Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/19/1992, 6 - CONSIDERATION OF CITY'S POSSIBLE ROLE AS LEAD AGENCY FOR PREPARATION OF AN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A 705 ACRE RECREATIONAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS ""LOS NOMADAS."""pp^^yy Original agenda report from the 5/5/92 meeting. ����IIII�pIIIINIIIIIIIII II f I ._..l - MEETING DATE: II1IIh city Or Sa1 iS oB�Spo 5' COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT EM NUMBER: FROM: Arnold Jonas, Community Development Director; By: Jeff Hook, Associate Planner SUBJECT: Consideration of City's possible role as lead agency for preparation of an Environmental Impact Report for a 705 acre recreational planned development known as "Los Nomadas." CAO RECOMMENDATION: Review the project concept plans and supporting information and provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the City's role in project processing and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. BACKGROUND The applicants have submitted an application and plans for Los Nomadas, a resort /golf course /conference center planned development planned for the 705 -acre La Lomita Ranch. The project site is located in unincorporated County land, just south of the Edna - Islay area, between Orcutt Road and Broad Street. This is a large and complex project, ultimately involving public and private recreational features, including: two 18 -hole golf courses; 40 bungalow suites; 36 low -rise "haciendas" -- each with eight suites; 10 tennis courts; health facilities (exercise equipment, Par Course); swimming lagoon; horse stables and arena; entertainment amphitheater; and a resort plaza with restaurant, bar /grill, shops, and related facilities. As explained in the enclosed "Developer's Statement ", the project application includes: • environmental review; • General Plan text and map amendment; • planned development pre- rezoning; • architectural review Although annexation of the 705 acres to the City is their ultimate objective, the applicants have postponed applying for annexation pending City action on environmental review, General Plan amendments and pre- zoning. within nine months of- their initial application submittal, the applicants also intend to submit a tentative subdivision map and precise PD plan which can incorporate findings and mitigations resulting from the environmental review. The applicants have also submitted planning applications to the County of San Luis Obispo to process an identical project under County jurisdiction. They would prefer that the City serve as the "lead agency" in completing the EIR, and have requested that the City agree to do so. In those cases where a project is to be carried out or approved by more than one agency, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and the City's Environmental Procedures require that one agency (designated the Lead Agency) be responsible for preparing �0_ 111111i1INNII01$1111 I'll I l city of San t..,s OBISp0 MIME COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 2 the environmental documents for the project. CEQA specifies that the Lead Agency shall be- the jurisdiction with the greatest responsibility for supervising or approving the project as a whole. Thus, our city could be the Lead Agency for the Los Nomadas project unless for any reason the Council determines that it is not appropriate to proceed ahead with processing of the applications. In that case the issue of Lead Agency would be moot as the City would lack jurisdiction to prepare the environmental documents. The County would then automatically become the jurisdiction with processing authority for Los Nomadas, and indications are that they would be willing to proceed with that activity. PERTINENT DATA Applicant: Representative: County Zoning: Co. Land Use Designation: Environmental status: EVALUATION Northwinds, N. V. RRM Design Group AG Agriculture; Airport Environmental Impact will be required. Review Area Report (EIR) The decision on which public agency is the Lead Agency under CEQA is important because: 1) The Lead Agency collects environmental fees, initiates and directs the environmental review process; 2) The Lead Agency selects and contracts with environmental consultants to prepare the EIR which is paid for by the applicant; 3) The Lead Agency consults with other public agencies to include their concerns and issues in the EIR scope of work; and 4) The Lead Agency exerts the most influence over the scope and format of the Final EIR. In deciding what public agency shall as lead agency, CEQA and -the City's policies use several criteria. The pertinent criteria are listed below: ■ If the project is to be carried out by a private entity, the Lead Agency shall be the public agency (eg. in this case, either City Council or Board of Supervisors) with b O —C?s ����� ►��►II�►IIIIIII �� ►j����ll MY Of SAW- Is OBISp0 COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 3 the greatest responsibility for supervising or acting on the project as a whole. ■ Where a City prezones an area, the City will be the appropriate Lead Agency for any subsequent annexation of the area and should prepare the appropriate environmental document at the time of prezoning. The Local Agency Formation Commission shall act as a Responsible Agency. ■ Where more than one public agency meet the criteria listed above, the agency which will act first on the project in question shall be the Lead Agency. ■ Where two or more agencies have a substantial claim to be Lead Agency, the public agencies may by agreement designate one agency as Lead Agency. An agreement may also provide for cooperative efforts by two or more agencies by contract, joint exercise of powers, or similar devices. The decision on Lead Agency status does not affect the agency's authority to later approve or deny a project. The City could, for example, become Lead Agency and then decide not to amend its General Plan or pre -zone the property due to environmental impacts which became apparent during environmental review. If the County served as Lead Agency, it would then normally address City issues as part of EIR scoping due to the concurrent application pending with the City. The above criteria suggest that the City would be a logical choice as Lead Agency since the City is likely to act first on the project, and since pre- zoning is requested. The lead agency decision depends to some degree, however, on the City Council's judgement as to the timeliness of this project. If the Councilmembers feel this project merits further City consideration, then the City's Lead Agency role is probably desirable. If based on current and anticipated City policies and plans Councilmembers do not believe this project merits the staff time and effort