HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/18/2002, P.H. 1 A - GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENT AND REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED SPORTS FIELDS I council June 18,2002
j acEnaa REpont '7
CITY O F SAN LUIS O B I S P O
FROM: John Mandeville, Community Development Dire o
Prepared By: Glen Mattesonnssociate Planner
SUBJECT: GENERAL PLAN LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT AMENDMENT AND
REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED SPORTS FIELDS IN THE
MARGARITA AREA,ON BROAD STREET AT INDUSTRIAL WAY(GPA/R
44-02)
CAO RECOMMENDATION
As recommended by the Planning Commission:
(1) Adopt a resolution approving a negative declaration of environmental impact and amending
the General Plan policy, to allow parks and sports fields development in the Margarita Area
before specific-plan adoption; and
(2) Introduce an ordinance rezoning most of the Damon-Garcia site to Public Facility, while
leaving the creek corridors zoned Conservation/Open Space.
DISCUSSION
General Plan Policy Amendment
Land Use Element Policy 1.13.3.0 requires that a specific plan be adopted before any further
development in the Margarita Area. A specific plan is an intermediate step in implementing the
General Plan. A specific plan contains more detailed standards than the General Plan, but less
detail than subdivision maps and construction plans. The draft specific plan for the Margarita
Area has been in preparation for several years. The Planning Commission and the City Council
are expected to hold hearings on the proposed specific plan this summer, with adoption
anticipated around the end of the year. However, adoption could be delayed later into 2003.
Since 1994, the General Plan Land Use Map has shown park and recreational uses for the
southeastern part of the Margarita Area. Early versions of the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan
conformed with this, by showing a community park —one that would draw users from a larger
area than the Margarita neighborhood. In late 1997, the City Council chose among several
alternative locations, and directed staff to pursue development of sports fields on the Damon-
Garcia property, in the southeastern part of the Margarita Area. Subsequent drafts of the specific
plan have reflected this decision. The City acquired the sports fields site in 1999, and the site has
been annexed.
The Parks and Recreation Department is preparing bid documents for the sports fields
construction. The requested General Plan amendment and rezoning are desired so the bid process
can begin this Fall. The requested amendment would allow construction to begin early in 2003,
even if specific-plan adoption is further delayed.
J
Council Agenda Report—policy change and rezoning for sports fields
Page 2
The design of the sports fields is not a part of this agenda item, though it is scheduled to be
considered as a companion item on the same date. The Planning Commission and the
Architectural Review Commission have reviewed and recommended the design, which is
presented as the companion agenda item. Construction documents will be presented for Council
approval at a future meeting.
As background, it is noted that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has approved creek and
wetland modifications and mitigation, which are components of the sports fields development.
Sports fields development does not include construction of Prado Road. As approved by the
Corps, sports fields construction will not affect the archaeological site that may be affected by the
Prado Road extension. The Airport Land Use Commission has reviewed the proposed sports
fields, as a zoning action and as a development proposal, and has found the project compatible
with the airport.
The text amendment, rezoning, and development of the sports fields as proposed would not
irreversibly commit the City to other key components of the proposed specific plan, such as the
Prado Road extension alignment, or land uses or methods of dealing with creek, drainage, and
wetlands issues, outside the sports fields site.
Rezoning
The active-use portions of all existing City parks are zoned Public Facility (PF), in conformance
with the consistency matrix of the resolution that adopted the Land Use Element. When the site
intended for sports-fields development was annexed, it was zoned Conservation/Open Space
(C/OS), as required for the Margarita Area prior to the specific plan being adopted. The Zoning
Regulations allow parks in the C/OS zone with use-permit approval. However, the limit on paved
area within a site zoned C/OS is problematic for the proposed sports fields when all parking and
paths are considered and the area that may be occupied by the potential Prado Road extension is
excluded.
The General Plan says creek corridors should be zoned as open space. Creek corridors contain
the channels themselves, plus space for creekside vegetation. The recommended action would
keep the creek corridors in the C/OS zone.
A note on the zoning map exhibit would allow the Community Development Director to adjust
the location of the Orcutt Creek corridor (the smaller creek in the southeastern part of the site), if
it is relocated as anticipated.
FISCAL IMPACT
The recommended action will have no fiscal impact.
Council Agenda Report—policy change and rezoning for sports fields
Page 3
ALTERNATIVES
The Council may:
1. Reject the proposed policy amendment, the rezoning, or both, and wait until the
Margarita Area Specific Plan is adopted to authorize construction of the proposed
Damon-Garcia sports fields. This could delay development of the sports fields, which
Council has identified as a high priority.
2. Continue action.
Attachments
#1 —Vicinity map: Margarita Area and proposed sports fields site
#2—Draft resolution approving the recommended General Plan text amendment
#3—Draft ordinance rezoning the site as recommended
#4—Initial Study Checklist
#5—Draft Planning Commission minutes,May 22, 2002
gm/masp/44-02car.doc
/�3
an
• 1 •
INN! �Npp
1911191111 IIIII 111111 L11111 ' \ —aa
"Allev
IIII !■
In I-
ME SM. Sa
i — X11_ ■
UK 1111_ °II —� 1 �'= — � 0 0,��.0, ♦.�� ♦ ♦r ♦ �V
_ ..
=— —111 Bm — dr_1 tet. .► }�}u �0��,�p,�c O`,',�0� .�Q��].�II
r �1���rillll�Gllllllllllllllllll IIIIIIICIIIIIIIIIR!!I\�� ` ■ - D�• •����O• V��
_, 11'� ■ .. .r���i mob'�''i!i�1p ___!W �w
-.a ■ _1 , , 1111111_moves w ��. _ ��, �t
,±..MIN i_ ^lig .411111FAFAWZ�
• r 1�✓■ ��►
►,� .pump unnlu�Igp \\��� �♦ �,.,° �:;. '
�'�mi i n iii►�►��-111 ' 1'111 p1h1a air
Nei VI
`\ \\ \, -
�!� i11111111111111111Piy�1\ � ` '•�
111111110
G 0111111111111111111 01111111 r ; ;:!1�` p•`,0,��` " ,�
�191mwmmunnlunnumul►
„
`„it
-•yf111111Ng111111111111►'� � " .. .�
nuwllutn.
unnunun:
an
JIM
4..
.nnnn
a ■tt Itttt■.
�
vv■ Revolts!
is r
'i, �� I► ,
-.�.; �. 1• allnuN.►iq CPP
� quulr ,
u
, 'nllry lI.
�� •�d]rNlllllll�:
1
MUUMUU
r • dtl��
sports fieldssite •
1
Tank Farm
- .
LON
BMW
mom t
Attachment 2.
RESOLUTION NO. XXXX (2002 Series)
A RESOLUTION OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTING AN AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE
ELEMENT POLICY CONCERNING TIMING OF PARKS
DEVELOPMENT IN THE MARGARITA AREA (GPA 44-02)
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and City Council have held hearings on the
proposed amendment on May 22, 2002, and June 18, 2002, respectively; and
WHEREAS, the City Council 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;and
WHEREAS, the proposed General Plan amendment is consistent with the General Plan
because sports fields are listed in the Parks and Recreation Element as a major unmet need and
the change will facilitate the timely development of the sports fields without compromising the
orderly planning of the Margarita Area as a whole.
BE IT RESOLVED 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 policy amendment, and reflects the independent judgment of the City Council. The
Council determines that the amendment will have no significant effects on the environment. The
Council hereby adopts said Negative Declaration.
Section 2. General Plan Amendment. The General Plan Land Use Element text is
hereby amended as shown in the attached Exhibit A.
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 2002.
Attachment 2
Resolution#XXXX-02
Land Use Element amendment
Page 2
Mayor Allen Settle
ATTEST:
City Clerk Lee Price, CMC
APPROVED AS TO FORM:.
?AtoOeorgensen
gm/masp/44-02ccres.doc
IA-G
Attachment 2
Exhibit A
GPA 44-02
Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment
Text to be deleted is lined through. Text to be added is shaded.
LU 1.13.3: Required Plans
Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted
a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public
facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with LU policy
1.13.5.
A) For the Airport Area, a.specific plan shall be adopted for the area. Until a specific plan is
adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria:
1) The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and
2) The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and
3) The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
4) Existing Infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;
and
5) A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies
the application for annexation; and
6) The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing
plan maintained by the City.
B) For the Orcutt expansion area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area before
any part of it is annexed.
C)
..
Fugher-
adepted a speeifie plan..(T-his area shall be zened Gensen,atieWgpea Spaee upen
the speeiA ..1.... \
For the Margarita Area, annexation may occur following the City Council's 1998
approval of a draft specific plan as the project description for environmental review
Except for City parks or sports fields, further development shall not occur until the City,
has completed environmental review and adopted a specific plan. City parks or sport�
fields may be developed before the specific plan is adopted,if environmental review for
the park or sports field has been completed., and if the park or sports field is consistent
with the General Plan andthe draft specific plan most recent endorsed by the City
Council:
Private properties that are annexed-before the specific plan is adopted shall be zoned
Conservation/Open Space upon annexation and shall be zoned_consistent with the
s ecific lan when it is ado ted.
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan
under"PD" zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
11q-7
Attachment 3
ORDINANCE NO. XXXX (2002 Series)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE SAN LUIS OBISPO
CITY COUNCIL REZONING PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 3615 BROAD STREET (R 44-02)
WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 18, 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. Findin s. 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 PF and C/OS zones are consistent with the General Plan.
B. The proposed PF and C/OS zones are consistent with the intended uses and locations
of the zone as described in the Zoning Regulations.
C. The proposed PF and C/OS zones are consistent with the uses and the types of
improvements proposed for the project site.
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 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.
/1q -�
J
Attachment 3
Ordinance No. xxxx
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:
t tto ey ff rgensen
mase/4402ord.doc
Existing Zoning J Attache ent
O
O
VOS-25
\
Proposed Zoning
i
?JO.
O
PF
CIO
PF
PF \Nw
Rezone 44-02
Exhibit A Note: The C/OS zone includes the creek corridors of both creeks.
