The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About06/11/2002, 1 - PREZONING FOR THE IRISH HILLS OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION, ABOUT 198 ACRES OF LAND WEST OF ROYAL WAY AND council me06`D`June 11,2002 acEnaa izEpoizt 117� CITY OF SAN LUIS O B I S P O FROM: John Mandeville,Community Development Dire Prepared By: Glen Matteson,f sociate Planner SUBJECT:. PREZONING FOR THE IRISH HILLS OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION, ABOUT 198 ACRES OF LAND WEST OF ROYAL WAY AND STERLING DRIVE(ER,R 42-02). CAO RECOMMENDATION As recommended by the Planning Commission, introduce an ordinance approving a negative declaration of environmental impact and prezoning the entire site Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-40). DISCUSSION Data Summary Property Owners: City of San Luis Obispo; Robert and Teresa Stapleton General Plan Land Use Map: Open Space Zoning: Outside city limits, so no City zoning; County General Plan designation is Rural Lands Surrounding Uses: Land to the north, west, and south is oak and brush-covered hills; to the east is a residential neighborhood on nearly level land (attached map). Environmental Status: Staff proposes that a negative declaration be approved (Initial Study attached). Action deadline: Annexation and zoning are legislative acts, and therefore are not subject to State-mandated action deadlines. Site Description &Background The 198-acre site is gently to steeply sloping land, covered with oak woodland and chaparral, with some grassland areas. This was a four-lot rural subdivision completed in the County in 1988. About three years ago the owners, Jack and Pat Foster, approached the City of San Luis Obispo regarding purchase of the land for conservation purposes. At that time the City was unable to identify any significant sources of funding for the purchase, and so was unable to pursue the matter. About a year later, however, funding conditions looked more promising. City staff contacted the Fosters to determine whether they were still interested in a conservation sale. They were, but one of the lots had sold in the meantime. Nevertheless, the City reached agreement with the Fosters regarding purchase of the remaining three lots, and this transaction was concluded in September 2001. On April 2, 2002, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9298 asking the Local. Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) to initiate annexation proceedings. The LAFCo hearing is scheduled for June 20, 2002. 1-1 Council Agenda Report-Irish Hills Open Space annexation Page 2 Proposed Action For the City's open-space regulations to apply to the property, it must be within the city limits. Because annexation of only the City-owned parcels would create an island of unincorporated land contrary to State policy, the proposed annexation includes a privately owned lot. A dwelling permitted by the County is under construction on that lot..Once annexed, the entire site would be subject to City land-use rules. No future changes in land use are anticipated. Having the land within the city limits allows the City's park rangers and police to enforce the City's rules. "Prezoning" is simply zoning that takes effect when the property is annexed. Evaluation Zoning Consistency with General Plan The General Plan Land Use Element shows the site as Open Space. Consistent zones for this designation are Conservation/Open Space (C/OS) or Public Facility (PF). Adjacent City-owned open space to the north and south, annexed in 1998 and 2000, is zoned C/OS. The C/OS zone is more appropriate for the open space use. The 40-acre minimum parcel size reflects the existing parcel sizes, and would prevent subdivision of the privately owned parcel. Annexation Criteria 1. The property is contiguous to the city limits. This criterion is met because the city limit is along the north, east, and south property lines of the site. 2. The property is within the existing urban reserve line. This criterion is not met. However, no urban services will be utilized on the site, except for the provision of a sewer connection to the residence on the privately owned parcel (previously approved by Council). The balance of the site will be used as publicly accessible open space. 3. The property is located near existing infrastructure. This criterion is met because a sewer main exists in the major street (Royal Way) along the east side of the site. 4. Existing infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development. This criterion is met. 5. A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant accompanies the application for annexation. This criterion is not applicable. 1-2 Council Agenda Report—Irish Hills Open Space annexation Page 3 OTHER DEPARTMENT COMMENTS The Parks and Recreation Department supports the annexation, so that City open-space regulations can be applied to the entire Irish Hills Natural Reserve. The Utilities Department supports the annexation because it would make unnecessary a septic system on the private parcel. FISCAL IMPACT Annexation will result in the City not having to pay property taxes on the open-space land that it owns, saving between about $8,000 and $12,000 per year, depending on how the County Assessor values the property. ALTERNATIVES The alternative is to not annex the site, in which case zoning would not be required. The recommended action is seen as a housekeeping measure to support sound land management and enforcement of City open-space regulations on City-owned land. The Council may continue action, but this could delay action by the Local Agency Formation Commission, which is scheduled to consider the annexation June 20. Attachments Attachment#1: Vicinity map Attachment#2: Draft ordinance adopting zoning as recommended Attachment#3: Initial Environmental study Attachment#4: Draft Planning Commission minutes,May 8, 2002 gm/42-02candoc 1-3 0 0 Attachment 1 Environmental Determination, Prezoning, and Annexation 42-02: Irish Hills Open Space p r V , '--�� ;sa WOW '1170�� .,�. � u ,�e- �ei�,•. O Oe OeO�Oi4 .