HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/16/1999, 2 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, ANNEXATION, AND ZONING FOR LAND IN THE WEST PART OF THE MARGARITA AREA (ER, ANNX, R 208-98) council " dia`16Feb. 16, 1999
j apenoa aEpoat 2 N�
CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Mattesoisociate Planner
SUBJECT: Environmental determination,annexation, and zoning for land in the west
part of the Margarita Area (ER,ANNX,R 208-98)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
1. Adopt a resolution to approve a Negative Declaration of Environmental Impact(Attachment#1).
2. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission approve
annexation of about 14 acres in the west part of the Margarita Area(Attachment#2).
3. Introduce an ordinance to prezone .the annexation area Conservation/Open Space with
minimum parcel sizes that would prevent subdivision(Attachment#3).
4. Approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, a pre-annexation agreement with the land owner
(Attachment#5).
5. Direct staff to work with the County to prepare an agreement for exchange of property taxes
that recognizes the eventual residential use of the property.
DISCUSSION
Situation& Evaluation
The subject property is within the Margarita Area, a residential expansion area that is identified
by the City's General Plan. The requested 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. The General Plan allows land in
the Margarita Area to be annexed before the specific plan is adopted. Under General Plan policy,
development of the subject property cannot begin until the specific plan is adopted.Development
can proceed only if adequate resources are available. 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 City Council initiated annexation of the whole Margarita Area in 1993. On August 18, 1998,
the City Council was asked if it would be appropriate for part of the Margarita Area to be
annexed ahead of the areawide annexation. The Council determined it would be. A party
involved in one of the six major ownerships in the Margarita Area has asked the City to complete
the annexation of one of the parcels (map following Attachment #2). On January 5, the Council
considered and approved the same type of request by John King and Richard DeBlauw for
property located to the north and east of the subject site. For now, the other major owners in the
2-1
Council Agenda Report-West Margarita Area Annexation
Page 2
Margarita Area are waiting for further information on development costs and allowed
development capacities before proceeding with annexation. Having the land annexed may give
prospective lenders and investors more assurance in fronting some of the pre-development costs,
and could save some time in processing subdivision and architectural-review applications once
the specific plan is adopted.
The City is preparing the Margarita Area Specific Plan for the subject property and nearby land.
The City Council has approved a draft of the specific plan, to serve as the project description for
an environmental impact report (EIR). The EIR is being written in conjunction with work on the
Airport Area Specific Plan,which covers land south,of the Margarita Area. There will be several
hearings before the Planning Commission and the City Council before the EIR is certified and
the specific plan is adopted. Once the Specific Plan is adopted, final zoning will be approved and
phased subdivision and development of the area may proceed, subject to adequate services being
available. Under the drift specific plan, the subject property would eventually accommodate
about 130 dwellings out of a total 1,100 dwellings in the specific plan area. The hills and creek
corridors on other parcels would be dedicated as open space. Streets and utilities would be
extended into the area in accordance with the specific plan.
Staff anticipates that, with timely receipt of necessary materials from the applicant, this
annexation will be combined with the Northwest Margarita Area Annexation (King and
DeBlauw properties, previously recommended by Council) for filing with the Local Agency
Formation Commission.
Data Summary
Owner: Serafino J.Martinelli,Trustee
Applicant: Craig Cowan Revocable Trust
Representative: John French
City Zoning: currently outside City zoning jurisdiction; C/OS-15 proposed
City's General Plan: Residential Neighborhood
County's S.L.O.Area Plan: Residential Single Family
Environmental determination: On January 5, 1999, the Community Development Director
approved for public review a proposed negative declaration of environmental
impact, based on the previous EIR for the Land Use and Circulation Elements
Update (1994). No public comments have been received. The final determination
is to be made by the City Council.
Action Deadline: This legislative action is not subject to State Permit Streamlining Act time
limits.
Site Description
The approximately 14-acre site consists of alluvial grazing land. To the north is the existing El
Camino Estates development of single-family houses. There is a mobile home park to the west-
Land
estLand to the south is vacant. To the east is alluvial grazing land with a few ranch houses.