This exhibit shall be modified.to show the new Orcutt Creek alignment,
after the project is completed.
iA -A)
��II�IB Illlllhllll �IIIIIIIIII '�
sAn lutS OBIS
C, YPO
of
990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3249
Attachment 4
INITIAL STUDY
ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM
For ER#44-02
1. Project Title: Margarita Sports Fields General Plan Text Amendment and Rezoning
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: Michael Codron, Associate Planner
805 781-7175
4. Project Location: The project encompasses a change to the General Plan Land Use Element text
concerning the Margarita Area, and the proposed sports fields site northwest of
Broad Street and Industrial Way.
5. Project Sponsor's Name and Address: City of San Luis Obispo Parks& Recreation Department
1341 Nipomo Street, San Luis Obispo CA 93401
6. General Plan Designation: Most of the area that would be affected is designated Park; some of it is
designated Recreation.
7. Zoning: Most of the area that would be affected by the proposed text change is zoned
Conservation/Open Space; some of it is zoned Public Facility.
8. Description of the Project:
Text Change
The objective is to allow the proposed Damon-Garcia sports fields to be developed, after detailed
design and environmental review are completed, but before the specific plan that is required for the
Margarita Area is adopted. The General Plan Land Use Map, the Parks & Recreation Element, and
the draft specific plan anticipate the proposed sports fields, but the specific plan may not be adopted
by the time the City is otherwise ready to start construction. The project would revise a policy in the
Land Use Element that requires the specific plan to be adopted before any further development in the
Margarita Area (legislative draft attached).
Rezoning
The objective is to zone the sports fields site consistent with the General Plan, while accommodating
the proposed sports fields design (map attached).
This Initial Study is for the proposed text change and rezoning, which may affect timing of the sports
fields construction. This Initial Study does not address the Margarita Area Specific Plan,for which
an Environmental Impact Report has been prepared, or the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields project
itself,for which a separate Initial Study has been prepared.
�� The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities.
Telecommunications Device for the Deaf(805)781-7410.
IJ
Attachment 4
9. Surrounding Land Uses and Setting:
The site is level to moderately sloping grazing land, containing two creeks. To the north and west is
level to steeply sloping grazing land. To the south are vacant land and a mobile home park. To the
east are Broad Street (Highway 227) and commercial development.
10. Project Entitlements Requested: City Council adoption of a General Plan text amendment and a zone
map amendment.
11. Other public agencies whose approval is required: None.
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
Hazards&Hazardous
Agricultural Resources Materials Recreation
Air Quality Hydrology/Water Quality Transportation&Traffic
Utilities and Service
Biological Resources Land Use and Planning Systems
Mandatory Findings of
Cultural Resources Noise Significance
Energy and Mineral
Resources Population and Housing
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
X 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)).
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
14—/L
i
Attachment 4
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.
Signature Date
G�
/V/C,1f-/+rL 1W 2, i AZ,r= For: John Mandeville
Printed Name Community Development Director
CITY OF SAN LUIS Omspo 3 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
1A-i3
,
Attachment 4
EVALUATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS:
I. 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' 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) 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.
msA/ CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 4 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Support' formation Sources Sources PoJ v Potentially Less Than No
Sigh. .nt Significant Significant Impact
ER #44-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated
Attachment 4
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
adversel effect da 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 fo 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)?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 5 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
Issues, Discussion and Support aformation Sources sources Pq, y Potentially Less Than No
Sig. __,nt Significant Significant Impact
ER # 44 02 Issues unless Impact
Mitigation
Incorporated A
d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident X Y
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?
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 theproject:
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:
1. 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 ro ert ?
CITY OF SAN(_UIS OBISPO 6 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
(p-/(
Issues, Discussion and Support" iformation Sources Sources Po y Potentially Less Than No
Sig. ..ni Significant Significant impact
ER #44 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
CITY OF SAN LUIS Osispo 7 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
144 /7
Issues, Discussion and Supportformation Sources sources Pot I Potentially Less Than No
Sigr,._ _,u Significant Significant Impact
Issues Unless Impact
ER # 44-02 Mitigation
Incorporated A
10. LAND USE AND PLANNING- Would theproject: Y
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?
Text change: The requirement for a specific plan before development was intended to assure coordination among
ownerships within the Margarita Area, and between the Margarita Area and the rest of the city, for open-space
protection, range of housing types, and public facilities such as roads, paths, parks, storm drainage, and water and
sewer systems. Planning issues have been sufficiently resolved to allow development of the proposed sports fields (at
the eastern edge of the planning area), without making irreversible commitments to other aspects of the specific plan
that could lead to adverse environmental impacts.
Rezoning: The rezoning would accommodate the uses anticipated by the General Plan Land Use Map, while
imptlementing as policy that creek corridors be zoned as open sace.
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
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?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 8 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
114-/8
Issues, Discussion and Suppor iformation Sources Sources Pc yPotentially Less Than No
Sig. , -nt Significant Significant Impact
ER # 44-02 Issues Unless Impact
Mitigation
Inco orated
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 chane 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?
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 9 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST 2002
/�,
Attachment 4
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.
This Initial Study does not rely on earlier analysis. However, the City has prepared a draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Margarita Area Specific Plan and related documents (ER 73-00; SCH# 2000 051 062) and an
Initial Study for the sports fields themselves (ER 185-99; SCH#2001 081 041).
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:
Proposed text amendment
Proposed zoning amendment
REQUIRED MITIGATION AND MONITORING PROGRAMS
No mitigation is required.
gmatteso/masp/gp4402is.doc
CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO 10 INITIAL STUDY ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST
2002
- Attachment 4
GPA 44-02
Proposed General Plan Land Use Element Text Amendment
Text to be deleted is lined through. Text to be added is shaded.
LU 1.13.3: Required Plans
Land in any of the following annexation areas may be developed only after the City has adopted
a plan for land uses, roads, utilities, the overall pattern of subdivision, and financing of public
facilities for the area. The plan shall provide for open space protection consistent with LU policy
1.13.5.
A) For the Airport Area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the area. Until a specific plan is
adopted, properties may only be annexed if they meet the following criteria:
1) The property is contiguous to the existing city limits; and
2) The property is within the existing urban reserve line; and
3) The property is located near to existing infrastructure; and
4) Existing Infrastructure capacity is available to serve the proposed development;
and
5) A development plan for the property belonging to the applicant(s) accompanies
the application for annexation; and
6) The applicant(s) agree to contribute to the cost of preparing the specific plan and
constructing area-wide infrastructure improvements according to a cost sharing
plan maintained by the City.
B) For the Orcutt expansion area, a specific plan shall be adopted for the whole area before
any part of it is annexed.
development shall net eeeuf until the City has cempleted efivirenme re v i e;A, -a R d
adopted a speeifie plan. (This area shall be zened Gensef:vatieFdOpen Spaee upon
amexatione
For the Margarita Area,annexation may occur following the City Council's 1998
approval of a draft specific plan as the project description for environmental review.
Except for City parks or sports fields,further development shall not occur until the City
has completed environmental review and adopted a specific plan. City parks or sports
fields may be developed before the specific plan is adopted, if environmental review for
the park or sports field has been completed, and if the park or sports field is consistent
with the General Plan and the draft specific plan most recently endorsed by the City
Council.
Private properties that are annexed before the specific plan is adopted shall be zoned
Conservation/Open Space upon annexation, and shall be zoned consistent with the
specific_plan when it is adopted.
D) For any other annexations, the required plan may be a specific plan, development plan
under"PD"zoning, or similar development plan covering the entire area.
Existing Zoning _.
Attachment 4
03
1'O
0
C/OS-25
s
Proposed Zoning
03
O
d
PF
C/O
r'{
PF
PF
Exhibit A Rezone 44-02
Note: The C/OS zone includes the creek corridors of both creeks.
This exhibit shall be modified to show the new Orcutt Creek alignment,
after the project is completed.
��-2Z
DRAFT Attachment 5
SAN LUIS OBISPO
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
MAY 22, 2002
CALL TO ORDER/PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The San Luis Obispo Planning Commission was called to order at 7:05 p.m. on
Wednesday, May 22, 2002, in the Council Chamber of city Hall, 990 Palm Street, San
Luis Obispo, California.
ROLL CALL:.
Present: Commrs. Stephen Peterson, Allan Cooper, Michael Boswell, James
Caruso, Orval Osborne, and Chairwoman Alice Loh..
Absent: Commissioner Jim Aiken.
Staff: Planning Technician Tyler Corey, Associate Planner Glen Matteson,
Assistant City Attorney Gil Trujillo, Deputy Community Development
Director Michael Draze, Deputy Community Development Director, Ronald
Whisenand, and Recording Secretary Irene Pierce.
ACCEPTEANCE OF THE AGENDA
The agenda was accepted as presented.
PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON-AGENDA ITEMS
There were no comments made from the public.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. 1010 Murray Avenue. U, GP/R, LLA, and ER 145-01; Request to allow a hospital
addition in the O zone, and height exc ption to allow a 35-foot high parking garage
where a 25-foot high building is lowed; change the zoning and land use
designations from •R-4 (high-density residential) to O (office); adjust lot lines
involving 6 lots to create 4 lots; and environmental review; O zone; Sierra Vista
Hospital, applicant.
At the request of the applicant, this items continued to a date uncertain, without any
discussion.
2. Margarita Area. GPA, R, and ER 44-02; Request to amend the General Plan Land
Use Element text to allow parks in the Margarita area before the specific plan is
adopted; to rezone the proposed Damon-Garcia Sports Fields site from C/OS
(Conservation/Open Space) to PF (Public Facilities), with the creek corridors to
remain C/OS; and environmental review; City of San Luis Obispo, applicant.
/A-z3
Draft Planning Commissic. ..mutes �
May 22,2002 Attachment 5
Page 2
Associate Planner Glen Matteson presented the staff report recommending that the City
Council approve the proposed negative declaration of environmental impact, the
rezoning, and the General Plan amendment. He noted an addition to the recommended
finding #1, to read "The proposed zoning for the project site is consistent with the
General Plan, the proposed uses and the types of improvements approved for the
project site'.
Commr. Cooper asked if the Commission had acted on this Initial Study at the April 24"'
meeting, or if this is a different study.
