HomeMy WebLinkAbout04/04/2000, 1 - ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION, ANNEXATION, AND ZONING FOR THE ACACIA CREEK ANNEXATION (DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS FIELDS, ANNX NO.177-99). r
council °'.WwD�Apr.4,00
j aGEnaa RepoRt ft N.Aw
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
o -
FROM: Arnold B. Jonas, Community Development Director
Prepared By: Glen Matteson,Associate Planner 1
SUBJECT: ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION,ANNEXATION,AND ZONING
FOR THE ACACIA CREEK ANNEXATION(DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS
FIELDS,ANNX NO. 177-99).
CAO RECOMMENDATION
A. Adopt a resolution to approve a negative declaration of environmental impact.
B. Adopt a resolution recommending that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo)
approve the annexation.
C. Introduce an ordinance to pre-zone the territory Conservation/Open Space with a 25-acre
minimum parcel size(C/OS-25).
DISCUSSION
Data Summary
Property Owner: City of San Luis Obispo
General Plan Land Use Map: Park,Recreation
Zoning: Outside city limits, so no City zoning;County General Plan designation is Recreation
Surrounding Uses: grazing land; arterial road; houses and outdoor storage on large parcels;former
petroleum storage area
Environmental Status: On October 20, 1999, staff proposed that a negative declaration be
approved for the annexation and zoning, based on these actions having no
significant impacts. Additional environmental review is required before
sports fields are developed on the site. The envirommental impact report for
the Margarita Area Specific Plan is expected to be the major part of that
review.
Site Description
The approximately 9.5-hectare(24-acre)site extends from the base of the South Hills across Acacia
Creek to Broad Street, at the Industrial Way intersection (attached vicinity map). Most of this
gradually sloping land has been grazed for many years. The site includes a gravel road and small
bridge providing access to the cluster of older houses to the west. There are no buildings on the site.
There are two or three small trees near the bridge. Small plants indicative of wetlands and some
native grasses have been found on parts of this property. There is no evidence of petroleum
contamination on this site, which is about 200 meters (700 feet) away and up-gradient from the
nearest former Unocal tank.
1-1
Y
Council Agenda Report—Acacia Creek(sports fields)annexation
Page 2
Evaluation
The site is inside the urban reserve line,making it eligible for annexation. The General Plan Land
Use Element says land must be inside the city limits to receive City services. The Water and
Wastewater Management Element encourages use of reclaimed water for irrigation. To make
these services available, the property must be annexed. The site is within the Margarita Area,
making it subject to the requirement for a specific plan. The Land Use Map shows most of the
site as Park, with the southeastern corner shown as Recreation. These land-use categories allow
the proposed use. The Land Use Element says the land can be annexed after the City Council
approves a draft of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, which occurred in 1998. However,
development in the area cannot proceed until the specific plan is adopted. That is anticipated to
occur in six months or so. According to the Land Use Element, land-annexed before the specific
plan is adopted must be zoned Conservation Open Space.
The Land Use Element also says development must be consistent with the Airport Land Use
Plan, a State-mandated guide to compatible uses in the vicinity of the airport, which is adopted
by the independent Airport Land Use Commission. According to the adopted Airport Land Use
Plan, athletic fields are compatible on the entire site except the westernmost conger, where they
are conditionally compatible. Sports fields would be compatible under the draft update of the
Airport Land Use Plan.
The Noise Element indicates that at General Plan build-out the eastern edge of the site,within 15
to 20 feet of the Broad Street right-of-way, will be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 70
decibels (in the day-night weighted noise. averaging method). This strip would therefore not be
acceptable for`playgrounds,"but the rest of the site would be.
The Land Use Element and the Open Space Element say creek corridors are to be considered
Open Space, even though they are not all shown as such on the Land Use Map. Policies in these
elements will require protection and restoration of riparian habitat along the creeks. Realigning
or changing the flow of existing creeks, which has been considered as part of areawide planning
and preliminary sports fields design, will require a finding.that there is no practicable alternative
for reasonable development. The City will need to mitigate any loss of wetlands or native
grasslands,by creating or enlarging and permanently protecting similar habitat Specific plans for
the Margarita Area and the Airport Area will designate mitigation sites.
The configuration of the annexation parcel would accommodate the road alignment shown in the
draft Margarita Area Specific Plan, and which the Council recently approved as an amendment to
the Circulation Element of the General Plan.
The Parks and Recreation Element.establishes a desired ratio of sports fields to city residents,
sets priorities for development of sports fields, and calls for major new developments to provide
sufficient fields for the youth who will reside in them. As the rest of the Margarita Area is
annexed and subdivided, developers will dedicate parkland or pay in lieu fees for parks, to
comply with these policies.
1-2
Council Agenda Report—Acacia Creek(sports fields) annexation
Page 3
A design for the sports fields is not proposed at this time. Development of the fields and
associated facilities such as parking and restrooms will be subject to architectural review. Also,
parks require approval of an administrative use permit in the C/OS zone and in the Public
Facility(PF) zone that is likely to be applied once the specific plan is adopted.
CONCURRENCES
On November 3, 1999, the Planning Commission voted six to none (one member absent) to
recommend approval of the recommended actions. The Commission also recommended that
further environmental review for the Margarita Area Specific Plan and sports fields development
thoroughly evaluate,and include mitigation for, impacts to creeks.
FISCAL IMPACT
A fiscal study for the 1994 General Plan update showed that the City's general fund would
remain fiscally healthy while annexing a combination of residential and commercial areas
(Mundie & Associates, 1994). This has been happening and is proposed to continue. Costs and
revenues for sports fields development and the Prado Road extension will be considered by the
Council in future actions.
ALTERNATIVES
Concerning the environmental determination, the Council may request more information. The
Council would need to identify the specific type of additional information desired. If the Council
believes there may be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the appropriate action would
be to continue consideration until the environmental impact report for the Margarita Area
Specific Plan is certified.
The Council may decide not to proceed with annexation. The City must pay property taxes until
the land is annexed. City services cannot be provided until the site is annexed.
If the annexation is to proceed ahead of specific-plan adoption,the site must be zoned C/OS. The
only option is for different minimi parcel size, which is not a substantial issue given the
ownership and intended use. -
The Council may continue the item. There is no legally mandated deadline for action.
Attachments
Draft resolution approving a negative declaration of environmental impact
Draft resolution recommending that LAFCO approve the annexation
Draft ordinance pre-zoning the site C/OS-25
Vicinity map
Initial environmental study
=T\sports fields\an. m CAR
1-3
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
APPROVING A NEGATIVE DECLARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
FOR THE ACACIA CREEK ANNEXATION AND PRE-ZONING
(ER 177-99)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000, 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, 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 .2000.
1-4
Resolution No.
Page 2
Mayor Allen K. Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price,CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
tto ey J ensen
masp/sports 5elds/ndccres.doc
1-5
RESOLUTION NO. (2000 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF RECOMMENDATION BY
THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL REQUESTING THAT THE
LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION APPROVE
THE ACACIA CREEK ANNEXATION(ANNX 177-99)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed annexation on November 3, 1999, and April 4,2000,respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council on April 4, 2000, by Resolution No. (2000 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 pre-zoning the
annexation property to Conservation/Open Space with minimum parcel sizes of 25 acres (C/OS-
25);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 eastern side is 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 worldng in the vicinity of the annexation area-
1-6
Resolution No.
Page 2
SECTION 2: Annexation Area Described. The annexation shall consist of that area,
covering approximately 23.5 acres west of Broad Street and northerly from the intersection with
Industrial Way, 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, in
accordance with California Government Code Section 56844 and following.
SECTION 4: Implementation. The City Clerk shall forward a copy of this resolution and
pre-zoning 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 22000.
