
available citywide water supplies at least equals estimated water requirements
for all development, consistent with the Land Use Element, within the city
including the annexed area. The only exceptions to this policy are:
A. Areas which have prior agreements for water service.
B. Minor infill parcels within areas which have prior agreements for water
service, as provided in policy 1.3.
C. Areas which.
1. Provide their own water from groundwater sources, or
2. Provide water use reductions within existing city areas equivalent to
twice the amount of water used by proposed development, or
3. Are exempted by the City Council consistent with minor annexation
policies contained in Section C.l.c. of the Urban Land Use Element, and as
provided in policy 3.4.
Analysis: The project may be exempted from policy 1.8 if the council finds the
annexation will provide compensating public benefits that outweigh the city's current
inability to provide water for all of the city and the annexed area within the safe
annual yield. If the city approves the annexation and the area is attached to the
city, the developers of theindividual lots will not be given preferential treatment,
but rather will be subject to the same water management regulations as the rest of
the city. In other words, annexation of this property in itself will not worsen the
city's water situation, but will add to the competition for available water for new
developments.
Mitigation measure: Same as mitigation measure for annexation policies.
�/8
_ 1
ER 62-87
Page 8
Adooted Policies
SERVICE POLICIES (WATER AND SEWER)
Under current conditions, development of the project would reduce the level of water
service for city customers. City water use in spring 1988 (8,042 acre-feet per year)
exceeded safe annual yield (7,357) by about nine percent. Safe annual yield is the
amount of water which can be withdrawn from reservoirs year after year, without
running out of water during a drought like that which has been experienced since the
reservoirs have been in use. As water use increases above safe yield, cut-backs from
usual water use will be needed more often and they will have to be more substantial
to avoid running out of water. In response to two-years of below-average rainfall,
the city is aiming for a 25-percent reduction in water use during 1988-89. More
substantial reductions may be needed in following years.
While the city is pursuing conservation and several supplemental sources of water,
new supplies may not keep pace with added demand due to development. Therefore, the
City Council has adopted development controls (the Water Allocation Regulations) to
help correct the current imbalance between water use and supply. The controls could
delay or prevent issuance of building permits.
This project is expected to use 22.8 acre-feet per year, 100% from city water sources
--about 0.3% of current safe annual yield.
The applicant proposes no water-saving features, in addition to those normally �1
required by the city.
Mitigation measure: Staff is recommending that the following be made a condition of
approval:
' Landscape guidelines shall be developed as part of the subdivision proposal,
unless the city adopts more stringent water-saving guidelines applying to all
new development. Such guidelines shall require drought-tolerant landscaping and
irrigation systems that conserve water. The guidelines shall be incorporated
into the conditions of approval for the tract.
Development Regulations
ZONING REGULATIONS
The zoning regulations say that the density of development in the R-I zone must not
exceed seven dwellings per acre. For land that exceeds fifteen percent in slope, the
density allowed decreases.
l '"
ER 62-87
Page 9
The proposal is to allow 7.45 dwellings per gross acre, or 9.25 per net acre,
subtracting proposed streets, on land with an average cross slope between ten and
fifteen percent. With a planned development, the council may grant density bonuses
if it finds that the development meets at least three of the following five criteria
(17.62.040):
1. It provides facilities or amenities suited to a particular occupancy group (such
as the elderly or families with children) which would not be feasible under
conventional zoning.
2. It transfers allowable development, within a site, from areas of greater
environmental sensitivity or hazard to areas of less sensitivity or hazard.
3. It provides more affordable housing than would be possible with conventional
development. .
4. Features of the particular design achieve the intent of conventional standards
(privacy, usable open space, adequate parking, compatibility with the
neighborhood character,.and so on) as well as or better than the standards
themselves:
5. It incorporates features which result in consumption of less materials, energy
or water than conventional development.
The project developer has not submitted any justification for making these findings.
Mitigation measure: The project must be revised to meet the. allowed density, or the
council must find that the project satisfies at least three of the above five
criteria.
SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS
The subdivision regulations set minimum lot sizes for new subdivisions. In the R-1
zone, the minimum lot size is 6000 square feet. However, there are exceptions to
this requirement: "Lots within condominium subdivisions may have any size or shape.
Lots which are approved in conjunction with a development plan as provided in the
zoning regulations may have any size or shape consistent with the structures and
improvements shown in the development plan."