Planner Matteson replied it is a different study, and explained that the Commission's
action, if they support the staff recommendation, would be to recommend to the City
Council that these amendments be adopted.
Commr. Boswell asked if it is necessary to take the rezoning action now or could they
wait for the final site plan to deal with the creek realignment issue.
Planner Matteson explained they could wait until the bid documents go out, but
suggested it sets a better example for the City to make the zoning change before the
project gets into serious planning or construction stages.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked how much the Community Development Director could
adjust the boundaries.
Planner Matteson replied not very much.. He explained the official zone map could be
corrected or revised to show where the precise boundaries are without going through a
rezoning action.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if the City Council normally considers a rezoning a boundary
change.
Planner Matteson explained that a rezoning requires a hearing by the Planning
Commission as well as a hearing and approval by the City Council in order to take
effect.
Vice-Chair Osborne asked if there would be an opportunity for public input with respect
to the changes that the Director would make..
Planner Matteson replied yes, and asked the Commission if they would feel more
comfortable having it come back as an actual rezoning with public input.
Vice-Chair Osborne replied he just wanted the process clarified, but did not want to
change it.
Chairwoman Loh asked if Prado Road is included in this particular plan.
Planner Matteson explained the potential right-of-way for a road extension is included in
the site.
�� 2�
Draft Planning Commissii _.Minutes
May 22,2002 Attachment 5
Page 3
Paul LeSage, Director of Parks and Recreation, clarified that while right-of-way for the
Prado Road extension is included in this site, road construction is not part of the
building the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Ashley King, San Luis Obispo resident, read a letter from Patti Dunton, a Cultural
Resource Specialist. The letter stated that Ms. Dunton was one of six people who did
an archeological survey to make a determination of significance and determine if the
project would affect resources at the proposed Damon-Garcia sports complex on Prado
Road extension. Ms. King clarified that she is opposed to this project.
Mila Vanovich LeBarre, SLO resident, offered the original feasibility study given to the
Selection Committee and the Youth Sports Association as examples for the record and
presented this study to the Commissioners. She expressed that the Community wants
and needs the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex immediately, but felt Prado Road is not
part of the plan before them.
There were no further comments made from the public.
Director LeSage said the conditions of the City's permit from the US Army Corps of
Engineers prohibits them from disturbing the archeological site, and requires a buffer
around it..
Commr. Boswell asked when their next opportunity would be to make decisions
regarding the ultimate alignment of Prado Road.
Planner Matteson said the alignment through this site had been approved by City
Council action on the General Plan Circulation Element. The Commission's next
opportunity for reconsideration of the Prado Road alignment will come with further
consideration of the EIR on the Area Airport Specific Plan and on the Margarita Area
Specific Plan, which looked at several alternatives.
Chairwoman Loh asked if access to the sports field is entirely from Broad Street.
Director LeSage said vehicle access would be entirely from an extension of Industrial
Way at the south end of the site; people would exit parking onto Industrial Way, and at
the signalized intersection of Broad and Industrial Way they would either tum left, right
or go straight ahead.
Chairwoman Loh asked if from the sports field you would have to go to the northwest
part, which would be through the pedestrian underpass.
Planner Matteson replied the draft Margarita Area Specific Plan shows a pedestrian
underpass, but it will not be built as part of this project.
Draft Planning Commissi, Minutes
May 22,2002 Attachment 5
Page 4
COMMISSION COMMENTS:
Commr. Cooper moved that they recommend that the City Council approve the
proposed negative declaration, the rezoning, and.the General Plan Amendment, with
the added finding as.noted by staff. Seconded by Commr. Boswell.
AYES: Commrs. Cooper, Boswell, Peterson, Osborne, Caruso, and Loh.
NOES: None.
ABSENT: Commr. Aiken.
ABSTAIN: None.
The motion carried 6-0.
3. 522 Broad. Street. FH 19-02; Appea of the Zoning Hearing Officer's denial of a
request for a 10-foot high masonry II at the 6-foot setback along Broad and
Lincoln where a 6-foot high fence was p eviouslyapproved; and a request to allow a
6-foot high wall along Broad St. where 5-foot high wall was previously approved;
R-1 zone; Bob Rice, applicant.
Planning Technician Tyler Corey presented t e staff report recommending denial of the
appeal and upholding the Director's action to eny the request, based on findings which
he outlined.
Commr. Boswell asked if this was a ramp that altrans has a long-term plan for closing.
Deputy Director Whisenand replied no.
Commr. Cooper asked if the landscaping w also non-conforming regarding the 30-
foot diagonal setback at the corner.
Planner Corey explained it was cut on the co er and the fence was set back for sight
visibility. If landscaping had become an issu because it has grown to maturity in this
location; they would need take a look at it
Bob Rice, applicant, presented a signed pe ition from his neighbors expressing their
support of his proposed fence height excepti n. He presented pictures of the fence for
the commissioners to review and explained t at landscaping screens the existing 6-foot
fence. He noted that this landscaping was required by the City for the original 6-foot
fence and it was approved by the City. a gave a brief summary for each of the
photographs that he presented to the Comm ssion.
Chairwoman Loh asked if the house is [owe than the street.
Mr. Rice explained that the house is not to er because it is on a raised foundation, but
because some of the land is lower. He m ntioned that he has no back yard, and his
backyard is the side yard, which faces Lin oln Avenue, and is the noisiest part of the
property. He had previously indicated t staff that he was willing to consider any
alternative, but staff came up with some Itematives which he was not in agreement
/P-Z6
'fEET1NG AGENDA.
GL POLYRTE S L��ITEM #=
June 10,2002 California Polytechnic State University COUNCIL G CDD DIR
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407 CYCAO ❑ FIN DIR
City of San Luis Obispo Landscape Architecture Department CrACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
City Council members (805) 756-1319 • Fax(805)756-2270 WATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
990 Palm Street &TLERKJORIG ❑ POLICE CHF
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 ❑ DEPT HEADS ❑ REC DIR
[$'SR18vN - ❑ UTIL DIR
To Whom It May Concern: -g��—£ ❑ HR DIR
This letter is in regard to the City Council meeting scheduled for June 18,2002. It has recently come to my attention
that a four-lane extension of Prado Road is planned between the south hills open space and the proposed sports
field complex on south Broad Street.
It is my understanding that the proposed design of the sports fields is linked to approval for infrastructure that will
guide the future location of the roadway. So, in effect,approval of the sports fields as proposed amounts to a de
facto approval of the Prado Road extension between the sports fields and the south hills open space.
As a licensed landscape architect and as an instructor at Cal Poly I am in favor of careful planning that makes the
most of existing natural and cultural resources. If the San Luis Obispo City Council members are serious about going
"Into the Future with a Design"per the City's mission statement, isn't it implicit that it should be a GOOD design?If
they consider themselves"Enhancers of the quality of life for the community as a whole"why then have they chosen
to seek de facto approval of a noisy dangerous four lane roadway that will separate the proposed sports fields from
the south hills open space?
City Council members know the citizens of San Luis are not dummies.They know that if they asked us outright we
would not approve this location for an extension of Prado Road. Not only will a roadway in this location substantially
increase noise in a relatively peaceful setting, it will decrease livability for future residents of the Santa Margarita
area,and create a safety hazard for children and adults trying to move between the proposed sports fields and south
hills open space.
I propose the City Council members take their time to look at the big picture,and recognize fora moment the
importance the decision in front of them will have on the future of our city. A sports complex adjacent to existing open
space would be much safer and more enjoyable for current residents as well as future residents of the Santa
Margarita area.Consider also the multiple benefits of open space connectivity. Property values adjacent to open
space increase,while wildlife habitat and pedestrian enjoyment is preserved.
Please do not make the citizens of San Luis approve a four-lane road they do not want in order to have somewhere
for their children to play soccer.
Traffic planning for South San Luis should be just that-a well-thought out long-term plan that solves projected traffic
issues in a way that respects existing land uses and recognizes the value of open space. The apparent piecemeal
approach to traffic planning through unwitting citizen approval is shortsighted and indefensible.
I hope the Council'is serious about it's slogan of"Quality in all Endeavors—Pride in Results" I urge them to make a
decision on June 1e that they can take pride in for many years to come.
Very Sincerely Yours,
Cathleen Corlett
Lecturer and Landscape Architect(lic.#4596)
Department of Landscape Architecture i RECEIVED
California Polytechnic University
San Luis Obispo,CA 93407 JUN 12 2002
SLO CITY COUNCIL
The Cid&rnia Stam University Baltersneld•Chico-Dominguez.Hills• Fresno-Fullerton•Hayward•Humboldt•Lang Beach•Las Angeles-Maritime Academy-
Monterey Bay-Northridge-Pomona-Sacramento-San Bernardino•San Diego•San Francisco-San Jose-San Luis Obispo•San Marcos-Sonoma-Stanislaus
- MEETING AGENDA
DATE (O"1g"02 ITEM # I-
c o u p c,l m c m o Ra n o u m
ML�UUN_ _
&CA0 =..FIN DIR
June 18,2002 [TACAO FIRE CHIEF
[3A170RNE' L PW OR
TO: City Council 2rCLERK ORIGPOLICE CHF
❑.DEPT HEADS _.-.Z.REC.DIR
-. .
FROM: Ken Ham ian Er TQr vAJE Z UTIL DIR. .
p Q rW , 9!_. -.:-HR DIR
SUBJECT: Damon-Garcia Fields and the Prado Road Alignment(PH 1A. &-LB)
Based on several correspondence received so far, the issue of the Prado Road alignment will once again
be raised by some members of the public as we consider actions on the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields. As
such, a few points of emphasis
1. The extension of Prado Road from South Higuera to Highway 227 (Broad Street) has been City
policy since the adoption of our first General Plan over 40 years ago;
2. The current terminus of Prado Road at Highway 227 north of Industrial Avenue is also General
Plan policy, as decided in 2000 and affirmed in January 2001 (the"northerly alignment");
3. Reconsideration of these policy decisions is not before the Council tonight. However, to be
consistent with the General Plan and Circulation Element, the design of the Sports Fields does
assume the"northerly"alignment;
4. While the reconsideration of Prado Road is not on tonight's agenda, the Council can consider
this issues as part of the public hearings and final decision-making for the Margarita and Airport
Area Specific Plans. Such hearings will be underway later this year, with plan adoption likely in
2003;
5. Even after plans are approved, all environmental issues (including archeological concerns) must
be addressed before a road can actually be built. Safety concerns will also be addressed, as they
are elsewhere throughout the City (roads, and in some cases highways, .are adjacent to — or
surround—virtually all City parks,playfields,and schools);
6. Finally, if the Council later chooses to reexamine the adopted alignment for Prado Road, it will
be essential to (A) Involve other stakeholders to allow for more complete input; and (B)
Consider the long term build out of the City, and not only the alignment as it relates to the fields.