2-2
Council Agenda Report-West Margarita Area Annexation
Page 3
Project Description
As noted above, annexation only makes the land subject to City land-use rules and eligible for
City services. Subdivision and development will not proceed until the City has adopted the
Margarita Area Specific Plan. The General Plan calls for Conservation/Open Space zoning,
which does not allow any substantial development,until the specific plan is adopted.
Pre-annexation Agreements
The City and the owners of land to be annexed typically sign pre-annexation agreements
covering the amount and timing of certain impact fees, dedications, and public improvements.
The agreements are intended to assure that all parties, including future land owners, know what
is expected in connection with the annexation.A draft pre-annexation agreement is attached. It is
patterned after the agreements prepared for the King and DeBlauw properties, which the Council
approved January 5.
ADVISORY BODY REVIEW
At its January 27, 1999, public hearing the Planning Commission voted six to none (one
Commissioner absent) to recommend approval of the Negative Declaration, the annexation, and
C/OS-15 zoning.
The owners' representative spoke in favor of the request. He stipulated that the pre-annexation
agreement would not waive any of the owner's rights, in particular the limits to providing school
facilities recently set by State law. There was no other testimony.
FISCAL IMPACT
This annexation is expected to have no fiscal impact initially. As the Margarita Area is
developed, the City will incur additional costs and revenues. Fiscal impact studies for the 1994
General Plan update and for the Airport Area annexation, which were focused on operating costs
and revenues, concluded that annexing land for both residential and nonresidential development
would allow the City to maintain fiscal health. The forthcoming specific plans will include
information on capital costs and financing.
State law requires the City and the County to agree on division of property taxes from the
annexed territory. Concerning this tax exchange, a strict interpretation of the general countywide
agreement reached a few years ago would result in no tax being passed through to the City
following annexation,due to the initial Conservation/Open Space zoning. However,this property
will be developed as residential following adoption of the specific plan. Under the general
agreement, the post-annexation tax increment for residential uses is to be shared, with 2/3 going
to the County and 1/3 to the City. Staff has preliminarily discussed this issue with County staff,
and has agreed that the tax exchange resolution for this territory must addresses this special
circumstance.
2-3
Council Agenda Report-West Margarita Area Annexation
Page 4
ALTERNATIVES
Concerning environmental review, the Council may identify additional information that is
needed. This action would require continuance.
Concerning the annexation, the Council may decide to not recommend approval to the Local
Agency Formation Commission at this time.
Concerning prezoning, the only zone consistent with the General Plan is Conservation/Open
Space. The Council may adopt other minimum parcel sizes, which would be reflected in the
number following the zone abbreviation.
Concerning the pre-annexation agreement with the land owner, Council may give direction on
items to be negotiated that would result in changes to the attached draft agreement. This action
would require continuance. Substantial changes may require reconsideration of citywide policy
previously established by the Council.
Attachments
#1 Draft Resolution approving a Negative Declaration of environmental impact
#2 Draft resolution recommending that LAFCo approve the annexation
#3 Draft ordinance prezoning the annexation area as recommended
#4 Draft pre-annexation agreement
#5 Initial Environmental Study
wasp/martannx/carfirstdm
2-4
Attachment#1
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE WEST MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION AND PREZONING
(ER 208-98)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 16, 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
WIMREAS, the City Council has considered the draft Negative Declaration of
environmental impact as prepared by staff and reviewed by the Planning Commission.
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1. Environmental Determination. The City Council finds and determines that
the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of
the proposed annexation and zoning, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council.
The Council determines that the annexation and zoning will have no significant effects on the
environment The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
On motion of seconded by,and
on the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
the foregoing resolution was adopted this_day of . 1999.
2-5
Resolution No.