Several of the proposed lots do not meet the 6000 square foot minimum. The planned
development plan constitutes a "development plan", and therefore an exception may be
granted.
GRADING REGULATIONS
The grading regulations say that "the topography of a site proposed for development
shall remain substantially in its natural state. Mass recontouring shall not be
allowed." The grading regulations include a table that lays out the percentage of the
site that may be graded, based on, the natural average cross slope of the site.
l -
� '4021
ER 62-87
Page 10
J
The plans show significant grading, particularly of the upper hillside lots and the
streets. It is not clear from present plans if the percentage of grading will be
over the 40% of the site allowed by the regulations. It appears that the large cuts
and fills are not consistent with the regulations.
Mitigation measure: The council, to approve the planned development as well as
subsequent subdivision, must find the project (as designed or as revised) is
consistent with the grading regulations, or must grant an exception.
HILLSIDE PLANNING STANDARDS
See discussion under "Land use element", above.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
The proposal includes development of up to sixty-five homes on the developable portion of
the site. According to the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation.
fourth edition (1987), single family homes average 10.06 trip ends per day. A trip end
is a trip that either begins or ends at the home. The 65 homes, then, would be expected
to generate 65 X 10.06 = 654 trips per day. This additional traffic would add to the
existing loads on Stoneridge Drive and Rockview Place.
According to the city's traffic engineer, this load is well within the capacity of these
streets. Cal Trans finds that the traffic levels at the Broad Street intersection do not
warrant any traffic signalization at this time.
UTILITIES
Water
See discussion under "Service Policies", above.
GEOLOGIC AND SEISMIC HAZARDS AND TOPOGRAPHIC MODIFICATIONS
See discussion under "Seismic Safety Element", above.
SURFACE WATER FLOW AND QUALITY
Runoff from the South Street Hills (including the project site) drains toward Lawrence
Drive and the Rockview area. Homes on the south side of Lawrence Drive receive sheet
flow during the winter months, and are often flooded. The developer proposes to capture
this flow by way of a system of pipes and culverts within the tract, which will be
directed to a culvert or pipe extending through a lot on Lawrence Drive. With financial
assistance from the city, the developer proposes constructing a new subsurface storm
drainage system from Lawrence Drive to Meadow Creek.
According to the Public Works Department, the proposal has merit. However, a hydraulic
study will be needed to determine if the culvert and pipe sizes are adequate for the
flow.
ER 62-87
Page 11
Mitigation measure: The applicant must submit a hydraulic study, prepared by a qualified
civil engineer, for the proposed drainage system. Recommendations in the study must be
followed, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
PLANT AND ANIMAL.LIFE
There is no evidence of threatened or endangered species of plants or animals in the
project area. Little significant vegetation exists on the site. Significant trees
existing at the edge of the developable portion of the property are proposed to remain.
ESTHETIC
As the upper limit of development is the 325' elevation, the homes will be visible from
other areas of town. The proposed style of the buildings is similar to the Stoneridge I
development - flat-roofed plaster-finished buildings in a "Mediterranean" form. The
buildings bear some resemblance to older Spanish homes in the Lawrence Drive area, but
are larger and generally more detailed, and do not have barrel tile roofs.
Therefore, the development is not expected to blend in with the neighborhoods on either
side. Whether the appearance of the built-out subdivision will be pleasant or obtrusive
can be partly controlled by design constraints placed on the buildings. For example, the
colors may be required to be more light-absorbing than light-reflective, limits may be
placed on the size of the buildings and on the percentage of the buildings that may be
above the first story. The proposal includes some limits for those lots adjacent to the
Lawrence Drive neighborhood. These limits could be expanded to include all homes in the
subdivision.
An additional concern is overlook of two-story buildings into the Lawrence Drive private
yards. The developer's proposal suggests a 25' minimum rear yard setback on the lots
adjacent to Lawrence Drive lots, and a requirement that no more than 33% of the floor
area be on the second story. Planting along all rear lot lines to screen the yards,
along with these requirements, may mitigate overlook concerns.
Mitigation measures: Conditions must be placed upon the development to limit view
obstruction and overlook concerns. These conditions may be the additional yard and
second story limits suggested by the developer, or may include other requirements as
determined by the Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the City
Council.
ENERGY AND RESOURCE USE.