Regarding other stakeholders, there are presently several very strong neighborhood traffic
concerns along Tank Farm Road (the Homeowners Association has already voted to oppose a
realignment to Tank Fane). Regarding the long-term, very significant circulation and
neighborhood "cut-through" issues need to be considered before changing present City policy,
especially given planned housing in the Margarita and Broad Street/Orcutt Road areas (e.g. the
Planning Commission is presently recommending that the site formerly proposed for student
housing on Orcutt Road be rezoned to higher density residential).
RECEIVE®
1UN 1 ''r 2092
CIN CLERK
G:\StafflHAMPIANImemos\Prado
i
MEETING AGENDA
DATE -18-62- ITEM # ,A+1e
June 17, 2002
TO: San Luis Obispo City Mayor and all Council Members.
From: Patti.Dunton, Cultural Resource Specialist
Subject: Proposed Damon Garcia Sports Complex and Extension of Prado Road
Dear Mayor and Council,
I realize you will be making a decision soon on this project as it is currently designed.
I was part of the archaeological team that surveyed and tested this property. As you know
we determined that the proposed sports complex would not effect know cultural
resources, but that the extension of Prado Road would impact and destroy know cultural
resources. Even with the mitigation to lower the impact to 15%. I would like to see the
impact at 0%.
I believe that if the extension of Prado Road was left out of this project, since it will not
service the ball field,the proposed entrance to the ball field will be at Industrial Way. It
will only create noise, congestion and traffic near what could be a great open space area.
The Sports Complex could move forward faster and smoother with the addition of one
more ball field and a cultural trail to the rock outcropping and house floor where the
proposed road would have been.
Please vote to support the Sports Field without the extension of Prado Road. And
remember that our children need to exercise their bodies as well as their minds. We have
a great opportunity here to do both with a Sports/Cultural Complex.
I have enclosed a letter I wrote to the SLO Planning Commission and also to the State
Environmental office concerning possible 106 violations.
Thank You,
93OUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR
Patti Dunton, Playano Salinan ETCAO ❑ FIN DIR
dACAO El FIRE CHIEF RECEIVED
CRIATTORNEY ❑ PW DIR
R'CLERK/ORIG ❑ POUCE CHF JUN 17
200
❑ DEPT HEADS ❑REC DIR
��gJN p:uTIi.oiR SLO CITY CLERK.
Rr-b A117C -❑'HR-DIR
FAX TRANSMISSION
June 16,2002
To: Laurie Warner
C/o Albert Herson
Fax 916-974-8830
From: Patti Dunton, Cultural.Resource Specialist
Fax and Phone 805-462-0893
Subject: Possible 106 violation, during proposed project in the city of San Luis Obispo,
CA.
Dear Ms Warner,
I was given your name and number by a concerned citizen, who met you on vacation.
The City of San Luis Obispo is in it's final days of reviewing a proposed project, in
which they will be approving it, as it is designed or they may request that changes be
made. If they approve this project on Tuesday Junel 8, 2002 as designed a great lose will
occur.
This project is a proposed Sports Complex, and the extension of Prado Road.
I was part of an archaeological team that surveyed and tested the proposed project site for
the City of San Luis Obispo. The Project site contains about half of Archaeological site
CA-SLO-1427. It is a rock out cropping at the end of a range of volcanic peaks that are
called the seven sisters. There are many mortor holes from three different time periods
also there is a house floor ring. This area overlooks a huge marsh, which has since dried
up because of water being diverted over the years. This area of the seven sisters is very
sacred to my people. And this site has been entered into the Sacred Lands database with
the Native American Heritage Commission.
Our Archaeological recommendations to the city were that the proposed Damon Garcia
Sports Complex would not disturb known cultural resources but that the extension of
Prado Road would have an impact on know cultural resources. And also that the City of
San Luis Obispo nominate the site for Historical State status.
The city mitigated the damage that would occur to the archaeological site by the
extension of Prado Road from a 75% impact to a 15% impact. The Native Americans that
consulted during the archaeological survey requested and are still requesting a 0% impact
to the site. So far the City of San Luis Obispo has failed to make Sate Historic status
recommendations. The Army Corps of Engineers along with Caltrans have both
determined the site as being significant.
We have been told that Federal Funds will be used during this project. It is my
understanding that when federal funds are used during any project that may impact
cultural resources that the 106 comes into effect. The City has also failed to formally
contact the Native American community for their input concerning this project.
Recommendations have been made by local citizens to include the archaeological site
into the design of the Sports Field. To leave the site intact and accessible. It could
become part of the complex as an educational trail and open space area that could
compliment the Sports Field. Instead of cutting the site in half by creating a road and than
fencing the site off.
The extension of Prado Road as it is presently designed will not service the proposed
Sports Field. Entrance to the complex will be at Industrial Way. The proposed Extension
will only connect Prado Road to Broad Street. By doing so it will create traffic on the
western side of the proposed Sports Field, where the main part of the archaeological site
is.
The reason I am writing you is to see if indeed federal funds are being used for this
project. And if so, encourage the city to contact the local native community for input
before any final decisions are made. The County of San Luis Obispo has a list of Native
contacts if the City doesn't. Also to see if the city's Cultural Heritage Committee has
been informed of the project and the 15% damage proposed to the cultural resources by
the extension of Pardo Road.
Any help you could provide ASAP would be greatly appreciated.
Thank You,
Patti Dunton, Playano Salinan
- I
May 22, 2002
TO: THE CITY OF SAN LLTIS40BISPO PLANNING CONLIVIISIONORS
FROM: PATTI DUNTON
DEAR COMMISIONORS,
IN AUGUST OF 20001 WAS ONE OF SIX PEOPLE WHO DID AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY TO MAKE A DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANCE AND DETERMAN IF
THE PROJECT WOULD AFFECT RESOURCES AT THE PROPOSED DAMON GARICIA
SPORTS COMPLESX AND PRADO ROAD EXTENSION.
THE 23.5 ACRE PORTION OF THE GARCIA RANCH PURCHASED BY THE CITY
OF SAN LUIS OBISPO FOR DEVELOPMENT OF A SPORTS COMPLEX AND
EXTENTION OF PRADO ROAD INCLUDES ABOUT HALF OF ARCHAEOLOICAL
SITE CA-SLO-1427.
THIS PORTION OF SITE CA-SLO-1427 INCLUDES A ROCKY OUTCROPPING
WITH NINE DIFFERENT FEATURES REPRESENTING THREE DIFFERENT
TIMES OF OCUPATION OVER A PERIOD OF 6,000 YEARS. ONE OF THESE
FEATURES IS A HOUSE FLOOR RING, WHICH IS VERY RARE AND SPECIAL
TO FIND. THIS AREA OVER LOOKED WHAT WAS ONCE A MARSHY
WETLAND THAT WAS AN IDEL LOCATION FROM WHICH TO CONDUCT A
VARIETY OF DIFFERENT ACTIVITIES. THE MARSHLAND. OR PROPOSED
SPORTS COMPLEX AREA WOULD HAVE AFFORED NUMEROUS
OPPORTUNITIES FOR TRAPPING, HUNTING, FISHING, AND FOWLING, AS
WELL AS A BUNDANCE OF PLANT FOODS AND PLANT PRODUCTS.
THE AREA OF THE PROPOSED SPORTS COMPLEX AND THE AREA OF THE
PROPOSED PRADO ROAD ARE DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER.
TO CUT THIS SITE IN HALF AND ISOLATE ONE PART OF THE SITE FROM THE
OTHER BY THE CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD WOULD BE DEVISTATING TO
THE INTEGRITY OF THE SITE. AS MENTIONED IN OUR FINDINGS ALL
NATIVES INVOLVED IN THE SURVEY AGREED THAT THE SPORTS FIELDS
PROBERLY WOULD NOT AFFECT CULTURAL MATERIAL BUT THAT THE
EXTENSION OF PARDO ROAD WOULD BE DEVISTATING TO THE SITE.
WE WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE PROPOSED SPORTS
COMPLEX AND THE PRADO ROAD EXTENSION WERE ALL PART OF THE
SAME PROJECT. AT THE TIME I REMEMBER WONDERING WHY THEY
NEEDED PRADO ROAD TO ENTER INTO THE SPORTS COMPLEX WHEN
THERE WAS ALREADY THE INDUSTURAL WAY ENTRANCE ONTO THE
PROPERTY OR TANK FARM ROAD. WE BELIEVED THE ROAD WAS ONE OF
THREE OPTIONS.
AS A CULTURAL RESOUSE SPECIALIST I AM ALSO AWARE IF FEDERAL
MONEY IS USED FOR A PROJECT THEN THE 106 PROCESSES MUST BE
FOLLEWED WHITH INCLUDES NOTIFYING THE LOCAL NATIVE AMERICAN
COMMUNITY. I KNOW THE SALINAN PEOPLE HAVE NOT BEEN NOTIFIED
CONCERNING THIS PROJECT. I WAS ONLY AWARE OF THE PROJECT
BECAUSE OF BEING PART OF THE SURVEY TEAM.