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
orn Je o ensen
wasp/sports fields/cclafi=.doc
1-/
Exhibit A
Acacia
1 500 1000 /1
Meters
__ � rt IAyj�t,t�i��:Fi�f ����'�� •.Va ���'r� �'.\ �r •� ,..���jV
W.
r
� K
d
,l�q ?
,r. Ryz,u h � �° ." ''r'fr d.� Fa�.y�,•�Ja �,x �.K'�k i '�A-' + i
Vg
AA
i i� '• t�1 Z '�Vi� ',>S
1
.
• - 111
Exhibit B
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Acacia Creek Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo
Being a portion of Lots 86 and 87 of the San Luis Obispo Suburban Tract as recorded in
Book 1 at Page 92 of Records of Survey in the County Recorder's office in the County of
San Luis Obispo, State of California,more particularly described as follows:
Beginning at the Northwest comer of Lot 85 of said Suburban Tract;thence
N66°43'40"E along the southerly line of said Lot 86 a distance of 216.81 meters to its
intersection with the westerly right-of-way line of Broad Street, also being State Highway
227; thence northerly along said westerly right-of-way line and the arc of a curve having
a radius of 2,15036 meters,concave easterly,whose radius point bears N69'39'1 7"E,
through a central angle of 03°52'06"an arc distance of 145.18 meters;thence
N16°28'3T'W a distance of 152.93 meters;thence leaving said right-of-way line,
S66°26'51"W a distance of 90.77 meters; thence westerly along the arc of a tangent
curve,concave to the southeast,having a radius of 336.00 meters and a central angle of
19°29'52"an arc distance of 114.34 meters;thence S46°56'59"W a distance of 162.43
meters,to a point on the westerly line of said Lot 86, said point also being on the westerly
line of Section 1 of T 30 S and R 12 E; thence southerly along said westerly line
S01°32'45"W a distance of 155.30 meters to the southwest comer of said Lot 86, also
being the southwest comer of said Section 1; then easterly along the southerly line of said
Lot 86, S88°27'15"E a distance of 191.32 meters to the Point of Beginning.
Containing 9.52 hectares; or 23.5 acres more or less.
1-9
ORDINANCE NO. (2000 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING ZONING FOR THE ACACIA CREEK ANNEXATION
. (R 177-99)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on April 4, 2000, 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.
1-10
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 2000, 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:
i ey rgensen
masp/sports fields/zoneord.doc
1-11
Exhibit A
•_oning ® C/OS-25 . 0 200 400 . 0 100 200
R 177-99 Feet Meters A
I
I
Tank Farm Rd
Myr of San Luis Obispo Long-range Planning
9 February 2000
xlprojecM m devVong range\rnwp\sporfsmne.apr
1-12
Acacia Annexation •
incorporatedANNX 177-99 Meters 1 500 1000 A
->, rxertia �'� F...i �♦ iLA CICS\ N a�a� y �A• c,� �y. Y
67—a l �t i a
d t Baa I \�"�
"fCC! faffuuu
14�� <l h LG * 'x (�(. t l �/�p� i �A
,rb yY C^" �^P-h_ 1 E'
m�i
u � I E � ° I� 6 � Y 1 V��'+a � �`� '° ..3 t,, �.. z•. y'����i f��"i�
N
mom
m 1
L I r
11
?t•T- � f,� €� `��, 'may,..-c\ �
4 `L 1''1 ��✓�jt
City of San Luis
1 j
t rl
std
]r3
4 4 \\ 1
Obispo -
• • • Division
Febnjary 2000
INITIAL STUDY
ER 177-99
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Acacia Creek Annexation (ANNX 177-99)
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
e-mail: gmatteso@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us
4. Project Location:
The site'is on the west side of Broad Street, northwest from the Industrial Way intersection
(attached Vicinity Map).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Recreation Department (Paul LeSage)
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
The site is within the urban reserve line and in the Margarita Speck Plan Area. Most of
the site is designated Park; part is designated Recreation. Open space policies apply to the
creeks flowing through the site. These designations and policies were evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report for the 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates,
(City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994) and the negative declaration for the Open Space Element
update. .
7. Zoning:
The County's designation is Recreation. Since the site is outside the city limits, City zoning
has not been applied. Upon annexation., .the site is .proposed to be zoned
Conservation/Open Space. Upon adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, the
property would be zoned Public Facilities.
8. Description of the Project:
This project is an initial step in implementing the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in
developing public sports fields and possibly an extension of Prado Road on the site. The
1-14
project consists of extending the city limits to encompass 9.4 hectares (23.5) acres and to
zone the site Conservation/Open Space. Annexation makes the land subject to City land-
use rules and eligible for City services. No detailed plans for construction of facilities are
proposed at this time. Before such construction occurs, the Margarita Area Specific Plan
must be adopted and the facility plans must undergo additional environmental review and
be considered at public hearings. Upon adoption of the specific plan, the site would be
rezoned to Public Facility. An environmental impact report (EIR) is being prepared for the
Margarita Area Specific Plan. The EIR will evaluate the potential impacts of developing
sports fields on this site and of extending Prado Road along the northern edge of the site.
A neighboring and related project, the Orcutt Creek Annexation (ER 79-99), is evaluated in
a separate initial study.
9. Project Entitlements Requested:
• Annexation to the City of San Luis Obispo;
• Adoption of the Conservation/Open Space (C/OS)zone.
10. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is gently sloping land, with Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek flowing from north to
south. There is a gravel road and small bridge providing access to the cluster of older houses
to the west, which are outside the proposed acquisition. There are no buildings on the site.
There are two or three small trees near the bridge. Small plants indicative of wetlands and
some native grasses have been found on parts of this property. The site has been used for
cattle grazing. To the north are serpentine-rock hills used for grazing, and proposed to
become an open space preserve. There are also a house and small orchard near Broad
Street To the west is gently sloping grazing, which is proposed to become an elementary
school and a neighborhood park, and the remains of a gravel quarry which may become
additional park space. To the southwest are a vehicle-storage lot and a mobile home park.
To the southeast is open land and a house converted to an office, proposed to become a
commercial center. To the east, across Highway 227,. is a utility company yard and a self-
storage development.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required:
The only ,approval by another agency required at this time is the San Luis Obispo County
,Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) approval of the annexation.
Required approvals by additional agencies will follow further environmental evaluation, as
noted under item #8 above. As the Margarita Area Specific Plan and development plans are
refined, the extent of proposed changes to Acacia Creek and Orcutt Creek will be known.
Changes are expected to need approval by the California Department of Fish & Game, and
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans District 5) and the San Luis Obispo
County Airport Land Use Commission will review and comment on the new intersection and
sports fields development prior to City action. Caltrans approval (expected to be ministerial)
will be required for any construction work or encroachments into the highway right-of-way.
2 1-15
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
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Si ni icance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Svstems
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 qualifies
for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
F-1 The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
3 1-16
DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project could not have a significant effect on the environment, and a X
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 sigr'dicant effects (1) have been
analyzed in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards and (2) have been avoided or mitigated
pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the
proposed project.
I find that the proposed project may have one or more significant effects on the environment, but (1)
the potential impacts have been adequately analyzed in an earlier environmental impact report
pursuant to applicable legal standards, including findings of overriding considerations for some
potential cumulative impacts, and (2) impacts for which findings of overriding considerations have not
previously been made have been avoided,or mitigated by measures described on attached sheets.