The project does not include any special provisions to reduce energy use. The
orientation of some of the lots will allow for the use of solar collectors, but lots
along the southerly edge of the tract are not oriented for maximum solar exposure and
will be shaded by the hillside much of the time.
Mitigation measure: The design guidelines shall include measures to protect solar
exposure for each of the lots.
i
ER 62-87
Page 12
RECOMMENDATION
Grant a negative declaration of environmental impact, with the following
Mitigation measures
1. The council must determine if the benefits proposed as part of the development,
including dedication of open space to the city and significant drainage improvements,
exceed the value of the water allocations necessary for the developed area. If the
city has adopted a development moratorium based on limited water, according to the
annexation policies the annexation shall not be approved.
2. To approve the subdivision, the council must find that an exception to the lot
orientation requirement is warranted.
3. The subdivision must contain solar access easements, or one of the following three
conditions must be met:
• The subdivision incorporates a building development plan which would assure
desirable solar access.
' The subdivision contains a notation for additional yard or height standards
designed to sassure desirable solar access, supplementary to the zoning
regulations, which would make a system of easements for ech lot unnecessary.
J
Solar exposure will be adequately protected by the city's zoning regulations.
4. Staff is recommending that the following be made a condition of approval:
Landscape guidelines must be developed as part of the subdivision proposal, unless
more stringent water-saving guidelines applying to all new development are adopted by
the city. Such guidelines shall require draught-tolerant landscaping and irrigation
systems that consere water. The guidelines shall be incorporated into the conditions
of approval for the tract.
5. The council, to approve the planned development as well as subsequent subdivision,
must find the project (as designed or as revised) is consistent with the grading
regulations, or grant an exception.
6. Conditions must be placed upon the development to limit view obstruction and overlook
concerns. These conditions may be the additional yard and second story limits
suggested by the developer, or may include other requirements as determined by the
Architectural Review Commission, the Planning Commission, or the City Council.
-J3
ER 62-87
Page 13
7. The project must be revised to meet the allowed density, or the council must find
that the project satisfies at least three of the five criteria listed in the zoning
regulations (Section 17.62.040).
8. The design guidelines shall include measures to protect solar exposure for each lot.
Ci
Meeting Date: 1-25-89
�� �'��'III'lll '!I'' �►������ �►II � -
Item No. 1
city of sAn lues oBispo
Ya x
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 • San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
January 14, 1989
To: Planning Commission
From: Michael Multari, Community Development Director
Subject: Processing the appeal of the Stoneridge II "Negative Declaration"
Last September, I approved a "Negative Declaration" for the Stoneridge II
general plan amendment and minor annexation request. This determination has
been appealed by Don Smith. Mr. Smith and some commissioners have asked why
the appeal on the environmental determination was not handled earlier and is
being processed concurrently with the overall review of the proposal. The
answer is simply that's the way I interpreted what I considered to be an
ambiguous section of the environmental regulations. With the advice of others,
including some staff members and Commissioner Schmidt, I see an alternate way
of interpreting the regulations which may be superior, at least for future
cases.
Section 15076 of the city's environmental guidelines lays out the appeal
procedures for environmental decisions. Subsection (b) says that any person
may appeal the director's decision to grant a negative declaration by filing
such an appeal within 10 days, that the appeal is considered by the
decision-making body that will take final action on the project, that there
should be ten days notice prior to considering the appeal and that no final
action on the project can be made until the appeal is decided.
There is no mention of when the appeal should be heard.
Subsection (c) says that regardless of the other procedures, any one at any
time up until a project is approved can ask the decision-making body to reverse
the director's decision on a negative declaration (or exemption).
It goes on to say that "an appeal request pursuant to this paragraph will be
considered by the decision-making body...at the same public meeting when the
body considers taking action...[on) the project."
I interpreted (perhaps, on reflection, misread) this to encompass all the
appeals procedures in Section 15076, particularly because the previous sections
do not spell out when appeals should take place (many appeals sections in the
municipal code do call this out).
It seems that the intent of the guidelines is that if an appeal is filed under
subsection (b) within the 10 day limit, then the appeal should be heard as soon
as possible by the appeal body. If the appeal is filed later in the process,
*60
�
Appeal processing
Page 2
then the appeal should be considered when the decision-making body considers
the project. This makes sense to me and I will clarify the guidelines to avoid
future confusion.