Page.2
May. Allen K:Settle
ATTEST:
City C1erk.Lee Price,CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
ity ode ff ensen -
masp/martan ndmr s doc
2.6
Attachment #2
RESOLUTION NO. (1999 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION APPROVE
THE WEST MARGARITA AREA ANNEXATION(ANNX 208-98)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed annexation on January 27, 1999,and February 16, 1999,respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on February 16, 1999, by Resolution No. (1999
Series), approved a Negative Declaration for the proposed annexation,pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act Guidelines Section 15090;and
WHEREAS, on recommendation of the Planning Commission and as a result of its
deliberations, the Council has approved an amendment of the Zoning Map by prezoning the
annexation property to Conservation Open Space with minimum parcel sizes of 15 acres (C/OS-
15); and
WHEREAS, City Council approval is a prerequisite for the San Luis Obispo County
Local Agency Formation Commission(LAFCo)to initiate formal annexation proceedings;and
WHEREAS, the territory to be annexed is not inhabited, and a description of the
boundaries of the territory is set forth in attached Exhibit B;and
WHEREAS,this proposal is consistent with the sphere of influence adopted by the Local
Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County for the City of San Luis Obispo;
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows:
SECTION 1: Findings.
1. Annexation is appropriate since the annexation area's northern and western sides are
contiguous with the City.
2. Annexation of the site is a logical addition to the City due to its location and
availability of services.
3. The proposed annexation will promote the health, safety, and welfare of persons living
or working in the vicinity of the annexation area.
2-7
=MM$ FAM
• fit
7171, "T......
Z.
Nz- ,VL' 22
S;J.:h t®r t
aux M
N
P
Mi t
� yorrlfM
r z
� 7 vl nv
11 WA
I woll
fR-
A;
N%'P,
Sl-
,-0-7
IS;
3
N-R y'xWOh.MMOMM,
?f2l FY �x
all
555
35
R
61
-'N
Exhibit B
Legal Description
ALL THAT PORTION Or LOTS 29 AND 30 OF TILE .SAN LUIS 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 RECORD OF SURVEYS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT STAKE S.74 AT TIME .SOUTIMWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 29,
AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0037' EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
LOT 29, 9.95 CHAINS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED TO MANUEL FAUSTINO, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1909
IN BOOK 83, PAGE 427 OF DEEDS;
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED
TO MANUEL FAUSTINO, 15.00 CHAINS;
THENCE SOUTH 007.0' EAST, 9_88 CHAINS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
LOT 30;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 30 AND 29, 15.16
CHAINS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
2-9
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that area,
covering approximately 14 acres south of El Camino Estates on Margarita Avenue and east of
the Rancho San Luis mobile home park on Prado Road, as shown on the site location map
attached as Exhibit A and legally described in attached Exhibit B.
SECTION 3: Council Recommendation. The City Council recommends that the Local
Agency Formation Commission of San Luis Obispo County approve the proposed annexation,
subject to property owners' compliance with City requirements regarding public improvements,
in accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 and following.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution
and prezoning actions, the Negative Declaration of environmental impact, and all pertinent
supporting documents to the Local Agency Formation Commission.
On motion of , seconded by , and on the
following roll call vote:
Ayes:
Noes:
Absent:
the foregoing resolution was passed and adopted this day of . 1999.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price,CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
i Atto ey J gensen
masp/martannx/cclafres.doc
2-l0
Attachment#3
ORDINANCE NO. (1999 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING ZONING FOR THE WEST MARAGRITA AREA ANNEXATION
(R208-98)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on February 16, 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 annexation of the subject site.
2-11
Ordinance No.
Page 2
INTRODUCED AND PASSED TO PRINT by the Council of the City of San Luis
Obispo at its meeting held on the day of , 1999,on a motion of
seconded by , and on the following roll call
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price,CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
/ity/,Afiorq�y J #Jcgensen
masp/martmn zoneord.doc
2-12
A - • • •
Hall
e � S
P 'n+�+ ♦♦♦ 04- 1,
4
Urn
�,� ���� cs+2rt.s'✓;'.'"'k `.�� �S �
..:D .$ n ♦Sg� �'C t: a #y, ^j1 s .sj.,q.� .�l��'°�.q ``�'�.�".'+T-fi;Ar\ 4,w"+. �;
+,1.y- H.., � � p ' �
'l'�- 7 Fu 1.F^c ru'+nr>1�T 1r� 'R^ �rs ••-" 'moi.. 't+u �F"`•'ax � +ape �uti¢c¢ 5f+� !q �cj pa +Y �•,y ,y�.r,t, c `Xy'
yi�u xa+k.;.'i �i`Sj-+A� `k.+.�"ra '^ nS't� + 1 �T9'�' :LL.1 �� y��T C'16 St`6 � .♦✓ „.,� '`Z '^�''.�.