AS A DIRECT DECENDANT OF PEOPLE WHO OCUPIED THE ISLAY HILL
AREA I WAS VERY ANGRY WHEN THE DEVISTATION TO THE BASE OF THE
HILL HAPPENED WITH THE HOUSING DEVELOPMENT. TO ANSESTORS OF
THESE PEOPLE WHO LEFT NO WRITTEN LANGUAGE, WHAT THEY LEFT
BEHIND IS ALL WE HAVE TO GRASP TO AND LEARN FROM. ONCE THIS
INFORMATION IS DISTROYED IT IS LOST FOREVER
WE HAVE A GREAT CHANCE HERE TO CREATE SOMETHING ALL PEOPLE
CAN BE PROUD OF. I HAVE BEEN APPROACHED BY CAL POLY STUDENTS
THAT WOULD, FREE OF COST,DESIGN A PROJECT FOR THIS SITE THAT
WOULD INCLUDE A EDUCATIONAL TRAIL UP AND AROUND THE ROCK OUT
CROPPING. WE MUST SAVE AS MUCH WHOLE PIECES OF LAND THAT
CONTAINS CALIFORNIAS PAST AND STOP CUTTING THEM UP AND
DESTROYING WHAT BELONGS TO ALL CALIFORNIANS.
WE FOUND THE SITE TO BE SIGNIFICANTE. EVEN WITH THE DESIGN
CHANGES TO PRADO ROAD IT WILL STILL AFFECT THE SITE AND THE
INFORMATION HELD THERE FOREVER.
PLEASE LISTEN WITH YOUR HEARSTS. I WOULD LIKE TO BE ABLE TO TAKE
MY GRANDSON TO THIS PLACE AND TELL HIM OF HOW THE CITY OF SAN
LUIS OBISPO CARED ENOUGH TO SAVE PART OF HIS CULTURAL.
THANK YOU,
�a�tzt,
PATTI DUNTON
r
MEET lV AGENDA
City of Sen Luis Obispo DATE ITEM # A.4418
M Palm Street
San Luis Obispo, 03401
RECEIVED
�
June 18, 2002 JUN I
SLO CITY CLERK A�
SUBJECT: Public Comment/Agenda item 1A GeMalp'.an LUF=Text Amendment and
Bgmft and 16—
Babda complex.
Mayor Alien Sattle and Honorabis Council Membem,
While the City`s creative efforts to address the recfastlonajL needs of the community are
laudable, considerable public controversy continues over the alignment of Prado Road
through the Margarda Planning Area. For the June 18 Agenda,we believe that
adequate Information has not been provided for your City Council to take action.
Specifically, we believe that both herrn 1A or 1 B fall to mW CEQA requirements as
presented.
Our concerns include, but are not limited to the following:
1an Is the CoraMutlon for int: Any action on these
agenda Norm would be Inappropriate. The proposal be#are the Council is a
General Plan amendment.As such, the proposed action resulting from Item 1
(both parts A and B)will eliminate tutu aitemative alignment for the reasonably
foreseeable Prado Road extension (State Highway 227). A General Pian
amendment is by definition a significent action, thus, approval using a Negative
Qeciaradon velli violate CEQA requirements.
2. 8aemW Item 1A Eliminates Comcrshenslve Manning: The City has previously
received comment on the lack of Internal consistoncy and legal adequacy—
especially in regards to the Cirouiation Element and Ws application to the
proper park project and the reasonably foreseeable alignment of the Prado
Road extension. Under the existing Gerierel Pin it is required that no further
development is allowed in the hbrgarita Planning Are until the Specific Plan is
adopted. This requirement mattes good planning senas. However the proposal
before the Council Is a plaaernead approach that is inconsistent with CEQA and
defeats the purpose of the City's General Plan.
1 of 2
3. Prado Road Exwna_�Proposal Actually ally Exift• To avoid Jwetlands permit
dffmitles and CEQA revW of the propond aiilgnmsnt of Prado Road, Staff has
attempled to mare the exf rm of Prado Road*$.an element of this project.
However, even the Planning Commission has w odenced great dif>9c city
discussion this project, eapgd*how to avoid opanly aWaing the final
et neermg design for Prado Road without addressing the archeological and
environmental obstectes that are likely to exist.
In the Current PrOPOsal before the Council,the Staff report is dear that an
eK**on of Prado Road Is a reasonably foresnoe result of developing the
Dannon-Garcia ob (see P 1A-2 and Map p 19-6). This approach to be a
piecemeal approach and violates CEQA requirements.
in addition, the northern alignment of Prada Road Is inconsistent with the
following General Plan policies:
• LUE Policy 8.2.2.
• LUE Policy 8.4.1
• LUE Policy 8,GA
• Open Space.Element Policy C.2.(A)
• Open Space Element Polity C.3
• Open.Space Element Policy 1,A(Creeks)
• Open Space Element Policy 1.A(Ardwokoaai Resources)
Considering that the Std Report presents multiple inconsistencies with General Plan
policies, and Is a Cleat violation of CEQA guidelines. k would be prudent for the City to
take no action on Agenda Item 1A or 1B at this time.
Sincerely,
of
. MEETING AGENDA /* r�
June 17, 2002
DATE G/ ITEM #
Mayor Settle, RECEIVED
Ken Swchartz, Jan Marx,
John Ewan, & Christine Mulholland JUN 13 2002
City of San Luis Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401 $LO CITY CLERK
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members,
Regarding: City Council Meeting, June 18, 21002, items relating to the Damon-Garcia
Sports Complex per Staff Report information.
We welcome the coming of the 16 acre Damon-Garcia sports field complex. We are
concerned though with what is happening to the balance of the 23 acre site not utilized by
the 16 acre sports fields. That is approximately 7 acres. The staff report does not discuss a
project, yet there are maps with Prado Road on the 7 acres. There is reference to Prado
Road, yet there is no information in the Negative Declaration. It is confusing. The map in
the staff report dated June 18, 2002, clearly depicts Prado Road North as a proposed
project (attachment 4) utilizing those 7 acres.
Prado Rd north was proposed in the Margarita specific plan in 1998. In Feb 2000 and in
January, 2001, council took action regarding this alignment of Prado Rd north and again Prado
Rd north is depicted on the staff report before you now. With these events and actions, it is
reasonably forseeable that a segment of Prado Road north is proposed for construction on 7 acres
of the 23 acre site.
Prado Rd north is not invisible. It is a proposed project that will occupy 7 acres of the 23 acre
site purchased from the Damon-Garcia family for a cost of 2 million dollars. It is partof the 213
acre site you are currently undertaking action considerations per staff report dated June 18, 2002.
The Negative Declaration before you does not address Prado Rd except to state that the playing
fields will be six to ten, or more.feet below the grade of Prado Rd...and that dense planting will
separate the fields from Prado Rd. The Negative Declaration as submitted is inadequate and
inaccurate because Prado Rd is 7 acres of the 23 acre site under your consideration. Ztit i • of
parr of the 23 acre site, then what is being proposed or considered for those 7 acres? Shouldn't
Council members know before taking action? Isn't the CEQA process revolved around the
concept of providing accurate and adequate information to the decision makers prior to making
decisions?
From the beginning, Prado Rd north, (the newly adopted Feb 2000 northern alignment) has
caused delays and controversy. First, with the need for an Army Corp permit required to realign a
creek, which according to the Army Corps, a permit would never have been needed if Prado Rd
was not on site and creating development constraints (creek realignment) for the sports fields.
Second, there would have been no need for a General Plan amendment, or the waste of all those
funds. Third, there would be no need for this letter or thoughts of CEQA violations or legal
actions.
Page 2
Other concerns we wish to include are.under Item I A on the staff report where there are
differences in attached Map I A4 that depicts Prado Rd stopping in the middle of the Margarita
area and attached Map I B-9 that depicts Prado Rd adjacent to the sports field ending at Broad St.
This looks like improper segmentation of Prado Rd north, plus we could not find adequate
information in the proposed Negative Declaration. We would like to suggest that-a focused E1R
be prepared for this proposal so more information could be learned and be more in complicance
with CEQA.
If the proposed text change and rezoning are approved as recommended by the staff report, it
appears that the resulting developments will be 16 acres of sports fields and 7 acres of Prado Rd.
We think if the development of the sports fields and the proposed northern alignment of Prado Rd
are the reasonably foreseeable results from approving the proposed General Plan amendment text
change and rezoning (as depicted on Map page IB-9),then the proposed Negative Declaration is
legally deficient and the Prado Rd north project is clearly being segmented in a manner that
violates CEQA.
Under Item I B on the staff report, we think as a result of your decisions on these items, that
reasonable and foreseeable potential impacts could result from the alignment of Prado Rd north.
These impacts should be classified as significant especially where the road will cross streams and
encroach upon wetlands and upon a well known archeological`site. The Negative Declaration
does not give you, the Council, the decision making body, any alternatives or options for the
alignment of Prado Rd. or for whatever is going to be developed on the remaining 7 acres of the
23 acre site in question. The report actually says the road is not part of the project, yet numerous
maps in the report depict the road on the 23 acre site. It is confusing that Prado Rd is included in
the map designs. It is confusing that Prado Rd is the constraining factor as to why the sports
fields must be designed as they are, which in turn results in realigning a creek. It is confusing that
Prado Rd uses 7 acres of the 23 acre site yet, everyone is expected to believe that Prado Rd is not
part of the project. Prado Rd northern alignment is very definitely part of the 23 acre site. The
23 acres is one parcel of land. How can you approve a General.Plan text amendment and a
rezoning classification and a Negative Declaration that only involves two thirds of a parcel? What
happens to the other one third of the parcel/site" Doesn't the entire parcel require an
environmental determination? One third of it did not disappear.
It might be a bit premature to make any decisions on these agenda items. It appears that the
Council has not fully been informed of possible alternatives or of adverse impacts. Absent is a
complete review of the General Plan for internal consistency and legal adequacy, especially in
regards to the Circulation Element and it's application to the proposed alignment of Prado Rd
north as depicted. To date, the revised Margarita specific plan,has not been adopted nor has the
Environmental Impact Report. To date, there is no significant environmental determination on
Prado Rd. In addition, we believe the northern alignment of Prado Rd as demonstrated on Map
113-9 is inconsistent with the following General Plan policies: LUE Policy 6.2.2, LUE Policy
6.4.1, LUE Policy 6.6.4, Open Space Element Policy C.2.(A), OSE Policy C.3, OSE Policy
I.A(Creeks), OSE Policy l.A(Archeological Resources).