This brings us to the case before us. The final decision-making body is the
City Council, so the Council must decide the appeal. There are really two
options:
1. Discontinue consideration of the proposal itself until the environmental
appeal is decided by the City Council. If the Council denies the appeal,
the project will come back to the PC for recommendation, then be forwarded
to the City Council for final action.
2. Make a recommendation to the Council on both the appeal and the
proposal. Thus, if the Council denies the appeal, the proposal would not.
have to come back to the PC.
In either case, if the Council upholds the appeal, then a focused EIR on
cumulative impacts would need to be prepared.
I recommend option 2, at this stage, for the following reasons:
C' a. Much of the processing has already occurred, including noticing to the
neighbors. Separating the environmental determination from the overall
project review may create confusion and added inconvenience to interested
parties who will have to monitor additional hearings.
b. Much of the information that would be gained by requiring a focused EIR.
is now available from a recently completed consultant's report (see
attached) on the safe annual yield. Incidentally, this report was prepared
largely in response to Mr. Smith's excellent questions in various contexts
about the safe yield of the Salinas Reservoir.
The report concludes that the safe yield of this reservoir has been
underestimated by about 350 acre feet,.so that the safe yield should now be
considered 4450 acre feet per year. (This is about a 3-4 percent reduction
in our overall safe yield estimate.) Again, in light of this, the Council
may want to reconsider its policy about minor annexations, but it seems the
information about making the decisions about the proposal, which would be
the purpose of a focused EIR, is available.
By way of further discussion, I would also respectfully suggest that the nature
of the appeal is primarily related to city policy. It should be kept in mind
that the approval of the annexation does not mean that houses can be built if
limitations related to water are in effect; it means those vacant lots may
apply for water allocations like other city lots.
Mr. Smith is concerned about-the city's adding new lots to compete for scarce
water resources and that existing lots should have a "superior" right to any
water resources before any new lots are brought into the city. This seems to
be a question which was addressed by the City Council when they adopted the
minor annexation policies last summer. Mr. Smith may want the Council to
o�
Appeal processing
Page 3
reconsider these minor annexation policies, especially in light of his concerns
in his letter, but that seems to be a different kind of question than if an EIR
should be prepared.
In some ways, this question does go to the heart of the proposal itself: the
recently adopted minor annexation policies say that new land should be brought
into the city only if it provides water itself or if there are other
considerable public benefits to be gained by approving the annexation. The
project can not provide its own water, nor is there any proposal for offsite
savings; the project does include giving 40+ acres of scenic land to the city
for park purposes. Is this sufficient public benefit to have the land annexed
now?
i
Despite the arguments listed as (a) and (b) above, I do also see value in an
approach of forwarding the appeal to the Council as a means of resolving the
basic policy question.
I will, of course, defer to the wishes of the Commission on how best to deal
with the appeal. It would be appropriate to make a decision on this first,
before the staff report and public hearing on the other points of the proposal. ^
I've attached for you Mr. Smith's appeal; the appeals sections of the
environmental guidelines; and the recent safe yield report from the consultant.
cc: CAO
City Attorney
Utilities Manager
City Council
Don Smith
Keith Gurnee
Roy Hanff
o
8 '
D N D
m D m
Dn D ...........
0 m 0
m
TM
> mo _ ..
Z
O z I
p z VK :
o� o: Fri
Z o
CA > H
m .h
O
O mz t0ii
? T m �• i ►
'D
mPInd
Z t7
to _ z a 7
Doto :^ � n u ) c i c .
m N
D
f M
CD pqL a z a o s
m 'O L �s 4 k a 7 ° a mow.
m m
N z -M a 0 0
O O a' 0 W
' V�' O ►•wrwoow •�. S
vm
as s3� &x Ea a
° °
O ,Q`• — e S o s o
O ° O O i G
� � N O ■ f O 'o �I ,
N � �a O < o ■ o
Lo
a W . °
�fot. to O
•o �3 t r�j�
C ��
00,
0
4 " *tV `•• \ �+"Q �;'''• i
o OHO ' c) LOtupp
T 31
Q
s. 3
llu,
01
� r �
n:
♦ 1_
i Jlc •`�iol�
r � - n a��� - S^��p wr•..-sr
1 a
A
A a��•j O ay
d
oma' -
u•�Y{.
I
,.,iv.