Arnold Jonas,Community Development Director
BY:
Sig re Date
J n Mandeville, Long-range Planning Manager
4 1-17
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 1.18
Issues and Supporting Informatior. .urees Sources Potenti. Potentially tis Than No Impact
Significant significant significant
Acacia Creek Annexation Issues urttess Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
1. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would the proposal:
a) Conflict with a General Plan designation, specific plan 1 X
designation,or zoning?
b) Conflict with applicable environmental plans or policies 1 X
adopted by agencies with jurisdiction over the project?
c) Be incompatible with existing land use in the vicinity/? X
d) .Affect agricultural resources or operations (such as impact
to soils or farmlands, or impacts from incompatible land 2 X
uses)?
e) Disrupt or divide the physical arrangement of an
established community(including a low-income or minority X
community)?
a).The General Plan Land Use Element shows"Park"and"Recreation" uses for the site.
b) The forthcoming.site development plan's consistency with policies for creek protection and restoration
will be evaluated in further environmental review.
d The conversion of grazing land was evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
2. POPULATION AND HOUSING-Would the proposal:
a) Cumulatively exceed official regional or<local .population X
projections?
b) Induce substantial growth in an area either directly or
indirectly(for example,through projects in an undeveloped 2 X
arewor.major infrastructure)?
c Drs`lace existing housing,.especially affordable.housin ? X
Thegrowth-inducing effects of making the site eligible for City services were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
3._GEOLOGIC PROBLEMS. Would the proposal.result in or expose people.to potential.impacts Involving:
a) Fault nip3ure? X
b) Seismic ground shaking? X
c) Seismic ground failure, including liquefaction? X
d) .Seiche,tsunami;or volcanic hazard? X
e) Landslides or:mudflows? 1,2 X
f) Erosion,changes in topography or unstable soil conditions X
Irom:excavatibn,grading,or fill?
g): subsidence.atthe land? X
ti) Expansive soils? X
Uni ue_ eo or. h . ical,features? X
Impacts of development are adequately addressed by the 1994 EIR,and by 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 dose.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.
4. WATER...Would thei ro . sal result in:
Changes in absorption rates,drainage patterns, or the rate X
and amount of surface runoff?
Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such X
as flooding? 2
a) Discharge into surface waters or other alteration of surface
water quality(including temperature,dissolved oxygen or X
turbid' ?
1-19
Issues and Supporting Informatior. jurces Soatces Potenti. Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Acacia Creek Annexation Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
b) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
c) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
d) Change in the quantity of ground waters,either through 2
direct additions or withdrawals, or through-interception of X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
e) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
f) Impacts to groundwater quality. X
g) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise.available for public water supplies?
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.
A "general construction activity storm water permit" from the Regional Water Quality Control Board is
required for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity involving five or more acres.
S. AIR QUALITY. Would.the.proposal:.
a) Violate any air quality standard or.contributeto:an existing
or projected air quality violation (noncompliance with X
ARCD.Environmental Guidelines)?
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2 X
c) After.air movement,..moisture,ortemperature,or cause X
any.change in climate?
d Create ob'ectionable odors? X
Cumulative impacts of development were addressed in the El 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 thero osal 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? 2 X
d) Insdificient parking capasity.on-site oroff-site?:. X
e) Hazards or-barriers for pedestrians:or bicyclists?: X
f) Conflicts with adopted polc..res supporting alemative X.
transponation( . .. racks)?
suith as bus turnouts,bicycle.
g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts(incompatibility with 3 X
Ai rt:Land Use.Plan ?. -
a) The trips likely to result from park development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR: Cumulative (build-out)
traffic impacts were determined to be significant and findings of overriding considerations were made.
b) Vehicle access to the sports fields is proposed to be through the signalized intersection.at Industrial
Way. Required modifications to the intersection and the signal system will be addressed when a
development plan is evaluated. This access will be safer and result in less congestion than using
driveways on Broad Street or on the proposed eastern extension of Prado Road.
d) The proposed use is compatible according to the Airport Land Use Plan.
The annexation would facilitate, but not commit the City to, the northern alignment for the Prado Road
extension shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan.That alignment, which will require an amendment of
the General Plan Circulation Element, is evaluated in a separate initial study(ER 190-99).
1-20
Issues and Supporting Informatior. Arses Sources Powtu. Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Acacia Creek Annexation Issues Unless rropact
Mitigation
Inc ted
7. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the 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 (such as oak 2 X
forest,coastal habitat)?
d) Wetland habitat(marsh, riparian and vernal pool)? X
e Wildlife.dispersal.or migration corridors? X
Small plants indicative of wetlands and some native grasses have been found on parts of this site.The open
site, in particular the creeks, provide a corridor for wildlife movement. The annexation and zoning will have
no impact on these habitat values. Development of sports fields and the road extension may have
significant impacts, unless mitigated. Impacts and mitigations will be described in the EIR for the Margarita
Area Specific Plan and the environmental document for the sports field development ER 185-99).
S. :ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES:''Wauld the;proposaI::
a) Conflict tivith adopted_energy:conservation.;pians? X
b) Use non=renewable:resources:wastefully.or:inefFiciently? X
c) Resuft.in.the loss of availability of a known mineral X
resource thatwould'be.of:future-ralue:to.the region.and
.the:.residents of the.State7:
.9.,HAZARI3S::WWouldthe ro osalfnvolve:r: :..
a) A Ask of accidental explosion or,release of'hazardous
substances(including oil, pestipdes;chemicals:or X
radiation)?
b) Possible interference with.an emergencyresponse plan or X
emergency evacuationplan?
c) The creation of any health hazard or potential health 2 X
hazard?
d) Exposure:of people to existing sources of potential.health X
hazards?
e) Increased fire hazard in:areas Arith flammable brush;grass X
ortrees?..
10:NDISE::1Nould:ahe; ro 'sahresuR A.
-
A) tracrsase.in existing nurse leyels� X
b) E;iposure of people to iiiacceptable"noise levels as 1 X
defined byttie San Cuffs Obispo General Plan Noise.
Element? -
The Noise Element indicates that at General Plan build-out the eastern edge of the site,within 15 to 20 feet
of the Broad Street right-of-way, will be exposed to traffic noise levels exceeding 70 decibels (in the day-
night weighted noise averaging method).This strip would therefore not be acceptable for"playgrounds,"but
the rest of the site would be.
11. PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the proposal.have an.effect upon,or result in a need for new or altered
government services in any.of the following:areas:
a) Fire protection? X
b) Police protection? X
c) Schools? . 2 X
d) Maintenance of public facilities, including.roads? X
e Other governmental services? X
8 1-21
Issues and Supportinglnformatioi. )urces Sources Potenn Potentially Less Than Nolmpact
Significant Significant Significant
Acacia Creek Annexation issues Unless IMPact
Mitigation
Incorporated
12.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 2 X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
Local or r ional water supplies? X
Annexing the site makes it eligible for City water and sewer service.The sports fields will require irrigation,
which the City anticipates providing as reclaimed water. The fields will eventually be served by drinking
fountains and restrooms, which will require potable water service and sewer service. Overall demands
were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
13.AESTHETICS..Weuld.thd*.o osal:
a) Affect a'scenic vista orsceriic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable-negative,aesthetic effect? 2 X
c ..Create light or q lare? X
The cumulative impact of urbanization on rural character was evaluated in the 1994 EIR. Future structures,
parking areas,and lighting will be subject to City use-permit and architectural approval,following further .
environmental review.
14.CULTURAL•RES,O.URCES:`.Would:the, ro osal: .
a) Disturb<paieonfolbgical:resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
C) Affect historical resources? 2 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic culturalvalues?
e) . Restrict ezisting:religious;or-sacred uses within the X
potential im' pact area..
An archaeological survey of records and the surface of the adjacent site to the south found no evidence of
cultural resources, and concluded that further studies were not needed (Heritage Discoveries; July, 1999;
in. ER 79-99;). A survey of the subject site. will be conducted before consideration of grading or
construction plans.
IR T.WCREATION :Would*Ot -` '. l:
a) increase the-demand forrleight orhood or regional:parks X
or other recreational:facil'tties?
b A Ifectexistina recreational rtunities? X
9 1-22
Issues and Supporting Informatioi. ,urces Sources Potenti. ' Potentially less Than No impact
Significant Significant Significant
Acacia Creek Annexation issues unless . impact
Mitigation
Inco ted
16.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE.
a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality
of the environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a
fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to
drop below self-sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate.a 2 X
plant or animal community, reduce.the number or restrict
the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or
eliminate important examples of the major periods of
Caftomia history orprehistory?