y,t tl'f *4?caF+ rta �r� f'vY'@ , 1� -R'`�a. ,a,._`;b 'a't*`��a� icvl ;�� r^�" ,,.gp �f'd`•r`�vx '>n (w' t.. ✓^P;
a '� w. it 1_'t x .:: wv n i. r°r✓ �d tr .'3�.
ui Yv u^>" ..✓`.'*+ ,t*Y !vi 3{ ^t N Lr'"a'ayj, 'r'd '�,� 1h'ZAs� 8� aJ_ a bS '�
Ili PJ;
�C�
�>"�£_ .rM'j1}�, .�7 ] ,g w`a✓.. xF`'}, i-r� �^,.3 A ' /s�rr-� �7� t -..max ="�'a� ua e'-f.b�.ri sex �S iTv�.f rx�v
Y
�. ♦ `x� � iigr. �y Nr-y . .�.1 b ^u� 'S �fy�9�7' .x 'sSL i?I°�i ,q �✓ 3tl •4"7' i4r> ..,,.q„{"'.
s .-_.._us Y -;r ✓ 7 a1ya 5+e x7 be .�.l h�..a� ia'�� ';]e=.� a da.�.,� a�l `3 a *Zw_ r?:
i 'a�ryr a♦vwu ;'�2rva�t � wv a�` 'G+< A '1L Pis ate *k�° s'ID. 4�4 0
e z � r t}c' a r i `Ha >< �, = t' rnk n w ';•' r '�
�
� �
+r r � +. S n � rh �. x +a+ t �'� �s s ♦ 1� r m n4 �
r,l ,A.t.wa.
by 4 a by SkJa ♦ r'1 > "v S„x ,? 4 ti4].r a x+ + '� J '+ 'k u'i7an ❑ s n " S
y5 1� sl"Sry r' ti> dP ,I
n rte.
?" y ^t. r - .3'• �.,,aY� ,„N iY. a .r5 +..;M' c,c
w+ .�,� -ti -..._. ary I 4 v R ''•': fi, ' q fih ar n w r a ,+ iiK'
Mr� a v it 1i p.+,3 � n� fi '�-v�y •Y ty
,} .sr s � 1Aw� s.'1F;S ♦' Y a5' �lr.v Y.Ste--�+..5�+•..i1.+w.'hG
T"G
r{�it
it y x� ,jl:- e. -.n1 YT� " x]' 7�)•'L 15 C '>y .. ��f tP'�J ]� i19' t x .r.^ *\�
3 ?. `'ti : �zpr ..,"`i� Y'-�` r. �✓ � %�. h'^aL xrti 2 � n.tiy v 0 i. �1`�l'¢.I�LNM f'�qp P y�.7`!a���'��..r .y'Y' w
2+.:
� o-`'� c♦...-. ..° � _ ✓r- -v w o a ...h FJ'Ss �✓' v� r i
yf"< 'b F �'S. �� � r�3 f�'i+�f'.'y�� `r� - � i y'�1}4}t ��'••C�'yw�'".>'S���`���ml�� '`�;?r �� r $• .
"� ,r-�.a�� �-•n-1-�v"j.,.7 :tiv��r1C,�.'7y ��� vf'Yt�4'�zX�r,,,A�A�jR"�,7v�v'u•E^"� yw ' .. '�j j"� d �:
y: ♦ �-F.J ? .f k- ''+4n :,.,.Y 4 F..ai t 7 ,T >�S 'r.9 �`-�Lt ">c' _ yr M'r-t „>;<. ;p
W Fv s arz '', W rµ w a *�
siR:--` y,a vy+� "� t�»A'�'- 4! � 75.�d3 � i r.n;v'� p,q s �4.ti .1����0✓'� �&ka/fir'•`.