• ' .� � 1 •. MIL A4 i� � 9, .a+ of • 'bofM1�e,j \ �. RA,� 0 500 1000 1500 Feet ; x/projects/wm dev/Iwig renge/irishanx.apr tJ � ,t 1-4 Attachment 2 DRAFT ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2002 Series) AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL ADOPTING ZONING FOR THE IRISH HILLS OPEN SPACE ANNEXATION (R 42-02) WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 1.1, 2002, 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 recommended by the Planning Commission; BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: SECTION 1. Environmental Review. The City Council finds and determines that the project's Negative Declaration adequately addresses the potential environmental impacts of the proposed zoning, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The Council determines that the zoning will have no significant effects on the environment. The Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration. SECTION 2 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 3. Adoption of Zone. The territory to be annexed shall be zoned as shown on the attached Exhibit A. SECTION 4. 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 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. 1-5 y Attachment 2 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 , 2002, 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: 149(4 �Ztjktoe &J gensen 4202ord.doc 1-6 Attachment 2 R 42-02 Exhibit A O ou, d Are��o Cance n Road aor�and �a 1-7 Attachment 3 illl IIIA WIS OBISPOclayo san wage990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM For ER#42-02 1. Project Title: Irish Hills Open Space Annexation 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo CA 93401 3. Contact Person and Phone Number: Glen Matteson, Associate Planner 805 781-7165; gmatteso@slocity.org 4. Project Location: In the Irish Hills west of the Royal Way neighborhood (attached map). 5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Administration Department 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401 6. General Plan Designation: Open Space 7. Zoning: Existing County designation - "Rural Lands" Proposed City zoning—Conservation/ Open Space with a 40-acre minimum parcel size. 8. Description of the Project: The project objectives are to enhance City stewardship ability and to reduce City costs associated with an area intended to remain essentially in a natural condition. The City proposes to annex about 198 acres, of which 156 acres are a City-owned preserve and 42 acres are a contiguous, privately owned parcel on which one house may be built (a dwelling is under construction, as authorized by a County building permit). Annexation makes the area subject to City land-use and other rules and eligible for City services. 8. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting: Land to the north, west, and south is oak and brush-covered hills; to the east is a residential neighborhood on nearly level land (attached map). 10. Project Entitlements Requested: City Council adoption of zoning. 11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: Local Agency Formation Commission approval of annexation. OThe City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activitiesl-0 `, Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410. Attachment 3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a"Potentially Significant Impact" as indicated by the checklist on the following pages. Aesthetics Geology/Soils Public Services Agricultural Resources Hazards&Hazardous Recreation Materials Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Utilities and Service Systems Cultural Resources Noise Mandatory Findings of Significance Energy and Mineral Population and Housing Resources FISH AND GAME FEES There is no evidence before the Department that the project will have any potential adverse effects on fish X and wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Therefor, the project qualifies for a de minimis waiver with regards to the filing of Fish and Game Fees. 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. This initial study has been circulated to the California Department of Fish and Game for review and comment. STATE CLEARINGHOUSE This environmental document must be submitted to the State Clearinghouse for review by one or more State agencies.The public review period shall not be less than 30 days(CEQA Guidelines 15073(a)). moi/ CITY OF SAN Luis OBISPO 2 INITIAL STuOY ENVIRONMENTAL JHEffUST 2002 Attachment 3 DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and X 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 revisions in the project have been made, or the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet(s) have been added and agreed to by,the project proponent. 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 a "potentially significant" impact(s) or "potentially significant unless mitigated" impact(s) 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. 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, because all potentially significant effects (1) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR or NEGATIVE DECLARATION pursuant to applicable standards, and (2) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR of NEGATIVE DECLARATION, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project, nothing further is required. e uired. Signature Date c-- Z4AZ./= For: John Mandeville Printed Name Community Development Director �i CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAICL;JJ ST 2002 Attachment 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 if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g. 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 (e.g. 