The annexation and zoning will have no adverse impacts. When the sports fields are developed, any loss
of creeks, wetlands, or native grasslands will be mitigated in conformance with City policies and the
requirements of State and Federal law.
b) Does the project have the potential to achieve short=term,
to the disadvantage of long-term,environmental goals? X
c) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited;
but cumulatively considerable? (°Cumulatively.
considerable' means that the incrementaleffects of a
project are,considerable when-viewed:in connection with 1. 2 X
the effects.of past-projects,the effects of other current
ralkts,t.and the effects of'. roliableJuture,; rdjocts
Several projects that would affect existing creeks and associated .uplands, wetlands, or native grasslands
are proposed in the vicinity.They are:
• The County's airport runway extension, resulting in cutverting a tributary to East Fork San Luis Obispo
Creek;
Residential, industrial, and park development in the rest of the Margarita Area, affecting small, isolated
wetlands, minor tributaries to East Fork San Luis Obispo Creek, and patches of native grasslands;
• Proposed commercial development. in the "Orcutt Creek Annexation" (Lathrop property), which
contains Orcutt Creek downstream from the subject site;
• Proposed commercial development in the 'Touchstone Annexation" at the northwest comer of Tank
Farm Road and Broad Street,containing Orcutt Creek downstream from the Lathrop property,
• Extension of Prado Road through, and industrial or .commercial development on, the Holdgrafer
property to the northeast on Broad Street, containing Orcutt Creek upstream of the subject site;
• Residential development northwest of the intersection of Broad Street and Rockview Place, containing
a tributary to Acacia Creek.
The .general policy for land subject to City jurisdiction is to obtain permanent protection for the .most
sensitive resources and enhance degraded resources (such as creek corridors damaged by cattle grazing)
while accommodating urban development inside the urban reserve line.
d). Does.the project have emrimpmental effects Which will
cause substantial edverse effects on human beings, either X
directly or indirectly?.
10 1-23
J
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 identity the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for review.
The site 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.
All the checklist topics were addressed to some extent in the 1994 EIR. The resolution certifying the EIR
indicated the environmental status of each topic. Because the current project would not change land use
designations, and a specific development is not proposed at this time, no topics require further analysis or
mitigation.
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=nditions of the-project.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public.Resources Code Sections 21080(c),21.080.1,21080.3,21082.1,21083,21083.3,21093,
321094,21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino;202 Cal.App.3d.296 (1988);L-eonofff v.Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal.:App. 3d 1337.(1990)s
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo(as amended through September 1999), comprised of the
following elements: Land Use (1994);Open Space (1994); Circulation (1994); Housing (1994);
Conservation (1973); Parks& Recreation(1995); Noise (1996); Seismic Safety(1975); Safety
(1978); Energy Conservation (1981);.Water&Wastewater Management(1994).
2. Final Environmental Impact Report 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates,
City of San Luis Obispo,August 1994.
3. I Ai ort Land Use Plan, S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Commission, 1973 as amended in 19
19: MITIGATION MEASURES&MITIGATION MONITORING
No mitigation measures are proposed as part of this environmental study. City zoning and a pre-annexation
agreement with the land owners will assure that development in the annexed territory will be subject to
mitigation measures approved by the City when the EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Ptah is certified.
masp\Wn-ies.doc
1-24
Richard Schmidt V 544-424/ U1411wu v W.UZ AM U.Na
nN AGENDA
0 TE_.. °RM #_
RICHARD SCHMIDT
112 Broad Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93405 (805) 544-4247
MOUNCIL ACCO I i3
April 4, 2000 °r -) o
Re: Annexations on April 4 Council Agenda VIA 'A TEAM ❑ EC DI c =
P 9 1..31AT TEAM @ f�EC DIR
❑UTIL DIR
To the City Council: til•Kaz dame. O PERS DIR �Iv
+tem
I urge you to back off from the process of piecemeal annexations of the larger Airport
Area annexation. It is becoming clear that committing to these annexations as they
come along is a bankrupt policy that is producing a great deal of planning mischief.
1. Annexations Without An Overall Plan. The original idea of the Airport annexation was
to come up with a grand scheme which would provide a desired amount of urban
development at the same time it protected many of the resources of the land. To that
end, the original plan showed scattered "business parks" on poorer soil, with large tracts
of prime soil in between being preserved. With piecemeal annexations, this sort of
planning is impossible. In fact, the Farm Supply annexation was one of the parcels
originally designated for preservation, because it is a small chunk of the best farmland
in the world, while the disturbed land to its east was to be developed.
2. Failure to Protect Prime Soils. The city of San Luis Obispo is fortunate to have
enough of the world's best farmland in its immediate vicinity to feed its population in the
event of a breakdown in the irrational and unsustainable globalized food supply system.
It is only a matter of time until the current system crumbles. (Remember, like the USA
today, the Roman Empire once fed itself from far-flung agricultural operations. They
thought that could go on forever. They were wrong. Today the former breadbasket of
the empire, North Africa, is desert: the fruitful Italian and Spanish mountains are rocky
wastelands. The conversion of the breadfruit basket of the ancient world to wasteland
was entirely due to stupid and arrogant human actions. We repeat that history here,
today.) Instead of protecting this natural gift of good soil, we are launched headlong on
despoiling it in the name of economic progress, and so we rush to destroy most of what
is left: Dalidio, Froom, and the airport area.
This headlong rush to kill our best soil is not only foolish, it is also being carried out in a
deliberate manner that undercuts the Land Use Element's prime soil protection
provisions. Those provisions require protection of prime land as a primary priority, and
state that if prime land is lost to development, the development must provide for the
permanent protection of a like amount and quality of prime land elsewhere in the
vicinity. This leaaLnequirement is not being followed in the current instances.
Schmidt to Council. Page 1
RECEIVED
APR - 4 2000
SAO CiTrr Ct,ERK
Richard Schmidt 9544-4247 Q4a4Ju .)I U U I AM L]Zia
Further, in discussions with a planning commissioner, I learned that staff has
misrepresented the soil quality of the Farm Supply parcel. This commissioner said the
land was prime, but staff assurred other commissioners that it is not. This is a false
assertion by staff. US Soil Conservation Service mans clearly show the Farm Supply
parcel as Marimel sandy clayloam oam a prime soil. They also show the Broad Street
parcels under consideration tonight as mostlyCr.QpJgy ,clay, another nLme�4i1.
The question this Council will have to answer at the Pearly Gates (if not before a
Nuremberg-type crimes-against-humanity-for-destroying-the-earth's-productivity trial) is
why was it so much more important to develop this rare productive soil than to preserve
it for the future production of humankind's food?
3. Annexation Without Water Supply is Bad Policy. The city continues to annex land,
and allocate water to serve it, even though it has in fact added no water to a supply that
is capable of handling current needs only in a sequence of years with "normal" rainfall.'
It has created a fiction of "new" water supply by counting every retrofitted toilet as a new
source, and by counting an as-yet unusable and highly theoretical "water reuse"
scheme as if it were usable water. At the same time, the city rushes headlong to make
its past emergency supply, the Dalidio aquifer, unusable in the future by building atop it.
If one wanted to create a water crisis scenario would there be 4
about it? Indeed, the Administration seems to be deliberately setting out to create a
water crisis so the people can be bamboozled into a panic reaction that will assure
some costly new water source. The Utilities Director has said as much in an out-of-town
public meeting.
Again, as with soil conservation, with water we repeat the stupid mistakes of the past. In
the 1970s, with land development along Los Osos Valley Road in full swing, one fine
hot day the fire department went up to one of the new subdivisions, opened a fire plug,
and sucked air. That created a crisis, and extensive city resources had to be marshalled
immediately to solve it. Of course, everybody knew there was going to be a problem
beforehand, but nobody wanted to have to say no to the developers. The "crisis" solved
that problem, and stuck citizens with the costs.