5' A j: 3 � d ' Z � r t 1 L' r1C�t vi•ry I1 Ca` s r + i •'�y�y♦.
rN
RZ
u� J ��� l� � s� Ltd �J.Y � ..r-'+� y ♦t.-'tl-+�-"r`§rix �t'yS�`+.a,�:� vi��y''.
a.3�"'�?. {y". a 3 aid�a31 �f�<� • v,. }• f4?x '? �.�.x.. '?� i J�.4 f1
b w " ! r•r � 'xxPr'�' 7n�3. -c �.� � � ,,.. .�-.3'S YG rz i k,.�� '� � ��n
-v+�Sf v �.srm,. Sc. i.��.T�J i�J'-:�1v�aW7'3�i F�JA7''YF :r' nY "'1;i in;T„ri !r�, ✓ ;]" '.
�� � 1 a yj r•� �+� � ��..�-# ��' - r`�` •�,+ #. ;cti=.'tsx,r�� i'�` '0.n
21.5 ,r !', .r "a ��f� �"< � '. '_,f{✓. � ;la°
r� Y �1d♦ a � �:i r`R �- -
.F^' # z t T�r a !. .''� �r .ln ,'�';� '^" t ♦ �'k`'Ca s,L 'fir;
a v1 rzc.' a/we at k j�s�e� .5sdl.Y3 ra.,
IT
M- 1
��. ° *�a`Y ��''�' �m'✓�'l�♦P r. c 1 _- .r -
ria.r W�4' 7r J$'"�♦C' d_�y���r � ,. '` � � a �:�yva'rJf.
>� }r .r rA'c+� ryl� c �� �ds r f � i .-r•.rr>
L�Lti�Jery'LiM1 .Rij!l^lr�� 0�A
} Y
r, v
r ,c,tt r,,;" �;.�,� " � ,c. ,� ,'�-! ��,.. -x W>',�•W r ",gym kL.�,.� d� ,�> �_�"` �s,iau � '
C1,
�/ y Zvi -� a y��1aTd�� .� - �!" • ����1YFx:
4 wtO
-�� j• s xXva.'
Attachment #4
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
APIC: 076-341-004
PRE-ANNEXATION AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN
THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AND
SERAFINO J.MARTINELLI
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 Serafino J. Martinelli, Trustee, PO Box 3452, San Luis Obispo, California, 93403
(hereinafter referred to as "OWNER"), pursuant to the authority of the City Charter, and
Section 56000 and following sections of the California Government Code. CITY and OWNER
shall hereinafter be referred to collectively as "PARTIES."
RECITALS
WHEREAS, Serafino J. Martinelli, is the owner in fee of certain real property in the County of
San Luis Obispo, commonly known as the west part of the Margarita Area and generally
indicated on the attached Exhibit A, Vicinity Map (Assessor's Parcel Number 076-341-040),
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. 208-98); 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, OWNER desires 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
2-14
Pre-annexation Agreement(Margarita/S.J.Martinelli)
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 OWNER, 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, OWNER shall comply with applicable State and County regulations
regarding well abandonment.
Sewer Service. City agrees, upon request of OWNER, 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 OWNER, 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
2-15
Pre-annexation Agreement(Margarita/S.J.Martinelli)
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 OWNER
proposes to use a private well for domestic water supply and a CITY sewer connection for
wastewater disposal, for a commercial activity, OWNER 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 IMPROVEMENTS. At the time of future development or redevelopment, it
shall be the responsibility of the OWNER 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
OWNER. The adopted specific plan will identify the amount and time of payment for these
fees. OWNER agrees 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,
OWNER 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, OWNER
shall pay to CITY or CITY shall refund to OWNER 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 OWNER dedicates or improves
2-16
Pre-annexation Agreement(Margarita/S.J.Martinelli)
Page 4 of 6
public park land, or does both, or if OWNER provides private recreational facilities that serve
public park functions, CITY may grant OWNER a credit toward the identified park fees. The
amount of any such credit shall be proportional to the park or recreational facilities provided
by OWNER compared with the total park obligation of OWNER, according to CITY policies
and based on the population expected to reside in OWNER'S development.