Page 3
Maybe removing Prado Rd north from the entire 23 acre site and adding one or two more
playing fields would be the best and simplest and most environmentally friendly decision. It
would certainly make for a bunch of happy ball players.
We have stated our concerns with the best interest of our youth at heart. They deserve the
biggest, best, and safest sports complex that the City of San Luis Obispo can-provide. We are a
great community and a wonderful place to live, we can provide a sports complex to be proud of,
not onethat we have to make constrainingallowances for just-because someone wants Prado
Road from Highway 101 to Johnson Avenue. Our children deserve the best we can provide.
Prior to making a decision we hope you will seriously considered our issues. Our children should
be the priority, not a road.
Thank You,
v
ri
� 1
iri l'�i` "• 1l �� 'I ai o� p � n
to
lu
rj
Id-
it
it
it
��-`"=��=riaiiz,.r�• �Z �-=ccic�cca"-..-.\.\` `��_�\k I �`eo I a � t''=�—�-'`i��' m �w'
to,
\\ \� �P`\ 0
W9it_!l 'JE �/i 1
Hnacnment L
W
\ �� •' , ��� 'tet �t _ - ��` l,; J
\ ✓'
1 \
'C t
� 0 CIA.
���I i I III '��� � • 1. �, -� - - - ________:__ ,,
< Q \ \ \
U °s
Q , firCDM
10
cn
fie
0 U) I �f�f A Iii
III!E ��i�% >\���)� :t�` ,T ♦ / ♦�•♦�
��.• e�Mlnlni`ma nmi Inm ter► � - ,�! NI'
� �1 u'' Fi11115 u7e� s�f $�7 `� - , .. ♦dam
1 � R �"=� � .•gyp.��.Oti ♦t s`�i `� �4���I
MURE
:1` Tr;�`..�,���<-��,�,�IWIIIWIIIII;II�p111�1111119L�91►'����_ �r��'' _F_�♦'`b���Q►'•♦��'`����`► ���' �'� '
rC � .a x sr E:. :d .+� g::1.• T �11%� r._3 ♦� �f�9 ♦ :M
ni �p� },`�rnu � [t atee-tu��� \ ♦�•r^ ��'2ti
F�_. •••fO:NO ��q .�
ism
1 -�r �,.•: _-. �i�, fie. [�• �� :
nna mrmrmrrilo4 ��tN�' ,E���►"
� �acp nn rnr� sf�
;. • rraana:
-t � • � Y Y , Y
4 �••�1
it ./ ,•,•� � �•Aa�
1 -
1 �-
_ i f �
�yIEETIN� AGENDA.
_DATE ITEM #
` 117 . v
Mild Vujovich-La Barre
650 SAyline Drive /^
San Luis Obispo, California 934 S RECEIVED
June 18, 2002 JUN 1. 20 �
SLO Cl
�
To: Mayor Settle and the City Council members of San Luis Obispo
From: Mila Vujovich-La Barre
Re: Damon-Garcia Sports Complex
My name is Mila Vujovich-La Barre. I am a resident at 650 Skyline Drive in
San Luis Obispo. I am a mother, wife, teacher, sports enthusiast and an
advocate for positive alternatives for the youth of San Luis Obispo, and am
here tonight, as a matter of record and of heart. As this city grows and is
developed city officials have an immense responsibility to plan how the
remaining open space is to be used. Here tonight the area under discussion
has the potential to be developed into a gem of a recreational area or a road.
It is obvious from the community's response at innumerable public meetings
prior to this that this community wants and needs the Damon -Garcia Sports
Complex now. Please approve the maximum number of sand-based, well-lit
playing fields as soon as possible.
The problem is that there is an elephant in the room that people do not want
to talk about. However, now is the time to have the courage to confront the
problem that has delayed these fields beyond everyone's wildest nightmares.
The elephant is named Prado Road.
Prado Road has been omitted when convenient and included only when
absolutely necessary for the plans. I offer the original feasibility study given
to the selection committee and the Youth Sports Association as an example
for the record. One can see that in the map and in the field layout for the
purchased 23 acres,there is no visual depiction of the road. It is only in the
fine print of an attachment that the selection committee received that Prado
Road was mentioned. The road, our elephant, will potentially devour 7 acres
of the purchased land.
One of the city staff members two months ago told the City Planning
Commission stated that the land penciled in for Prado Road could not be
used as playing space in any fashion; that if the 7 acres was left as open
space, that there would be no use for it - that no additional playing space
could be utilized, and that the space could only be used for a road. I present
to you the drawing of the proposed Prado Road on the acreage that was
originally promised for playing fields and recreation. I would like to hear
how what seems to be a flat space 90 feet across and several hundred feet
long is not suitable for recreation. If the land is graded and flat enough for
cars, why is it not suitable for children or adults to play soccer, sand
volleyball, and horseshoes or simply picnic near a federally registered
archaeological site? I ask that members of the City Council to not have
"tunnel vision' and realize that if this portion of land can be used for a flat
road, it can most certainly be used for flat fields. The public deserves an
explanation as to this discrepancy.
The fact that the road is not taken into consideration in the environmental
evaluation is also astonishing, and is one of the:issues that delayed this
proposal for months at the Army Corps of Engineers. If the fields are not
going to be impacted by a spill from a vehicle on the adjacent highway,
increased noise from the roar of cars and trucks, increased pollution from the
emissions from the said vehicles, so be it. The sports complex was blessed
by the Army Corps, but not with the inclusion of Prado Road. If the citizens
are going to play free from harms way, great, build the fields tomorrow.
However if this project is injurious, I believe that you need to address those
issues and rectify the situation.
This area of town contains the last immense portion of open space. As a
citizen I understand the need for affordable housing and for improved
transportation. I do not understand why certain alternatives have been
completely ignored by the EIR for the Margarita and Airport Land Use
development and others pushed ahead. It is my request that the fourth
alternative for Prado Road be considered. The fourth alternative is before
you. Prado Road needs to be taken South to a widened Tank Farm Road.
Eventually there may be an overpass from the Dalidio Property to ensure an
upgraded East—West connection. However this will exponentially increase
the traffic on Prado Road and must be taken into consideration if this road is
left in the plan. It appears that staff is trying to improperly segment this
portion of Prado Road by attaching it to our popular sports complex.
In closing, I am asking you tonight to "kill the elephant" in the room and
clarify that Prado Road is indeed no part of the plan before you. The current
and future generations of this city deserve your utmost consideration.
The athletes, young and old, and all citizens deserve well designed open
space.
Thank you.
I
I
I
I � o ! _
11 0 El 1
1 I
i
O
i
"00
Parking-
1114 ,Q)
O ° Parking,
- SITE:
i I
.-
CRES
SA O W s !J O PQ�c�p k o aC
10-
1997 0- 1997
r
. Garcia Sites''~--� _
Site Feasibility & Cost Analyse ped-,. Map
City Of San,Luis Obispo
Parks& Recreation Department Scale: 10= 200' firm, ;_
58l Apn;s lsll/ul
11 1!9!4X3 -p n d
oa' AA 7AC (�A �
°D
��Is Z D rn Z
K) d r
-� v A -_+ �
Ac, < > Q '
6o < 3. ra
D Uz �l1
>z is Z r Tj N 0
rr (N >
�O �- n O 7�
p� D
rn � A Z
ro VLo
Aru
Z o =
> d rn
C%> 71 ]0
0� r r
Z> r
>u' >
0 Q 1A
n-a N -Q
r
1
Z i OCi Z
rnM
3p n �
z� � r =
{ d r � wd rn
ZCA -nN
� . ( z
�----� rn n
rn
70
>
� -pc
rn
rn d
rn \
O F D
N 70
o rn iU
4 �
40CA
ti
i V0obrA � � GJ�.
� 04 ° Cd ... ° w GQ�
2 o a.
W c
ca
n
LT� to
Un
Gn
v �
b
5 tl
o
°
rn
d1NVS
_ v cy
0
` v N
�jl J
C' t s E
0, �b'�1
Ir
rn -�
G
V
c
Q - o
CAL POLYMIEETIIJI S AGENDA, A
is DATE ITEM
June 10,2002 California Polytechnic State Lathversity
Sen Luis Obispo, CA 93401
City of San Lula Obispo 1�etda s Aicllil sctura Department
City Council members
990 Palm Street (605)756.1319 • Fax(805)756.2270
San Luis Obispo, CA 93401
To Whom It May Cortoem:
This letter is in regard to the City Council meeting scheduled for June 18,2002 it has recently carne to my attention
that a four-lane extension of Predo Road Is planned between the south hills open space and the proposed sports
field complex on south Broad Street.
it is my understanding that the proposed design of the sports fields Is linked to approval for Infrastructure that will
guide the future location or the roadway. So,in e8ect,approval of the sports fields as proposed amounts to a do
facto approval of the Prado Road extension between the sports fields and the south hills open space.
As a licensed landscape architect and as an Instructor at Cal Poly I am In favor of careful planning that makes the
most of"falling natural arta cultural resources. If the San Luis Obispo City Council members are serious about going
°into the Future with a Desigin'per the CRY%mission statement,isn't it Implicit that it should be a GOOD design?If
they consider themselves"Enhancer;of the quadly of Me/or the community as a whole',why then have they chosen
to seek de facto approval of a noisy dangwous four lane roadway that will separate the proposed sports fields from
the south AIAs open space?
City Council members know the oitlzens of Sun Luis are not dummies.They know that If they asked us outright we
would not approve this location for an extension of Prado Road. Not only will a roadway in this location substantially
increase noise in a relatively peaceful selling,It will decrease livability for future residents of the Santa Margarita
area,and create a safety hazard for children and adults trying to move between the proposed sports fields and south
hills open space,
I propoAs the City Council members take their time to look at the big picture,and recoprtlze for a moment the
Importance,the decision In front of them will have on the future of our city. A sports complex adjacent to existing open
space would be much seller and more enjoyable for current residents as well as future residents of the Santa
Margarita area.Consider also the multiple benefits of open spas eonner:thdty,Property values adjacent to open
space increase,while wildlife habhat and pedestrian enjoyment Is preserved.
Please do not make the chlzens of San Luis approve a four-lane road they do not want in order to have somewhere
for their children to play soccer.