In the late 1980s, during another boom, the city knew it was running short of water, but
got its staff water experts to doctor the numbers to make it all OK. And when the city ran
up against those doctored numbers, they doctored the numbers again. And again. Then
the drought hit, and everybody had rationing because of a water supply that had been
stretched too thin by giving too much water away to developers. The Administration
then came up with a bright idea: they knew everybody hated the state water project, but
maybe if we presented them with a single choice -- more rationing or the state project --
' "Normal" is itself a misnomer when applied to California's rainfall. It has been learned recently that
our calculations of "normal'are all based on a brief period of time when rainfall was much greater than it
had been for centuries before. True normal is thus more like what we would call "drought."
Schmidt to Coural, Page 2
Richard$chmidi 'JK 5441'4241 ,`�i c r' - ILL 419lu oV I u.uu larvi U ua
they'd vote the right way. It didn't work, the drough ended, and soon we began our
current round of fictional water supply increases.
So, we're in another boom, and another cycle of water make believe.
While it's hard to say whether these particular annexations will be the ones to put the
city over the limit (Which straw was it that broke the camel's back when the camel was
already carrying 20 bales?), the point is clear: We are allocating water incrementally to
new development -- water that by rights belongs to current residents, and their supply is
being stretched thin to promote the profits of developers. When time comes to pay for a
crisis remedy, the city will again come up with a rationale to ignore its general plan
dictum that development pay its own way, and find a variety of strategems to make
residents (i.e., current users) pay for water they did not require. This is unfair. It is what
happens, however, when we have government by poor planning.
Again these annexations represent a bankrupt policy based on non-planning rather
than an enlightenedpolicybased on OD-d-planning. Please shelve them till the whole
airport area is ready for consideration as a ap ckage.
Sincerley,
Richard Schmidt
Schmidt to Council, Page 3
Apr-03-00 04: 10PME'TING AGENDA P 02
L. _c ` - ITEM # I
STATE OF CALIFORNIA BUSINESS,TRANSPORTATION AND HOUSING AGENCY
GRAY DAVIS, Governor
• DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
50 Higuera Street
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CA 93401-541'5 ,
TELEPHONE: (805)549-3111
TDD(805)549-3259
April 3, 2000
Mr. Michael McCluskey, � mp
ouuclL rum
Public Works Director AO
City of San Luis Obispo In�c 0
955 Morro Street 911705NEY LIPw Di(-
EffLEP UOMG 0'. .
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑E.IGMT TEAM U4 r•:I
BUA1F ❑UTIL PP`
Subject: Prado Road Extension —
Dear Mr. McCluskey:
Cahrans District 5 would like to take this opportunity to convey our thoughts in regard to the future
extension of Prado Road to Broad Street (State Route 227). Route 227 is a conventional highway that
primarily serves local and commute traffic between San Luis Obispo and the Five Cities area. It is not
considered a route of interregional significance.
The District is aware of the City's plans to construct an interchange at the existing Route 101/Prado Road
intersection and extending Prado Road easterly to Broad Street. Specifically where Prado Road intersects
Broad Street is not an issue with the District, as long as the connection occurs at a signalized intersection
and operates at an acceptable level-of-service. We expect future City traffic studies to verify that the
location of the Prado Road/Broad Street intersection will meet Caltrans operational requirements.
The extension of Prado Road is identified in our Route Concept for Route 227. The Route Concept
includes the potential realignment of Route 227 to the new Prado Road to achieve a more direct connection
with Route 101. We expect that the Prado Road extension will be designed and constructed to meet the
design specifications for a conventional highway. We would be happy to work with you in an oversight
capacity to assure that the Prado Road extension meets appropriate State Highway standards.
I hope you and your Council find this information useful. If you have any questions regarding this
issue, please call meat (805) 549-3161. Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sincerely,
Rich d L. Krumholz RECEIVED
Acting Division Chief
Division of Planning and Programming APR — 4 2000
SLO CI f V CLERK
• � I � , , ..
_. _ � � .. ,
_ t f'
.. '
.j ..
f '. � ..
.. r � .
' Y�
MEED IG AGEI�(�A
DATE a -o -00
San Luis Coastal Uni��i - t
• 1499 SAN LUIS DRIVE
SAN LUIS OBISPO • CA • 93401-3099
Telephone: (805) 543-2010
WOUNCIL ADD DIR
GiCP,O ❑FIN DIR
B ICAO ❑�E CHIEF
I@ OCNEY I�PW DIR
�'C!.0"I:IOR!(i ICE CHF
❑L IT T AM NEC DIR
is ❑UTIL DIR
❑PERS DIR 'T
April 3, 2000
�a'd
Mr. John Dunn, City Administrator
City of San Luis Obispo �Ic?z-
9 0 Palm
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
• Dear Mr. Dunn:
San Luis Coastal Unified School District has no preference as to the north or south realignment of
Prado Road. Should a school be developed on the proposed school site, the playground for the school
would be contained on that site. It is not envisioned that the Damon-Garcia sportsfield complex would
be used as a part of the instructional program.
Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.
Respectfully,
_ _� LAPR
D
ry L. Livingston 000
Assistant Superintendent Business ServicesLERK
RLL/kcb
•
c:kcbright\mydocs\correspondence\RLL letter—John Dunn re Prado Road realignment.4300
District Superintendent,EDWIN DENTON,Ed.D.
Assistant Superintendent of EducationalServices,EDWARD T.VALENTINE,Ed.D. Assistant Superintendent of Business Services,RORY LIVINGSTON
MEET
AGENDA
D TE IN ' -00 ITEM 0 �
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT ITEM
BY: Glen Matteson, Ato Planner MEETING DATE: Nov. 3, 1999
FROM: John Mandeville, Long Range Planning Manaqp
FILE NUMBER: ER, ANNX, R 177-99
PROJECT ADDRESS: Margarita Area,west of Broad St. north of the Industrial Way intersection
SUBJECT: Environmental determination, annexation, and zoning for the Acacia Creek
annexation (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend that the City Council approve a negative declaration of environmental impact,
annexation, and zoning of Conservation/Open Space with a 25-acre minimum parcel size (C/OS-
25).
MMUNCIL Wtb DIR
DISCUSSION C►7EA0 ❑FIN DIR
QA'CAO ❑FIRE CHIEF
Ce3'ATTORNEY ❑PW DIR
Data Summary r<LERKlORIG ❑POLICE CHF
❑MGMT ❑REC DIR
�� u�tG ❑UTIL DIR
Property Owner: City of San Luis Obispo ❑ l7 PERS DI [
General Plan Land Use Map: Park,Recreation
Zoning: Outside city limits, so no City zoning; County General Plan designation is Recreation
Surrounding Uses: grazing land; arterial toad; houses and outdoor storage on large parcels; former
petroleum storage area
Environmental Status: On October 20, 1999, staff proposed that a negative declaration be
approved for the annexation and zoning, based on these actions having no
significant impacts. Additional environmental review is required before
sports fields are developed on the site. The environmental impact report for
the Margarita Area Specific Plan is expected to be the major part of that
review.
Site Description
The approximately 9.5-hectare (24-acre) site extends from the base of the South Hills across Acacia
Creek to Broad Street, at the Industrial Way intersection (attached map). Most of this gradually
sloping land has been grazed for many years. The site includes a gravel road and small bridge
providing access to the cluster of older houses to the west. There are no buildings on the site. There
are two or three small trees near the bridge. Small plants indicative of wetlands and some native
grasses have been found on parts of this property. There is no evidence of petroleum contamination
on this site, which is about 200 meters (700 feet) away and up-gradient from the nearest former
Unocal tank.