B. Neighborhood Elementary School Site Dedication and Development. Upon annexation,
OWNER shall pay to CITY $62,170, 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, OWNER 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. OWNER acknowledges 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, OWNER and OWNER'S successors agree
to support the formation of such a district. Prior to formation of any such district, OWNER
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. 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.
7. 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. OWNER and OWNER'S
successors agree to support the formation of such a district or other funding mechanisms. Prior
to formation of any such district, OWNER shall have the right to comment on the amount and
2-17
Pre-annexation Agreement(Margarita/S.J.Martinelli)
Page 5 of 6
method of cost assessment and to negotiate with CITY concerning an amendment of this
agreement. Further, OWNER 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. AMENDMENTS, TE%1E 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.
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.
OWNER
BY:
type name:
2-18
Pre-annexation Agreement(Margarita/S.J.Martinelli)
Page 6 of 6
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO, A Chartered Municipal Corporation
BY:
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price C.M.C.
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
^/Allor7'Je! or en
2-19
oil
•
w
2flNi
gial 4 n MA IT 4
,W_4
7W
AP:
opTnF�
T4
MR
9smogutpo
'I-r VM
�v
al.
.-JIM
LE -----------------
np� MiN
-11I "
T7
gwg p
L
,VffXl, R,;
_,ZTr
--------------
HUI
MWE
iT, . ......
I oll
-------------
L P:.
laN5
ODD
Exhibit B
Legal Description
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOTS 29 AND 30 OF THE .CAN LUIS ODISPO
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 RECORD OF SURVEYS, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS-
BEGINNING AT STAKE S.74 AT TILE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID LOT 29,
AND RUNNING THENCE NORTH 0037' EAST ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID
LOT 29, 9.95 CHAINS TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY
CONVEYED TO MANUEL FAUSTINO, BY DEED RECORDED DECEMBER 10, 1909
IN BOOK 83, PAGE 427 OF DEEDS; .
THENCE EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE PROPERTY SO CONVEYED
TO MANUEL FAUSTINO, 15.00 CHAINS;
THENCE SOUTH 0010' EAST, 9.88 CHAINS TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID
LOT 30;
THENCE WEST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOTS 30 AND 29, 15.16
CHAINS TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
END OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION
2-21
Attachment #5
INITIAL STUDY
ER 208-98
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1 . Project Title: Western Margarita Area 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 site is north of the easterly extension of Prado Road, in the western part of the
Margarita Specific Plan Area (attached map).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
Craig Cowan Revocable Trust Representative: John French
265 Indian Knob 3942 Hollyhock Way
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
The site is within the urban reserve line and 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 with a minimum parcel
size that would not allow subdivision. Upon adoption of the proposed specific plan, the
area would be zoned consistent with that plan (anticipated Low Density Residential,
Medium Density Residential, and Medium-high Density Residential, all with the Specific
Plan overlay zone).
8. Description of the Project;
9.A Relationship to Other Environmental Review;
9.13 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
2-22
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 (attached map). 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 130 dwellings out of a total 1 ,100 dwellings in the specific plan area. Streets
and utilities would be extended into the area in accordance with the specific plan.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The approximately 14-acre site gently sloping, alluvial grazing land. A mobile home
park is to the west and houses are to the north. 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 an agreement concerning property-
tax sharing.
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 2-23
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.
Land Use and Planning Biological Resources Aesthetics
X Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise X Mandatory Findings of
Significance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation S stems
FISH AND GAME FEES:
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects
on fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project
El
qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
FlThe 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 2-24
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
1 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.