Traffic planning for South San Luis should be just that-a well-thought out long-term plan that solves projected traffic:
issues In a way that respects existing land uses and reeognIzes the value of open apece, The apparent piecemeal
approach to traffic planning through unwitting efBzen approval is shortsighted and Indefensible.
I hope the Council is serious about We slogan of~Quality In all.Endeavors—Pride In Aesulta" I urge them to make a
decision on June 180 that they can take pride in for many years to come.
Very Sincerely Yours.
4040*&-�
Cathleen Corlett RECEIVED
Lecturer and Lant1scaps Architect pia.#4606)
Department of Landscape Architecture JJN .I a 200(
Ceiitomia Polytechnic university
San Luis Oft",CA 83471 SLO CITY CLERK
int Cal,foroia Shat llnwnu!r'Ntir,'.�dd,17,�:a•DaminvR N{IA. Fi.+mr,r:llemn•M+y.:nti I I�rhA,l:•L,n•�P,.d+...1..,Ani'-. u..ninm husm�
MOMlM pry•N,v:RnJp•M.nnwa-3wr4m.6W San Dw Smc We ym Ini,01.E P•Sm Mahn Suresh Stmida.0
MEETING AGENDA
June 18, 2002 DATE 1 ITEM #
San Luis Obispo '
City Council Members RECEIVED ,Q
Mayor Settle, Ken Swartz,
John Ewan, Jan Marx, Christine Mulholland JUN 18 2Ub
Dear Council,
SLOCITY CLEkK ()j
The agenda for tonight's city council meeting has two items regarding the Damon-Garcia sports
complex that recommends you to take an action. We have the following concerns regarding these
two agenda items:
1. First and foremost, all of us support the community need for sports fields. We want what is
best for our children and the community, and with that intent, we are taking the effort to write this
letter. This is not easy to do because we also want the sports fields, yet we see the sports fields
taking second place to a state highway.
2. The staff report states that the site is 23 acres. The sports fields will use. 1.6 acres. What
happened to the remaining 7 acres you are rezoning?
3. The city paid 2 million dollars for the 23 acres and most of the community thought that was
for the sports fields complex. Now the sports fields are only occupying 16 acres, so the remaining
7 acres belongs to whom? Who paid for those 7 acres? What is the project description for those
7 acres?
4. Paying 2 million dollars for 23 acres, each acre cost $86;895.00 x 16 acres for the sports fields
= $1,390,320.00 paid for the sports fields. Who gets and who pays for the remaining 7 acres at
$86,895.00 an acre which equals $608,695.009 Whoever gets the 7 acres.should pay the kids
sports fields fund back. Seems like the bond financing of.3+ million should.have provided the
sports fields project with sufficient funds to complete the project.as soon as possible and not have
to be asking for more money all the time. Didn't the city recently refund the original:.Bond
money for the sports fields acquistion and construction? Is there an accounting of the sports
fields expenses to date, and a separate accounting for the 7 acres($608,695.00)? Which fund
pays for what project? How did a segment of a future highway get into the 23 acre sports fields
project? Was the proposed Highway 227 designation for Prado Road disclosed and discussed
with the Council and the public prior to purchase of the site? Please mail responses to: Bill
Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401. Thank You.
5. Changing the General Plan text to allow the sports fields to be built ahead of the Margarita
specific plan being adopted reflects questionable planning processing. The Margarita specific plan
was adopted in 1998 and has been in the making for 18 years, and there is still no EfR on it.
6. ,another serious issue to consider is the parking situation. It is inadequate and should be
re-evaluated. Off-site parking creates a safety hazard for our children. Off-site parking across a
page 2
major 4 lane road like Broad Street creates an even more dangerous safety hazard for our
children. Busin�t in from other sites in town creates traffic impacts. Why didn't the city foresee
this parking situation prior to purchase? Safety as related to parking and the city parking
requirements should have been on the suitability check list prior to purchase.
7. On page I A-?, second paragraph, the archaeological site mentioned has potential to become
nationally significant and _yet it will be"...devastated by the extension of Prado Road...... and that
devastation includes 15% of the site as any destruction to the site is not acceptable according to
Patti Dunton, Chumash Cultural Resource Specialist and a member of the six person team who
did the original archaeological survey to make a cultural determination for this site. The
archaeological site was there many thousands of years prior to the Prado Roadnorth segment
alignment being decided on Feb 1, 2000. Prado Road is part of the 23 acre parcel/site in this staff
report.
8. On page 1 A-2, under Rezoning, last paragraph, it states that " ...a note on the zoning map
exhibit would allow the Community Development Director to adjust the location of the Orcutt
Creek corridor....if it is relocated as anticipated." On page 1A-24, 6th paragraph, Commissioner
Osborne ask Planner Matteson how much the Community Development Director could adjust the
boundaries for creeks..Matteson replied not very much, Commissioner Osborne then asks if
Council normally considers a rezoning a boundary change, Matteson explains rezoning requires a
hearing, Osborne ask if there would be opportunity for public input if the CD Director would
make the creek boundary changes-and Matteson replied yes. We question that response. We
question Council giving this right to anyone but themselves especially since wetlands, creek
corridors, are our most endangered habitats. Statistically, only 3% of all wetlands are existing
today. That is sad, 97% has been lost. The right to relocate a creek corridor regardless of size is
an elected officials responsibility and belongs with the elected official and the general public not
with one city employee regardless of position. if that action is approved will the CD Director
have full power to adjust without public input or Council approve? Did the Commissioner make a
recommendation decision based on inaccurate, insufficient, or unclarified information?
9. On page IB-47, l Ith paragraph, Commissioner Boswell questioned if Prado Rd were changed
or disappeared, could the facilities (the sports complex) be modified to take up the extra space?
Paul LeSage replied No. We think LeSage errored in his response. Without the road in the 7
acres, one or two more playing fields could be put in. Without the road, the extra 7 acres opens
the entire 23 acre parcel for unconstrained sports field design. Did Commissioner Boswell make a
decision based on inaccurate information given by LeSage?
10. On page I A-24, 4th paragraph, Commissioner Boswell ask Planner Matteson if it was
necessary to take the rezoning action now...Planner Matteson said they could wait. We question
why the city wants to set "a better example" in this case when it has not done so with other
projects? What is the rush and why change the process?
/page
11. The Site Description(page 113-2) mentions everything on the 23 acres, including three small
trees. There is no mention of Prado Rd.
12. The Project Description(page 111-3)does not mention Prado Rd. It refers the reader to
Attachment 7 where the Project Description discusses the Prado Rd right of way and the rough
earthwork to establish grades for Prado Rd. Isn't that proof that Prado Rd is really part of this
23 acre project before you tonight?
Why has staff put so much emphasis on the"rush"to complete this project? They have
actively encouraged AYSO's "hurry up,we don't care about the road just get our fields done7
philosophy,which in turn puts everyone in a"hurry up and rash this project"mode of operation.
Staff manipulated the site selection choice for this parcel, they knew the highway would go on the
7 acres, they knew of the significant archaeological site, they knew of the probability of the Corps
involvmem, they knew there was no EHL on the Maragarita specific plan and that no construction
could take place till the specific plan was adopted,they knew all that is taking place now,
including all the resulting impacts from Prado Rd's inclusion to the 23 acre site.
Shouldn't the road be analyzed from its affects on the sports fields design as mentioned by
David Foot, Firma designer and consultant(read carefully page 113-21, paragraphs 5-8)?
Shouldn't the road be analyzed environmentally because it has big time potential impacts. This
project is not really about.a sports fields, it is about securing a segment of big four lane highway
complete with'a 100 ft or more tunnel and an blight forever on our hillside. That segment of
highway 227,Prado Rd northern alignment, cutting through the parks, dividing our open space
access, narrowing our opportunities to expand the playing fields, endangering our kids safety with
off-.site parking and 100 ft tunnels, creating on-going expenses for off-site parking, and tunnel
monitoring, scarring our hillsides, destroying a 6,000 year old archaeological site, and creating
noise and air quality impacts,just doesn't seem worth it. There are other alternatives, why so
much suffering and expense for this particular highway alignment?
Sincerely, ,Z
\6r\
TING
DATE it AGENDA
ata,e 1'1,Z� �ITEM #
M See Lula ON"City Mayor sed elf Crutmil Mttmbera. '
Ran Parti DUAW&Cnhttrel Rtesoutoa Spsalak
80MV Proposed Clams Garcia Sports Complex mid Byaetrtioa ofPrmw Read
Dear Skor and Council,
I realise you will be ttm t a declaioa sass on this nrajoct as it 10 Crena*deeigtmd.
I was part Of fro arehaoobgkal team that surveyed and 165W No property,AS you know
we dMamieed that the proposed eporte conVWk would trot gf6a know,Nl XW
reso=ft but that the aaead=of Prado Road wotild 11MM and destroy lmaw cul=W
Tmurcm Evctt with the txtitigation to iDwtn the itnlmet to 1346.1 wettld like to see the
impact at 446.
I believe that if the extension oPPrado Road wee left out of this project,sites k wiH pet
WOW the belt Md, tk pMP,ed eneal c to the kul field will be at Isidrsrla Way, It
Will ott[ar create noise,coeksnsion aed Us&tier-%W eouid be a am open spats area.
The Sptnta Complex could mow fotwamd ikawr and rsrworhar v ft tier addmtm of one
moral bsA dell and a t uktual big to the rock outctoP;dag and!oust floor where the
Proposed rood would have heti-.
PIUM vote to Support tho Sports Field wkisotu the extension of Prado Read,And
rmnanbe r that our children need to extrciae th*bodies as well as brei minds. We have
a gest oppommily best to do both with a Sp vrtWCukueal Complex,
I have aaolosed a IMM I wrote to the 9tA Plarai{yg Codon end Who to rhe%ue
Eavi cautw sal oface e conmming Pos4Ige 106 vie(atlons.