Evaluation
The site is inside the urban reserve line, making it eligible for annexation. Th
MAR 3' 1 2000
SLO CITY CLERK
Planning Commission Staff Report—Acacia Creek Annexation Page 3
A design for the sports fields is not proposed at this time. Development of the fields and associated
facilities such as parking and restrooms will be subject to architectural review.Also, parks require
approval of an administrative use permit in the C/OS zone and in the Public Facility (PF) zone that
is likely to be applied once the specific plan is adopted.
ALTERNATIVES
Concerning the environmental determination, the Commission may request more information.
The Commission would need to identify the specific type of additional information desired. If the
Commission believes there may be significant impacts that cannot be mitigated, the appropriate
action would be to recommend that the City Council not act on the annexation and zoning until
the Margarita Area Specific Plan environmental impact report is certified. If the City Council
concurs, the EIR would need to be prepared before a Commission hearing on the amendment
itself is held.
The Commission may recommend that the annexation not be approved.
If the annexation is to proceed ahead of specific-plan adoption, the site must be zoned C/OS. The
only option is for different minimum parcel size, which is not a substantial issue given the
ownership and intended use.
The Commission may continue the item. There is no legally mandated deadline for Commission
action.
Attached: Vicinity Map
Initial Environmental Study
INITIAL STUDY
ER 177-99
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
1. Project Title: Acacia Creek Annexation (ANNX 177-99)
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
e-mail: gmatteso@ci.san-luis-obispo.ca.us
4. Project Location:
The site is on the west side of Broad Street, northwest from the Industrial Way intersection
(attached Vicinity Map).
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address:
City of San Luis Obispo
Parks & Recreation Department (Paul LeSage)
1341 Nipomo Street
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation:
The site is within the urban reserve line and in the Margarita Specific Plan Area. Most of
the site is designated Park; part is designated Recreation. Open space.policies apply to the
creeks flowing through the site. These designations and policies were evaluated in the
Environmental Impact Report for the 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates,
.(City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994) and the negative declaration for the Open Space Element
update.
7. Zoning:
The County's designation is Recreation. Since the site is outside the city limits, City zoning
has not been applied. Upon annexation, the site is proposed to be zoned
Conservation/Open Space. Upon adoption of the Margarita Area Specific Plan, the
property would be zoned Public Facilities.
8. Description of the Project:
This project is an initial step in implementing the Margarita Area Specific Plan and in
developing public sports fields and possibly an extension of Prado Road on the site. The
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
Population and Housing Energy and Mineral Cultural Resources
Resources
Geological Problems Hazards Recreation
Water Noise Mandatory Findings of
Siqnificance
Air Quality Public Services
Transportation and Utilities and Service
Circulation Systems
FISH AND GAME FEES:
There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects �^
fish and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefore, the project quali
for a de minimis waiver with regard to filing Fish and Game fees.
0 The project has potential to impact fish and wildlife resources and shall be subject to the payment of Fish
and Game fees pursuant to Section 711.4 of the California Fish and Game Code.
3
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 9 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
Issues and Supporting Informatiol. -surces Sources Potem.. Potenually Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Acacia Creek Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
.b) Changes in the amount of surface water in any water X
body?
c) Changes in currents, or the course or direction of water X
movements?
d) Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through 2
direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of X
an aquifer by cuts or excavations or through substantial
loss of groundwater recharge capability?
e) Altered direction or rate of flow of groundwater? X
f) Impacts to groundwater quality? X
g) Substantial reduction in the amount of groundwater X
otherwise available for public_water supplies?
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.
A "general construction activity storm water permit" from the Regional Water Quality Control Board is
required for all storm water discharges associated with construction activity involving five or more acres.
S. AIR-QUALITY. Would.the, ro osal:
a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute to an existing
or.projected air quality violation (noncompliance with X
APCD Environmental Guidelines)? .
b) Expose sensitive receptors to pollutants 2 X
c) Alter air movement, moisture, or.temperature, or cause X
any change in climate?
d Create objectionable odors? X
Cumulative impacts of development were addressed in the EIR for the 1994 Land Use Element Upda'
The annexation would not enable development beyond that anticipated in the County Clean Air Plan.
6. TRANSPORTATIO.WCIRCULATION. 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? 2 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)?
g) Rail,waterbome or air traffic impacts (incompatibility with 3 X
Airport Land Use Plan)?
a) The trips likely to result from park development were evaluated in the 1994 EIR. Cumulative (build-out)
traffic impacts were determined to be significant and findings of overriding considerations were made.
b) Vehicle access to the sports fields is proposed to be through the signalized intersection at Industrial
Way. Required modifications to the intersection and the signal system will be addressed when a
development plan is evaluated. This access will be safer and result in less congestion than using
driveways on Broad Street or on the proposed eastern extension of Prado Road.
d) The proposed use is compatible according to the Airport Land Use Plan.
The annexation would facilitate, but not commit the City to, the northern alignment for the Prado Road
extension shown in the Margarita Area Specific Plan. That alignment, which will require an amendment of
the General Plan Circulation Element, is evaluated in a separate initial study(ER 190-99).
7
Issues and Supporting Information. jurces Sources Potenn Potentially Less Than No Impact
Significant Significant Significant
Issues Unless Impact
Acacia Creek Annexation Mitigation
Incorporated
12. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the proposal result in a need for new systems or supplies,
or substantial alterations to the following utilities:
a) Power or natural gas? X
b) Communications systems? X
c) Local or regional water treatment or distribution facilities? X
d) Sewer or septic tanks? 2 X
e) Storm water drainage? X
f) Solid waste disposal? X
Local or reglional water supplies? X
Annexing the site makes it eligible for City water and sewer service. The sports fields will require irrigation,
which the City anticipates providing as reclaimed water. The fields will eventually be served by drinking
fountains and restrooms, which will require potable water service and sewer service. Overall demands
were evaluated in the 1994 EIR.
13.AESTHETICS. WbuldAeroposal:
a) Affect a scenic vista or scenic highway? X
b) Have a demonstrable negative aesthetic effect? 2 X
c). Create li ht:orglare? X
The cumulative impact of urbanization on rural character was evaluated in the 1994 EIR. Future structures,
parking areas, and lighting will be subject to City use-permit and architectural approval,following further
environmental review.
14.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would.the.proposal:
a) Disturb paleontological resources? X
b) Disturb archaeological resources? X
c) Affect historical resources? 2 X
d) Have the potential to cause a physical change which would X
affect unique ethnic cultural values? _F_ i
e) Restrict existing religious or sacred uses within the X
potential impact area?
An archaeological survey of records and the surface of the adjacent site to the south found no evidence of
cultural resources, and concluded that further studies were not needed (Heritage Discoveries; July, 1999;
in ER 79-99;). A survey of the subject site will be conducted before consideration of grading or
construction plans..
15.RECREATION. Would the proposal:
a) Increase the demand for neighborhood or regional parks X
or other recreational facilities?
b Affect existing recreational opportunities? X
9
17. EARLIER ANALYSES
Earlier analysis may be used where, pursuant to the tiering, program EIR, or other CEQA process, one or me
effects have been adequately analyzed in an earlier EIR or Negative Declaration. Section 15063 (c) (3) (D).
this case a discussion should identify the following items:
a Earlier analysis used. Identify earlier analyses and state where they are available for.review.
The site 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.
All the checklist topics were addressed to some extent in the 1994 EIR. The resolution certifying the EIR
indicated the environmental status of each topic. Because the current project would not change land use
designations, and a specific development is not proposed at this time, no topics require further analysis or
miti ation.
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-s ecific conditions of the. ro'ect.
Authority: Public Resources Code Sections 21083 and 21087.
Reference: Public Resources Code Sections 21080 (c), 21080.1, 21080.3, 21.082.1,29083, 21083.3,21093,
321094, 21151; Sundstrom v. County of Mendocino, 202 Cal. App. 3d.296 (1988); Leonofff v. Monterey Board of
Supervisors, 222 Cal. App. 3d 1337 (1990).