1 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
BY:
i�s�99
Si iture Datef
ohn Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager
Printed Name
4 2-25
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
1. 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 CEQA 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 2-26
Issues and Supporting Information Sources sources potenth: "potentially Less than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Western Margarita Area Annexation Unless� I'"�"
Mitigation
Incorporated
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
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 4 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction overthe.project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity? 4 X
d) Affect. agricultural resources or operations (such as
impact to soils or farmlands, or impacts from 4, 16 X
incompatible land uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement .of an
established community (including a low-income or 4 X
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 site is shown as
"other land," on the California Department of Conservation farmland map.
2:'.-POPULATIOM 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)?
c) Displace existing housing, especially affordable housing? X
a) The additional resident population enabled by the annexation (about 300) 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 fo:poteritial.impacts.involving:
a) Fault rupture? X
ti) 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 X
conditions from excavation, grading, or fill?
g) Subsidence of the land? X
h) Expansive soils? X
1) - Unique.geologic or physical features? X
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.
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.
6 2-27
Issues and Supporting Information. _jurces Somas I
PO •. PotentiallY Noltnpaa
Significant Significant Significant
Unless Impact
Western Margarita Area Annexation Issues Mitigation
Incorporated
4. WATER. Would the proposal result,in:.
a) Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the 4 X
rate and amount of surface runoff?
b) Exposure of people or property to water:related hazards 4, 8, 9 X
such as flooding?
c) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of
surface water quality (including temperature, dissolved X
oxygen or turbidity)?
d) Changes in the amount of surface water in..any water X
body?
e) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
f) Change in the quantity of ground waters;;eitherthrough 4
direct additions or withdrawals,-or through,interceptionX
of an aquifer by cuts or excavations.or;through
-substantial loss of.groundwater,recharge capability?
g) Altered direction`or:.rata of.flow'of:groundwateR X
h) Impacts to groundwater quality?'' .` ' ` X
i) Substantial.reduction..in the amount of,groundwater X
.otherwise:availeble;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 EI
Camino Estates will prevent overflow 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. ;AI.R QUALITY. Would.the proposal:. . ..
a)' Violate any.air-qualitystandard:.or contribute.16 an
existing or,projected:air quality violation: X
(noncompliance with APCD Environmental Guidelines)?, 4, 10,
.. 11
b) Expose sensitive,:receptors to:�pollutants., ''` X
c) Alter air movement;moisture;or temperature, or cause
X
any change in climate?
d) Create objectionable odors?_ X
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):?
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? X
f) Conflicts with adopted policies supporting alternative X
transportation (such as bus turnouts, bicycle racks)?
2-28
Issues and Supporting Information Sources Sources poterrtir' ' "rorentiallyT Nolmpact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Western Margarita Area Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
g) Rail, waterborne or air traffic impacts (incompatibility 5 X
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 most of the annexation area is compatible
according to the Airport Land Use Plan. However, multifamily development proposed for the
southwestern part of the site appears to be not compatible with the adopted Airport Land Use
Plan. Such development does appear to be compatible with a draft update of that plan. This
issue must be resolved before the specific plan is adopted and development occurs.
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Wouldthb.proposal:affect:
a).. Endangered, threatened or rare species.or their habitats X
(including plants, fish, insects, animals or birds)? .
b):-Locally designated species (such as.heritage':trees)? X
c). 'Locally designated.natural communities,4duch as oak 4 X
forest, coastal habitat)?
A) Wetland habitat (marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e) Wildlife dispersal ormigration corrido[sTX
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
8... ENERGY:AND,MINERAL'-RESOURCES .W...ould;the',proposal:
a) Conflict with,ddopted energy conservation plans?: X
b)',: Use non-renewable resources yin a wasteful'and`
X
inefficient manner? 4
W 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. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
9. HAZARDS._Would the.proposal.involve:•: ..
a) A risk ofaccidental explosion.or release,of.hazardous
substances (including oil, pesticides;.chemicals or -.. X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with an emergency response plan X
or emergency evacuation plan?
c) The creation of any.health hazard or potential.health 4 X
hazard?
d) Exposure of people to existing sources of.potential X
health hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in areas with flammable brush; X
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?