-= MEETING AGENDA
DATE #egt ea ITW #
Memo
#Denotes action by Lead Person
Date- February 21, 1989 Respond by:
To: San Luis Obispo City Council Rd>
irk-odp,
From: Richard Stephens J ',W.""v,,.r4 I
P.O.Box 456T'T• 6"0" 4�n
tEYFi,
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
Subject: A petition asking for an E.I.R. on Stoneridge Phase I I
Attached you will find a petition signed by residents of the city. This
petition was conceived of, written, and circulated on Sunday 2-19-89. It
was circulated by three peopleduring that afternoon. During my
experience I got about 45 signatures and had only 2 people decline to sign.
The first of these rents in the Lawrence neighborhood and feels that a
property owner can do whatever they want and should have NO
restrictions, and the second person lives accross town and feels that this
city looks to hard a projects as it is. The other two people, who circulated
the petition, said that they found that the people who were resistant to
signing tended to not be aware of the project and lived a block or more
from it.
I wish to emphasize that this was circulated on a Sunday afternoon and
that many resisdents were not home. It was an interesting experience
because of the conversations it caused. I have not had anyone say that
they felt the project was a good one and should proceed as designed ( a
person on staff did say "careful someone might propose a worse project
next time"). The primary comments "in favor" of the project have related
to an individuals right to develop his property as he wants with a minimum
of interference from "the government".
RECEIVED
FEB 2110
CITYCLEW
s�wu -Cr"co0.CA ,
-A Petition to'the
San W6 Obispo City Cound]
We, the undersigned residents of San:Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. the overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. S. The visual
Impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule.the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
_> ati✓ - � ------------
- -- -
• 1/'� }�� � �I I `
------1�=_1a _�2��r y1(--------. __� ------ ----
L
-_!-- ----� \
_�z1�ys�_�•1`2�'�Qo�_�\B�-c_,.� c��br-- ,,���G�vw�r
_. CYLLG!<S�!_1JKd�5LL�1_ ,._1��_�q�Z�Cer +•^c. - - - =;�=`=='g'd�4" - _
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. 5. The visual
Impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
/ NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
SLo
YUYI-1k 2_1
LSo1J SM! TK
Al
�(___ �tr-� �}I 1v_l�: h �-
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about .the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase II. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. •4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. 5. The visual
Impact and Compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the.
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
-- - -------------- -------- ------------
&111X -/sem t3<<oa�C _sw __1- - a- __r-- �s
�i
'Q
41-
L
1-
-
-- A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: .1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. 5. The visual
impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
----------
l
2 -s _1� �_zs_k'1_, ✓lea . ----- ------ --2 , _ c
,JJOEv B Q�
-------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
0
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase II. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr.,and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. 5. The visual
impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
15, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
C s'��1,r_ ---------------------IS c'-ul'CCnce,,__ c � W .,
-- ------ Q
v v ,D s^
-------------- -�-- - ------------ ----- -,---------
1- -- W - tv�
------- -- ---- --------- --- - --
y -- ---------
1(fle— ------ —r! 14
y� [ `` / I• 11 � � ,-
-
31-----------3 �_ , CL - r s _----�----- -----------------
-------------------- --------------------- ----------------------
I. 1
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traf f ic from Rockview. 5. The visual
impact and Compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
------------
-
- -�
tVY��c � 1 Tvi-
<� �- -
(s/ ��------------- --1---- ------------ - ----- --------------
,l
+non _�v��c /�1i�c1���1------
-- - -- ---- --------------}- - ----------------------
4 L
�0 3 ic�l
-a;4
0
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase II. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
Intersection Including the crossover traffic from Rockview. 5. The visual
Impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project. .
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
4
-----WF e -
_
----- ----�
----------- ----
j�
-- ------------
_ Q,
O_ �i.4�------------ -1323 _�i_wrC✓�G_Df.-- Q L V
MtaG�ANnI mA ,.1 1 d L��JKCE
® A Petition to the
-- San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the project. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. S. The visual
impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
18, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS SIGNATURE
-------------------- ---------------------- ----- --- -----------
k-k- EW—_ �voS�-fl e�) �jj=-- -----------
-- - ---- - d-'-' -- �� -— nom-
-- _ Z _liG9 L,9�e�tc6LL¢ _ _ YiYL9 _(]�_LYr�doL3
--=`u=-'-L
-- --- o ---------------------
- - ----------- -------------F
WAoW
a-i
MEc t ------ ---C------- �v st o A------ 4..�--
_ ----------
i
A Petition to the
San Luis Obispo City Council
We, the undersigned residents of San Luis Obispo, are very
concerned about the current plan for the proposed annexation for
Stoneridge phase 11. We feel that the city needs to gather as much
Information as possible before making decisions on the project. Major
areas of concern are: 1. The supplying of water for the pro ject. 2.