which would be necessary if the City were Lead Agency, it should so direct staff. It should be emphasized, however, that the project would then likely be processed by the County without the City's direct involvement in the environmental review for a project which, if approved, could significantly affect the City. 6 2T_3 �������►�►�►�ulllllifliP glpj city of San k_s OBISpo _ llif& COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Staff Report Page 4 ALTERNATIVES 1. Determine that the City shall serve as Lead Agency for purposes of environmental review for Los Nomadas, and direct staff to work with the applicant to begin processing the EIR and other development application requests. From the City's standpoint, this approach would require the most City staff time and effort; however it would probably produce an EIR which most closely met the City's development review needs in the shortest timeframe. If the City Council believes that the City would consider amending its General Plan and pre - zoning the site to accommodate the project, than this is the appropriate action. 2. Determine that the City should not serve as Lead Agency for purposes of environmental review of Los Nomadas, and direct City staff to work with the County Environmental Coordinator's Office to include possible City issues and concerns in the EIR scoping. Under this approach, County staff would have primary responsibility for conducting the environmental review. The City review development review process would be held up pending County completion of the EIR. This approach could lengthen the City's development review process due to different County procedures regarding environmental review. If the City Council believes there is little or no chance that the City would amend its General Plan and pre -zone the area to accommodate the project, this is the most appropriate action. 3. Continue consideration of the issue, giving specific direction as to the additional information needed. ACTION Review the project concept plans and supporting information and provide direction to staff and the applicant regarding the City's role in project processing and preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. Enclosure: Los Nomadas "Developer's Statement" (Council and CAD only - available in Council Office for review) May 18, 1992 Mr '7TING AGENDA Dw : —IS 2-9L ITEM # Department of Planning and Building San Luis Obispo County Arnold Jonas, Director Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 HAND DELIVERED Alex Hinds, Director Bryce Tingle, Assistant Director Barney McCay, Chief Building Official Norma Salisbury, Administrative Services Officer COPIESTO: ❑ • Davam Ammon ❑ FYI 5eC=X9 R(CDDDnL ®' CAO D FIN. DIR ATInRNEY VCAO ❑ FIRECFETEF ❑ FW DIR. C.ERK/ORIC. ❑ roucEat ❑ mcmT. TEAM ❑ REC DIR ❑ C READ Faz ❑ LrnLDIP, 2e FILE MAY 1 9 1992 CITY CLERK SAN LUIS OBISPO. CA SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW FOR LAS NOMADAS PROPOSAL This letter is written to provide comments from county environmental and planning staffs regarding how environmental review for the Las Nomadas proposal might best be structured, since the proposal has been submitted to both the city and the county. We understand that the City Council will consider whether to accept "lead agency" status for environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for the project at their meeting of May 19, 1992. We are in agreement with the information presented in the city staff report on this item regarding lead agency status under CEQA. More specifically, if the applicant has shown intent to pursue annexation to the city and has submitted the appropriate applications, then the city should be the lead agency. This project is unusual in that it proposes development of property which is not yet within the city's incorporated boundary, urban reserve or sphere of influence. The county has received a request to amend the County General Plan and a specific plan application. Normally, such a project would result in the county being lead agency for environmental review. However, the site is located directly adjacent to the existing city limits and the applicant has requested initiation of the process leading to annexation, so the city is the logical choice as lead agency. Also, the applicant has submitted similar proposals to both the city and the county, apparently preferring development within the city, but also interested in developing under county jurisdiction if the city declines to process and /or approve the project. Theoretically, separate environmental reviews could be required by the city and county, but that would unnecessarily complicate coordination between the city and county regarding the two concurrent studies, result in extra cost for the applicant, and might not produce better environmental information. County Government Center • San Luis Obispo • California 93408 • (805) 549 -5600 Arnold Jonas, RE: Las Nomadas Page 2 May 18, 1992 Therefore, a single environmental impact report is appropriate. The question is: which jurisdiction should be responsible for preparing the scope of work, selecting a consultant, and determining whether the consultant has prepared adequate analyses of potential impacts and mitigations, and responses to comments. If the city wishes to accept lead agency status, county staff request that the city and county formalize the process to ensure effective coordination. We wish to cooperate with your staff to facilitate preparation of the environmental review in a manner that will provide information needed in conjunction with approval or denial of the project in the city or the county. For your information, county planning staff have tentatively scheduled July 28, 1992, to request that the Board of Supervisors authorize processing of the specific plan application submitted by the applicant. Any interested members of your Council or staff are invited to attend this meeting. In, summary, we concur with your staff that the city appears to be the best choice for lead agency ff the city is processing the appropriate applications leading to possible annexation, and that the county should be lead agency if the applicant does not pursue annexation or if the city does not authorize processing of the necessary applications. Either way, the city and county should formalize how the environmental review will be coordinated between the two jurisdictions. A member of our planning staff will attend your May 19, 1992, meeting to observe the discussion of this item and answer questions. Sincerely, ^ / v� �OY Carroll, County Environmental Coordinator Alex Hinds, Director, County Planning and Building Department cc: Members of the County Board of Supervisors Paul Hood, Local Agency Formation Commission Kieth Gurnee, RRM Design Group