2-29
Issues and Supporting Information ,,ources Sources Potentially Potentially Less Than No impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Western Margarita Area Annexation Mitigation
Incorpomied
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 aneed for new or altered
government services in:any of the following areas:
a).. Fre protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? 4 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including:roads? X
e). Other governrnental:services? X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
12 UT1LMES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. .Would the proposal result in a need for new systerns.or supplies
or substantial akerations to the following utilities:. .
a)_Tower be.natural gas? X
;b). Communications systems? X
c_1::. :LocaI or regionalwater•treatment or distribution X
facilities?. 4
d). Sewer.or:septic tanks? X
e)..:-.Storm._water drainage? ; : X
#) :.-Solid-:waste:disposal?... X
g) Loca6:or;regional;,water.supplies?
X
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
43.,;AESTHETICS:° Would:the:.proposal: .
a) Affect arsceruc vista oras
carnehighway?. X
6) Have a dernonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 4 X
c):. Create.light.or glare?_ 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 RESOURCE&-Would the'proposal:
-a) Disturb paleontological resources? x
b)- .Disturb archaeological=resources? X
C) Affect%historical-resources? 4 X
d). Have the potential-to cause a physical change which X
would:affectuni'ue .ethnic cultural.values?
'e) Restrict existing religious_ or sacred uses within the X
-potential irnpact.area? .
No change to existing conditions will result from the annexation alone. Cumulative impacts of
eventual development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
IS. RECREATION: Would the.proposal:
a)' Increase!the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities? 4
b) Affect existing recreational opportunities? 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 within the Margarita Area.
9 2-30
Issues and Supporting Information, Sources Sources Potentia potentially I.essThan No impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues
nless Impact
Western Margarita Area Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
16. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the
quality of the environment, substantially reducethe
habitatofa 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 long-term, environmental;C X
goals?
c) '.'Does the-project have.-impacts that'are individually..,
_ limited;,but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively•
considerable" means that the incremental effect's 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 theeffects.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?..
I0 2-31
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or
more effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3)
(D). In this case a discussion 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
p g -----
2. Po ulation and Housin Further imbalance in workers compared with residents: overriding
consideration [The annexation area would have a beneficial impact since
-------------+it -- exclusively reside-tial)----------_____------____-
----------------------------- ----------------------------
Geologic Problems : No particular impacts for annexation area; routine mitigation through
---------------------------+development review--
------------- -
4. Water : Runoff contamination: mitigated by creek buffers in annexations
--------- -----------------------------� ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
5. Air Quality -- - - : Construction air pollution. mitigated 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 Reso- .......... - --------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------
urces : No impacts
----------------------------�----------------------------------------- - - --- -
9. Hazards : Impacts not significant with CEQA review and code compliance at the
level of development projects
------------------- --- *---------- ---------- --------- ------------ ---- ------posu---t- noise:
Noise : Construction-generated noise and residential exposure to traffic noise:
i impacts will not be significant with policy and code compliance at the
level of development projects
11. Public 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-
- - - -- -;;.... t_ - - ---------------------------
Utilities & Service Systes : See Public Services
-- - ------------------------• ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
13. Aesthetics : Cumulative change from rural to urban character: overriding
consideration
- - - i- ---------------------+ - - - -
14. Cultural Resources : Impacts will not be sig nificant 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
2-32
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.(6), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21082.1, 21083, 21083.3,
21093, 321094, 21151; Sandstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d 296 (1988);Leonofff V.
Monterey Board of Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan Land Use Element, City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994 las 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-annexatio
agreement with the land owners will assure that development in the annexed territory will be subject t
mitigation measures approved by the City when the EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan is certified.
12 2-33
Hi�ieP � 2^3�5t�yf'-.
MA
22191 1
-4 L
H INI FOR
al
vN F, j pun
p
M ll� "Ell
WHIM-
Mis
ZE
�WF
k 4 L ti
NP U F N
Ll
_.kj
x74
M`W El
sie,�. t
15�ZE_,ps,
y�m
RZ
p I