Compatability with the original neighborhood. 3. The overlook of the
backyards of homes on the south side of Lawrence Dr. and the solar access
of these yards. 4. The increased traffic at the Stoneridge Dr. and Broad St.
intersection including the crossover traffic from Rockview. S. The visual
impact and compatability from many parts of the city (especially of lots
16, 19, 20.). 6. The increase and modification of runoff including the
impact on the Meadow Park creek.
Because of these issues, and many others, we ask the City Council to
overrule the Declaration of Negative Impact and ask for an Environmental
Impact Report on the project.
NAME (print) ADDRESS 516NATURE
—__——4e�r
cS L--O
--=----
----------- --------------------- ---------------------
------------- --------------------- ----------------------
-------------- --------------------- ----------------------
--------------------- ---------=------------
------------- --------------------- ----------------------
------------- --------------------- ----------------------
--------- --------------------- ----------------------
MrqING AGENDA :
bmi E . P, �e ITEM #
Denotes action by Lead Person
CI San Luis Obispo, Ca. RRespond.1by:
L91February 16, 1989 �Ao
ty Atty.
1dk-otig.
Dear Mayor & City Council: r•r.
This is in reply to the notice that I received pertaining
to the appeal of the environmental determination on the expansion area
known as Stoneridge.
Any environmental determination MUST fully address the
inadequate drainage that may be adversely impacted by any development
up hill from Lawrence Drive.
Hoa will property on Mitchell Drive, and other property
towards Broad/South streets be protected, at City expense, for any
negative impact that the subject subdivision will cause?
Sincerely,
r
Mrs. Marjorie B. Ellis
531 Mitchell Dr.
San Luis Obispo, CA. 93401
Phone 543-7511
C�
RECEIVE ®
FEEL 211989
CTYCLERc
SMLUfSOgSFO.CA
"EMNG AGENDA
• ,ATE FEB Zt res ITEM #
�illlll II�I IIIII�����������I�III�) �IUIIIIIII I� III
cityo san luiS ®Blspo
990 Palm Street/Post Office Box 8100 * San Luis Obispo, CA 93403-8100
February 21, 1989 RECEIVED Donaction by Lead person,
y:-��FEBTo: City Council OTrCtERKSANLU�90B�.C" .Via: CAO uaT�'1�r.From: Community Development Director '
Subject: Latest on Appeal of Stoneridge II Environmental Determination
This morning we received a petition signed by about 45 persons citing potential
environmental impacts with the Stoneridge II proposal and requesting an EIR. The
potential impacts cited include the concern about water supply raised by Don Smith as
well as others related to traffic, aesthetics, drainage, solar access and neighborhood
compatibility.
In staff's original environmental review, we found that all of these concerns would not
be significant.
However, the CEQA guidelines state that:
(Section 15064 by In marginal cases where it is not clear whether there is
substantial evidence that a project may have a significant effect on. the environment,
the Lead Agency shall be guided by the following factors:
1. If there is serious public controversy over the environmental effects...the
Lead Agency—shall prepare an EIR. Controversy not related to an environmental
issue does not require preparation of an EIR.
2. If there is disagreement between experts over the significance of an effect,
the Lead Agency shall...prepare an EIR.
In light of the petition, it seems appropriate that the Council should first decide
whether this is a "marginal case where it is not clear whether there is substantial
evidence that a project may have a significant effect". Staff feels that this may be
such a case, particularly in regard to water supply questions and potential aesthetic
impacts:
Next, if this is deemed a marginal case, the Council should decide whether the petition
indicates that there is a "serious public controversy over the environmental effects".
Staff generally counsels a conservative approach and would recommend that.when in doubt,
an EIR should be prepared. (You may recall this was our advice when the Negative
Declaration of the Water Allocation Ordinance was challenged.)
Finally, the Council may deal with the petition now, even though it was not filed within .
-' 10 days of the initial determination, because the appeal hearing is "de novo" (that is,
can encompass all relevant topics as if starting from the beginning).
I apologize for the lateness in this brief analysis, but the petition was only received
today.