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 off-site as well as on-site, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. The explanation of each issue should identify the significance criteria or threshold, if any, used to evaluate each question. 3. "Potentially Significant Impact' inappropriate 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) of the California Administrators Code. 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 (e.g. 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. 7. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached,and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. In this case,a brief discussion.should identify the following: a) Earlier Analysis Used. Identify and state where they are available for review. 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 earlier analysis. C) Mitigation Measures. For effects that are "Less than Significant with Mitigation Measures Incorporated," describe the mitigation measures which were incorporated or refined from the earlier document and the extent to which they address site-specific conditions for the project. �! CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAj,CHICIJLIST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor Aformation Sources Sources PI y Potentially [less Sig.. .cant Significant Significant Impact ER #42 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 1. AESTHETICS. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? X b) Substantially damage scenic resources,including,but not limited X to,trees,rock outcroppings,open space,and historic buildings within a local or state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of X the site and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would X adversely effect day of nighttime views in the area? 2.AGRICULTURE RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Convert Prime Farmland,Unique Farmland,or Farmland of X Statewide Importance(Farmland),as shown on the maps pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency,to non-agricultural use? b) Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use,or a X Williamson Act contract? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which,due to X their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? 3. AIR QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an X existing or projected air quality violation? b) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air X quality plan? c) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant X concentrations? d) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of X people? e) Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria X pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed qualitative thresholds for ozoneprecursors)? 4. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Have a substantial adverse effect,either directly or indirectly or X through habitat modifications,on any species identified as a candidate,sensitive,or special status species in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect,on any riparian habitat or X other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans,policies,or regulations,or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? c) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting X biological resources,such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance(e.g.Heritage Trees)? �� Ctry OF SAN Luis OBISPo 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT/,.CuEcKusT 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor, iformation Sources Sources P ly Potentially U... e(1 3 Sit . .rant Significant Significant Impact ER#42 02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors,or impede the use of wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted habitat Conservation X Plan,Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local,regional,or state habitat conservation plan? f) Have a substantial adverse effect on Federally protected X wetlands as defined in Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including,but not limited to,marshes,vernal pools,etc.) through direct removal,filling,hydrological interruption,or other means? Public access in open space areas can harm resources. Limited public access would continue to be allowed,as provided in the City's General Plan and land-management policies. The project would enhance the City's ability to enforce rules that protect resources from the effects of public access. 5.CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would theproject: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a X historic resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an X archeological resource?(See CEQA Guidelines 15064.5) c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource X or site or unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of X formal cemeteries? 6. ENERGY AND MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the ro'ect: a) Conflict with adopted energy conservation plans? X b) Use non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient X manner? c) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource X that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State? 7. GEOLOGY AND SOILS Would theproject: a) Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse X effects,including risk of loss,injury or death involving: I. Rupture of a known earthquake fault,as delineated in the X most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area.or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? II. Strong seismic ground shaking? X III. Seismic related ground-failure,including liquefaction? X IV. Landslides or mudflows? X b) Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? X c) Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable,or that X would become unstable as a result of the project,and potentially result in on or off site landslides,lateral spreading,subsidance, liquefaction,or collapse? d) Be located on expansive soil,as defined in Table 18-1-B of the X Uniform Building Code(1994),creating substantial risks to life or property. CrrY OF SAN LUIS ORISPO 6 1NRIAL STUDY ENVIRONMFN r/t�C 13JST 2002 i \ J Issues, Discussion and Suppor, tformation Sources Sources P y Potentially Less Than No J Sig.. -.cant Significant Significant Impact ER# 42-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Incorporated 8. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the pro'ect: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X though the routine use, transport or disposal of hazardous materials? b) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment X through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely X hazardous materials,substances,or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Expose people or structures to existing sources of hazardous X emissions or hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances,or waste? e) Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous X materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and,as a result,it would create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? f) For a project located within an airport land use plan, or within X two miles of a public airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for the people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of,or physically interfere with,the X adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of lose, injury, X or death,involving wildland fires,including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residents are intermixed with wildlands? 9. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would theproject: a) Violate any water quality standards or waste discharge X requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere X substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level(eg.The production rate of preexisting nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses for which permits have been granted)? c) Create or contribute runoff water which would exceed the X capacity of existing or planned storm-water drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff. d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation onsite or offsite? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or X area in a manner which would result in substantial flooding onsite or offsite? f) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on X a Federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? g) Place within a 100-year flood hazard area structures which X would impede or redirect flood flows? h) Otherwise substantially degrade water quality? X �r CITY OF SAN Luts OBISPO 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENT CIRECKUST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Support dormation Sources Sources Pc )Y Potentially Less t 3 Sig'....1ant Significant Significant Impact Issues Unless Impact ER #42-02 Mitigation Incorporated 10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: a) Conflict with applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of X an agency with jurisdiction over the project, adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? b) Physically divide an established community? X c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural X community conservationplans? 11.NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of people to or generation of"unacceptable"noise X levels as defined by the San Luis Obispo General Plan Noise Element,or general noise levels in excess of standards established in the Noise Ordinance? b) A substantial temporary,periodic,or permanent increase in X ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? c) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne X vibration or groundborne noise levels? d) For a project located within an airport land use plan,or within X two miles of a public airport or public use airport,would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? 12. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would theproject: a) Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly X (for example by proposing new homes or businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing dwellings or people, X necessitating replacement housing elsewhere? 13.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision,or need,of new or physically altered government facilities,the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts,in order to maintain acceptable service ratios,response times,or other performance objectives for any of the public services: a) Fire protection? X b) Police protection? X c) Schools? X d) Parks? X e) Roads and other transportation infrastructure? X f) Other public facilities? X 14. RECREATION. Would theproject: a) Increase the use of existing neighborhood or regional parks or X other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Include recreational facilities or require the construction or X expansion of recreational facilities,which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? �iI CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAIr CIS UST 2002 Issues, Discussion and Suppor iformation Sources Sources P y Potentially Lessaf� hTT �] Sig. sant Significant Sigmfican Im ac J ER #42-02 Issues Unless Impact Mitigation Inco rated 15. TRANSPORTATION/TRAFFIC. Would theproject: a) Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in relation to the X existing traffic load and capacity of the street system? b) Exceed,either individually or cumulatively,a level of service X standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads and highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to design features(e.g.sharp X curves or dangerous intersections)or incompatible uses(e.g. farm equipment)? d) Result in inadequate emergency access? X e) Result in inadequate parking capacity onsite or offsite? X f) Conflict with adopted policies supporting alternative X transportation(e.g.bus turnouts,bicycle racks)? g) Conflict with the with San Luis Obispo County Airport Land X Use Plan resulting in substantial safety risks from hazards,noise, or a change in air trafficpatterns? 