18. SOURCE REFERENCES
1. General Plan, City of San Luis Obispo (as amended through September 1999), comprised of the
following elements: Land Use (1994); Open Space (1994); Circulation (1994); Housing (1994);
Conservation (1973); Parks & Recreation (1995); Noise (1996); Seismic Safety (1975); Safety
(1978); Energy Conservation (1981); Water&Wastewater Management(1994).
2. Final Environmental Impact Report: 1992 Land Use Element and Circulation Element Updates,
City of San Luis Obispo, August 1994.
3. Airport Land Use Plan, S.L.O. County Airport Land Use Commission, 1973 as amended in 1977 .
19. MITIGATION MEASURES& MITIGATION MONITORING
No mitigation measures are proposed as part of this environmental study. City zoning and a pre-annexation
agreement with the land owners will assure that development in the annexed territory will be subject to
mitigation measures approved by the City when the EIR for the Margarita Area Specific Plan is certified.
masp\sprt_ies.doc
Planning Commission Staff Report—.Orcutt:Creek Annexation Page 18
12. Buildings shall provide sound reduction so that aircraft noise will not result in indoor
noise exposure exceeding 60 decibels for a single event.
13. Equipment or activities at the site shall not cause any radio or telecommunications
interference with the airport or aircraft in flight.
14. Lighting at the site shall not interfere with the airport or aircraft in flight. Sky glare, glare
toward the airport, flashing lights, and searchlights are prohibited.
15. Water and sewer mains shall comply with City standards and shall be designed subject to
approval of the City Utilities Director. Water lines shall be designed to enable completion
of a loop through the property to the south. Easements for utility lines shall be provided
subject to approval of the City Utilities Director.
16. Water meters shall be located in compliance with City standards and to the approval of
the City Utilities Director.
17. Pacific Gas & Electric facilities and services within the development shall comply with
City standards and be compatible with the City-owned streetlight system, and shall be
subject approval of the City Utilities Director.
18. Uses shall be allowed, or allowable with further approval, as listed in the following table.
Uses that are not listed may not .be established at the site. This planned-development
approval does not limit particular buildings to particular uses, though future use-permit
approvals may do so.
Planning Commission Staff.Report—Orcutt Creek Annexation Page 20
PD 79-99 Use Listing
Notes:
1. Within the project site combined floor area of the following uses shall not exceed 25
percent of the total floor area.
Branch of bank, savings& loan,credit union, finance company(regional or corporate
administrative offices are not subject to this area limit)
Retail sales of food, publications, sundries
Sale, rental of business and office supplies
2. Manufacturing uses are limited to those involving minimal toxic materials or wastes and low
shipping volume(shipping or receiving less than 400 cubic meters [14,000 cubic feet] of
truck or container space per day);typical products would be specialty foods, beverages, or
apparel; electronic,optical, or instrumentation products;jewelry; musical instruments;
sporting goods; art materials.
19. Applicant shall install full frontage improvements along Broad Street, including detached
sidewalk, landscaped parkway, and Class II bike lanes meeting City and Caltrans
standards,to the approval of the Public Works Director.
20. Applicant shall provide a street-type entry to the site, with additional right-of-way to
accommodate typical curved property line returns (3 meter radius) from Broad Street to
the new street.
21. Applicant shall dedicate to the City access rights along the Broad Street frontage.
22. Applicant shall provide an offer of dedication for a public street extending to the property
to the south, to the approval of the Public Works Director. The offer of dedication may
reflect a right-of-way narrower than normally provided for a local commercial street(such
as a roadway with adequate travel-lane widths, but no curbside parking).
23. The final development plan shall show space for trash and recycling facilities, with the
amount and location based on recommendations by the trash and recycling operators and
the City's Utilities Conservation Division. Designof these facilities shall be subject to
approval by the Architectural Review Commission.
24. The final development plan shall show the location(s) of any automatic teller machine(s),
which shall avoid the Broad Street frontage or other locations that would create traffic
congestion or hazard. Such facilities shall be subject to approval by the Architectural
Review Commission.
25. The applicant shall contribute to the cost of preparing the Airport Area Specific Plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements, according to the cost-sharing plan
maintained by the City, with the fee amount reflecting the City's acceptance of a
complete annexation application on November 24, 1999.
Orcutt Creek Annexation •
1 500 1000
ANNX 79-99 incorporated area Meters pmm �
J-1 L
>
E
El
L111
�' t1
i
�'.�•� 1 - 1 ,� _
\_F 1 r
Site
• \ 1
Tank Farm Rd
City of San Luis
Obispo
Planning Division
9 February 2000
� �w•��.�+w•rrr�•r.rr••^r•ewr "�
Coote ■ et • ■ a ■ t ■ ZNVE N
Id
oil IVnLc[30N00 a 1 l
D_ sn�a►� � < — 6
_mob _
us
I
�E
all • •
r r
..... .�. .fir.. ....
Y ♦ •` � (\fes
I
ail
N
February 15,2000
City Planning Commission
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Calif.93401
Dear Commissioner,
We are writing with questions in relation an item on your February 23rd agenda. Your
Commission previously voted 7-0 to postpone its review of a 10-acre annexation request made
by Scott Lathrop. This postponement was done in regards to whether Prado Road would go
north or south of the new ballparks.
The decision made by City Council to have Prado Road take the northerly route left many
unanswered questions during the discussion time. Our major concerns are with these unclear
areas relating to the Prado Road alignment. We are interested in knowing the following:
1. What is the position of San Luis Coastal School District regarding having a school in such
close proximity to a 4-lane(Hwy 227)major road? What is their position regarding the school
being separated from the playing fields? Will the school students be allowed to use the fields?
Who will monitor the students If they have to travel over a bridge or under a 100 foot tunnel?
Who will be responsible for the safety of the students?
2. What about flooding problems in the event the tunnels were installed?
3 What about lighting for tunnels and/or bridges as alot of games could be played in the evening
hours? With so many children both our own and those from neighboring cities coming to utitiitze
the ballparks,we do need to provide a safe,secure,environment first and foremost.
4.There was mention of having to divert one creek into another creek for this road. This is a
environmental Issue worthy of study- diverting Mother Nature is not easy.
5. Prado Road north would scar the mountain. This was only briefly mentioned. The visible
scaring will be difficult to hide for a long time as.plant growth on serpentine rock is not easy.
The question about what happens to the asbestos when the serpentine rock is cut into was
never answered.
6. An archaeological Indian site was identified to be in the path of the road but nothing more
was said. The results of the soon to be released EIR should provide more information. We need
time to read IL
7.The northern route was said to bel 0 to 15 percent above grade level in places with no futher
discussion on the issue. Also a bridge was mentioned but no discussion was held relating to
how big, how long,or what cost was Involved.
8. The cost the road was also held in question at the meeting. Apparently Cal Trans had not
issued a statement regarding any alignments. If the city wants to have Prado Road designated
Hwy 227 then the road will have to be built to Cal Trans specifications. Cal Trans will have slot
to say about this road. We need their input During the discussion about the cost there seemed
to be discrepancies in the figures. The cost of this road should have major consideration over
and above alignment because without funds, no road.
RECEIVED
FEB 2 3 2000
no CITY COUNCIL
FEBRUARY 16,2000
CITY PLANNING COMMISSION
990 PALM STREET
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIF 93401
DEAR COMMISSIONER,
WE ARE WRITING THIS BECAUSE OF OUR CONCERN FOR THE CHILDRENS BALLPARKS OR PLAY
FIELDS LOCATED OFF BROAD STREET. WE HAVE READ IN THE PAPER THAT A BUSINESS
DEVELOPMENT ON TEN ACRES IS COMING BEFORE YOU ON FEBRUAY 23, 2000. THAT
DEVELOPMENT IS IN THE SAME PLACE WHERE PRADO ROAD COULD BE PUT (AT INDUSTRIAL .
WAY INTERSECTION) . WHAT HAPPENS IF THE NORTHERN ROUTE FOR PRADO ROAD DOES NOT
WORK OUT? IF YOU ALLOW A DEVELOPMENT NOW AND THEN IN A FEW MONTHS FIND OUT
THE NORTHERN ROUTE WILL NOT WORK, IT SEEMS LIKE THERE COULD BE ALOT OF
DIFFICULTIES FOR ALL PARTIES.
WE ARE WRITING OUT OF CONCERN FOR THE BALLPARKS AND THE CHILDREN.
SIN/C/EER/HELY,
C.ry r. ..� r
RECEIVEr"
FEB 2 3 2000
SLO CITY COUNCIL
March 8, 2000
City Planning Commission
City Hall
990 Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, Ca. 93401
Dear Commissioner,
I am writing with some concerns regarding the proposed annexation, and
approval of a preliminary development plan for about ten acres know as the
Lathrop Property located at 1807 Broad.
The Lathrop Property should not be annexed or preliminary development
approved at this time for the following reasons:
1. As per the February 1, 2000 City Council meeting, city staff informed the
public that an EER was in the process of being completed on the entire Margarita,
Lathrop, and Garcia properties and will be completed within 1-2 months. I
suggest that the Planning Commission wait until the EIR is completed to annex
this property. Mr. Lathrop stated that he has a agreement with the city that the
property be annexed in one year from date (November 1999), and that still gives
time to annex after the EIR is completed. I suggest that we wait this short period
of time, as to make sure the northern alignment of Prado Road at Broad is still a
possibility. If it is not, then perhaps we still have an option for the alignment of
Prado Road at Industrial Way. Why not keep our options open at this time?
This makes sense. What is the hurry?Why do an EIR if we are not going to use
it?
2. Another concern that was mentioned at the February 1, 2000 City Council
meeting was the 1-2 tunnels that connect the Margarita Area School and the City
Playing Fields with the northern Prado Road alignment Many neighbors are
questioning the safety of our children walking through these"tunnels". The
homeless are a problem on the Garcia property now, a tunnel could provide a
perminent"hang out"and additional problems. Flooding and contamination on
these particular lands are well know problems that exist and need to be
addressed with these proposed properties.
3. Has Cal-Trans been notified of the proposed new traffic and signal lights?
What is their reaction of the northern Prado Road alignment Broad and how
does it affect the Industrial Way traffic flow?
Sincerely,
X*46-
Ann Hall
2302 Parkland Terrace
SLO, Ca. 93401
Planning Commission Minutb-
November 3, 1999
Page 9
Commissioner Jeffrey had staff provide an update on the Prefumo Canyon project in
relation to on-site well use.
Commissioner Senn asked for comment on the usability status of preexisting wells.
Manager Henderson stated there is a cross-connection program and backflow is
required to be installed to protect the city's water supply.
Commissioner Senn asked if wells serving more than one residential parcel are allowed
if appropriate permits were attained.
Manager Henderson replied no.
Commissioner Senn suggested common areas with common ownership, such as
condominiums, be included with Policy 9.1.1.6.1, a, page 8.
Manager Henderson reviewed recommended modifications to Policy 11.1.1.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
There were no comments made.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Loh moved to recommend to the City Council that the Water and
Wastewater Management Element of the General Plan be amended to clarify policies
concerning water for development as described by Policies 8.1.2.A to 11.1, with the
modification to Policy 9.1.1.B.1 a page 8, to include, "common/shared areas of
condominiums or other development with similar common areas as determined by the
Utilities Director." Commissioner Jeffrey seconded the motion.
AYES: Commrs. Loh, Jeffrey, Senn, Peterson, Cooper, and Chairman Ready
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion carried 6-0. (Commissioner Whittlesey absent. )
5. Margarita Area, ANNX, R. and ER 177-99: Request for annexation and to prezone
approximately 23 acres to conservation/open space and environmental review; City
of San Luis Obispo (Parks and Recreation Department), applicant:
Associate Planner Glen,Matteson presented the staff report and recommended that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve a negative declaration
Planning Commission Minutes
November 3, 1999
Page 10
of environmental impact, annexation, and zoning of Conservation/Open Space with a
25-acre minimum parcel size (C/OS-25).
Commissioner Loh asked if there are established guidelines for creek protection.
Associate Planner Matteson stated standards for creek corridor protection are located
in the Open Space Element of the General Plan. There is a possibility that Orcutt
Creek will not be maintained at its current state; changes may include realignment or
possible diversion of some of the flow. These issues will be addressed in the EIR for
the Margarita Specific Plan and the Airport Area Specific Plan.
Commissioner Loh expressed concern for protection of the two creeks on this property
in light of potential future uses.
Commissioner Cooper noted he would like discussion provided for #11b on page 8 of
the Initial Study.
Commissioner Loh questioned the possible noise level of future potential uses.
Associate Planner Matteson stated the draft Margarita Specific Plan shows hill and
open spaces to the northwest of the site, neighborhood park and school grounds to the
west and the General Plan designates services and industrial use to the south and
ease. There won't be residences close to this site.
There were no further comments/questions and the public comment session was
opened.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Paul Le Sage, City Parks and Recreation Director, came forward to answer any
questions.
Joyce Hoffman, 650 Tank Farm Road, was concerned with how the Hidden Hills Mobile
Park and the Lazy Acres RV Storage will fit into the City's plans. She does not want to
become landlocked. There are three wells and two creeks on her property. She noted
flooding concems in relation to the creek, and does not want her property or concerns
forgotten.
Brett Cross, 1217 Mariners Cove, questioned the City's proposed methodology of using
conservation/open space annexation overlays. He did not believe CEQA Guidelines
are being followed because there is the requirement to look at mitigation measures at
the earliest time possible when there is a project at hand.
Commissioner Cooper expressed frustration in the presentation of mitigation measures
that seem to go into detail only half way and the anticipation of the use of the property
when that use is not before the Commission.
Planning Commission Minut.
November 3, 1999
Page 11
Mr. Cross felt the Initial Study is not defensible because there should be more
mitigation measures addressed at this point because the project is essentially known.
Full environmental review is required of potential impacts. The project should have
been noticed as a "sports complex" rather than an annexation for conservation/open
space.
Commissioner Loh stated the Commission has the ability to address and emphasize the
protection of creek corridors, habitat, and sensitive open space area.
Seeing no further speakers come forward, the public comment session was closed.
COMMISSION COMMENT:
Commissioner Peterson moved to recommend to the City Council approval of a
negative declaration of environmental impact, annexation, and zoning of
Conservation/Open Space with a 25-acre minimum parcel size with the understanding
that some significant environmental impacts may arise to the creeks in this area from
development of the sports fields and that these impacts should be thoroughly analyzed
and considered in the Margarita Area Specific Plan EIR or subsequent environmental
review for the park design The motion was seconded by Commissioner Senn
AYES: Commrs. Peterson, Senn, Loh, Jeffrey, Cooper and Chairman Ready
NOES: None
ABSENT: Commr. Whittlesey
The motion carried 6-0. (Commissioner Whittlesey absent. )
BUSINESS ITEMS:
6. GPC 189-99: General Plan Conformity review of four individual property
acquisitions; 1095 Marsh Street, Morganti, Filipponi, and UPRR sites; City of San
Luis Obispo, applicant.
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report and recommended
determining and reporting to the City Council that the proposed property acquisitions
conform to the General Plan.
Commissioner Senn had staff review the City's designated greenbelt areas and give a
financial breakdown of each property acquisition.
Natural Resources Manager Neil Havlik responded, and described associated Water
Reuse Program mitigation requirements.
There were no further comments or questions and the public comment session was
opened.