16.UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the ro'ect: a) Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable X Regional Water Quality Control Board? b) Require or result in the construction or expansion of new water X treatment,wasterwater treatment,or storm drainage facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project X from existing entitlements and resources,or are new and expanded water resources needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider X which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand and addition to the provider's existing commitment? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to X accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations X related to solid waste? 17.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the X environment,substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self- sustaining levels,threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community,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 impacts that are individually limited,but X cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of the past projects, the effects of other current projects,and the effects of probable futureprojects) c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause X substantial adverse effects on human beings,either directly or indirectly? ��a CITY OF SAN Luis Osisp0 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTyL CyEC�CLIST 2002 18. 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. None. 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. 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. 19. SOURCE REFERENCES—None. Attachments: Location map. REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS No mitigation is required. CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INmAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002 1-17 Draft Planning Commissi linutes May 8, 2002 Page 9 Attachment 4 Mr. Hammond asked if the extension of LOV could be pinpointed. He noted the LOVR extension is one alternative, but is not actuall part of the project. Commr. Caruso moved that the public c cent be closed. Seconded by Chairwoman Loh. AYES: Commr. Caruso, Aiken, Petersen, Boswell, Osborne, Loh. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Cooper. ABSTAIN: None. 4. 0 and 2094 Royal Way, 2201 and 2401 Sterling. ANNX, R and ER 42-02; Annexation of approx. 198 acres in the Irish Hills; prezone City open and adjacent private parcel to C/OS-40; and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant. Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report, recommending the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council adopt the negative declaration of environmental impact, and approve the annexation and prezoning of Conservation/Open Space (C/OS-40) for the entire site, with findings as noted in the staff report. He noted that some neighbors of the property had called to ask about public access, vegetation management for fire safety, and maintenance of the road leading to the area. He explained that these aspects will be addressed by the City's program for managing natural resource areas, whether or not the property is annexed and zoned by the City. Commr. Boswell asked if the privately owned parcel would be annexed and receive the Conservation/Open Space zoning? Planner Matteson replied yes. Commr. Aiken asked if the private property owner would have any development rights under the Conservation/Open Space zoning? Planner Matteson replied yes, and explained the Conservation/Open Space zone generally establishes a minimum parcel size, in this case is 40-acres, which is just a little bit under the size of the privately owned parcel. Chairwoman Loh asked if the property were annexed, would the land be subject to City Land Use rules? Planner Matteson replied yes, and explained there is no proposal to change the City's General Plan, which shows the area as open space. Chairwoman Loh asked it could be changed in the future. 1-18 Draft Planning Commissi Ilinutes May 8,2002 - Attachment 4 Page 10 Planner Matteson explained as part of the designated greenbelt, it is possible if there is not a deed restriction, for the City Council to change the designation in the future, but they do not anticipate this happening. PUBLIC COMMENTS: There were no comments made from the public. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Commr. Caruso moved to adopt the resolution recommending City Council approval of a negative declaration of environmental impact, annexation, and prezoning of Conservation/Open space (C/OS-40) for the entire site, based on findings as noted-in the staff report.. Seconded by Commr. Aiken. AYES: Commr. Caruso, Aiken, Peterson, Boswell, Osborne, and Loh. NOES: None. ABSENT: Commr. Cooper. ABSTAIN: None. The motion carried 6-0. COMMENT AND DISCUSSION 5. Staff A. Agenda Forecast: May 22nd: Street abandonments as ociated with the Copeland's Projects; Sierra Vista General Plan Amendment a d rezoning; Margarita Area General Plan Amendment; two fence height exception appeals for the Hearing Officer. June 12th: Copeland's Draft EIR Pub is Hearing; Zoning Text Amendment to allow Bed & Breakfast in the City's R-2 zones; owntown parking. Deputy Director Bochum noted that the opeland's Abandonment Easement Item would be pushed back, so there would be suffic ent room on the May 22"d meeting. Commr. Caruso questioned when a copy of the EIR would be available? Deputy Director Draze replied he would let staff know that the Planning Commission would like a copy of this ASAP. Commr. Boswell asked that those items with the most public interest be put earlier on the agenda. 1-19