Thunk You.
aiC
'Aa > �
Parti DupWr�plr~yaetp Saiin�ttt
RECEIVED ` 6L
IJUNS 100;:
SLO CIN CLERK
F'AX Tft4MPUMON
Jona ld,20"
Tot twie Waarler
Cb Albert Hereon
Fest 01&044M
Fm: Pani Dta%M Cvkjw Fvt and Phone iii= t
Spe*
SUVW 106 violUbA dWft propond pmjw4 in the oily of Un Lois Obispo.
CA:
�'Ms Waneer,
1 wu 0190 your mv attd mm*w by s eoMMW elt*M who met you an veemiam,
The Clry cuss,Luis ObWo is in it's&W days of mviewh%a pmpawd project.in
which mcY WM be 4VXVV*it.as it is desiSW at t*may raqueot*g chdttges be
made, If tbay aPprOve this PMJM an Tues*JM18,3002 to dssig W a genet lose w111
0001N
Th6 pm¢eat is a propo&W Sports Complex,MW t,`se ettteesion of Prada Road.
1 was part Of an rachRO ictiod lam that smvcred and toato0 tht proposed Prajeot she for
Ow MY of Stam Luix Cbl. Tlm PYnm aft contains about Wof Arehaeolugfcal site
C.&SL0.1427.It is a rock ow mvppj*at the ant)of s sago of votaaniC pemb that are
celled dW et+m eiateta. There are mmy mmrtaa latae%M thm d[gsrmt time periods
dw there is a have livor tire.This ares aveaimb a hugs mala whkh bot dm*W
up beosusm of waxer bsiag d VW&d over tlm 5wz&Thio area ofow mevett dam is vary
neared to ray Pw*And*k*r Me beery ewterad'ado taw t cored LgjXM datdW W*k
the Native Maker Hubp C .
Ow Amehgsokgies:neommmdad =to the city wm v that they psopowd num Cfarcas
SPortv CumWisu would not disturb ka~tubus!mwwncm but gM the axle nWon of
Pmdo Rued w,oukt have sm iwr wt on kww oukural rmumaL And also that the,C'hy of
San t ds Obiepso tttsmtnete the afte for Hioorlest state alarm
I /
rh atty taisigated to dat*p the woum mur to tht arahteaolo*g site byte
e
etaeasloa ofPrado Riad Aura a 7346 impact to a 1344 kVW,The Native A=ftaae ftcotwtoed"M des te�ologioai nn*ragRMW and we#0 rc*ns*a 0%impact
to fire site. 90 lir the dry atlas LA*Obispo has Ahad to ttmlte Sats Rigartc status
tvoon The Atm CWpS ofEttglaemn alm*wth CW4M hrtve both
datat rod do elm as balm
We have bract told that Fodew ftxb wm be seed dwiag tbis pSo m h b my
mdammAIM drat who Uml fO&aro aced duff&,W t0ject tient MW kpw
audttaMl ea GM=*At the 106 cosaes ho offia.Tb City hu oleo M1ed to fbrma8y
cmuwt tiro Native Arnericaa community fbr their ivat mx4rdag this project.
Rcootmmndaiun►s ban bom mode by loeel chinas to include dit arabmbgical.etre
two the destip►of'iha 8posta Field.To lnavo tote xhEe lama sad accxasibte.It could
become part of ft con sleet w an edwat*W ttteii and open K*oe arta that could
w"Umcnt tf*Spa w F4dt Iasttmd of m4ft rim Shte in MY by wasttttg it road and than
Aube the site air
The otttemlon of dv Road as It 1s proses*dodged w S sot service the pmpoaod
Spam Pmtd.FjKranae to tie complex wW be at bdoerrtal cosy.The proposed£xtakdon
ail 0*conmet Ptedo]scat to proal Stroet. By Mm w#WE reecho Udk on tie
wedem stdc of the Molpsed Rpmu FWd.wive the ands part of tW arohaaalogical she
is.
The twsaon i on wrift yon is to wo if is W Mud tip b we being and bt tbb
pmjcat.And Vso.arRxttrrao n the otty to couch dw local wdv0 c*mnu"ft fbr b%M
I me 4 m am final dwMans ser made.The C'. Lady Of Sm Lass Obispo hat a tilt ofNadve
contents itthc CitydoeWt.Alan to ane iftbe city's Crural Keret p Committee I=
been tnlarmod of tbo pt'oject sad tim 15%damage proposed w the culwral m ounces by
the etteestan of Pnrdo Road.
Any help you could provide ASAP would be pr+atly appieadated.
7%mk You,
A
Pani O+mtoa.Playatho 61ei1tratt
- 1 I
-' COUNCIL ❑ CDD DIR -
CAO ❑ FIN DIR
ACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF RED FILE
FTTCRNEY ❑ PW DIR
June 18. 2002 LERK ORIG ❑ POLICE CH= MEETING AGENDA
7 HEADS REC DIR
San Luis Obispo L11L G U T 1 L DATE�J TEM # �
City Council Members
Mayor Settle, Ken Swartz,
John Ewan, Jan Marx, Christine Mulholland
Dear Council,
The agenda for tonight's city council meeting has two items regarding the.Damon-Garcia sports
complex that recommends you to take an action. We have the following concerns regarding these
two agenda items:
1. First and foremost, all of us support the community need for sports fields. We want what is
best for our children and the community, and with that intent, we are taking the effort to write this
letter. This is not easy to do because we also want the sports fields, yet we see the sports fields
taking second place to a state highway.
2. The staff report states that the site is 23 acres. The sports fields will use 16 acres. What
happened to the remaining 7 acres you are rezoning?
3. The city paid 2 million dollars for the 23 acres and most of the community thought that was
for the sports fields complex. Now the sports fields are only occupying 16 acres, so the remaining
7 acres belongs to whom? Who paid for those 7 acres? What is the project description for those
7 acres?
4. Payin, 2 million dollars for 23 acres, each acre cost $86,895.00 x 16 acres for the sports fields
_ $1,390,320.00 paid for the sports fields. Who gets and who pays for the remaining 7 acres at
$86,895.00 an acre which equals $608;695.00? Whoever gets the 7 acres should;pay the kids
sports fields fund back. Seems like the bond financing of 3+ million should have provided the
sports fields project with sufficient funds to complete the project as soon as possible and not have
to be asking for more money all the time. Didn't the city recently refund the original Bond
money for the sports fields acquistion and construction? Is there an accounting of the sports
fields expenses to date, and a separate accounting for the 7 acres ($608,695.00)? Which fund
pays for what project? How did a segment of a future highway get into the 23 acre sports fields
project? Was the proposed Highway 227 designation for Prado Road disclosed and discussed
with the Council and the public prior to purchase of the site? Please mail responses to: Bill
Wilson, 1690 Southwood Drive, San Luis Obispo, Cal 93401. Thank You.
5. Changing the General Plan text to allow the sports fields to be built ahead of the Margarita
specific plan being adopted reflects questionable planning processing. The Margarita specific plan
was adopted in 1998 and has been in the making for 18 years, and there is still no EIR on it.
6. Another serious issue to consider is the parking situation. It is inadequate and should be.
re-evaluated. Off-site parking creates a safety hazard for our children. Off-site parking across a
RECEIVED
JUN 18 2002
SLO CITY CLERK
page 2
major 4 lane road like Broad Street creates an even more dangerous safety hazard for our
children. Busing in from other sites in town creates traffic impacts. Why didn't the city foresee
this parking situation prior to purchase? Safety as related to parking and the city parking
requirements should have been on the suitability check list prior to purchase.
7. On page I A-2, second paragraph, the archaeological site mentioned has potential to become
nationally significant and yet it will be"...devastated by the extension of Prado Road...." and that
devastation includes 15% of the site as any destruction to the site is not acceptable according to
Patti Dunton, Chumash Cultural Resource Specialist and a member of the six person team who
did the original archaeological survey to make a cultural determination for this site. The
archaeological site was there many thousands of years prior to the Prado Roadnorth segment
alignment being decided on Feb 1,2000. Prado Road is part of the 23 acre parcel/site in this staff
report.
8. On page i A-2, under Rezoning; last paragraph, it states that " ..:a note on the zoning map
exhibit would allow the Community Development Director to adjust the location of the Orcutt
Creek corridor....if it is relocated as anticipated." On page l A-24, 6th paragraph, Commissioner
Osborne ask Planner Matteson how much the Community Development Director could adjust the
boundaries for creeks..Matteson replied not very much, Commissioner Osborne then asks if
Council normally considers a rezoning a boundary change, Matteson explains rezoning requires a
hearing, Osborne ask if there would be opportunity for public input if the CD Director would
make the creek boundary changes and Matteson replied yes. We question that response. We
question Council giving this right to anyone but themselves especially since wetlands, creek
corridors, are our most endangered habitats. Statistically, only 3% of all wetlands are existing
today. That is sad, 97% has been lost. The right to relocate a creek corridor regardless of size is
an elected officials responsibility and belongs with the elected official and the general public not
with one city employee regardless of position. If that action is approved will the CD Director
have full power to adjust without public input or Council approve? Did the Commissioner make a
recommendation decision based on inaccurate, insufficient, or unclarified information?
9. On page 1 B-47, l i th paragraph, Commissioner Boswell questioned if Prado Rd were changed
or disappeared, could the facilities(the sports complex)be modified to take up the extra space?
Paul LeSage replied No. We think LeSage errored in his response. Without the road in the 7
acres, one or two more playing fields could be put in. Without the road, the extra 7 acres opens
the entire 23 acre parcel for unconstrained sports field design. Did Commissioner Boswell make a
decision based on inaccurate information given by LeSage?
10. On page I A-24, 4th paragraph, Commissioner Boswell ask Planner Matteson if it was
necessary to take the rezoning action now...Planner Matteson said they could wait. We question
why the city wants to set "a better example' in this case when it has not done so with other
projects? What is the rush and why change the process?
page 3
11. The Site Description(page I B-2) mentions everything on the 23 acres, including three small
trees. There is no mention of Prado Rd.
12. The Project Description (page I B-3) does not mention Prado Rd. It refers the reader to
Attachment 7 where the Project Description discusses the Prado Rd right of way and the rough
earthwork to establish grades for Prado Rd. Isn't that proof that Prado Rd is really part of this
23 acre project before you tonight?
Why has staff put so much emphasis on the "rush" to complete this project? They have
actively encouraged AYSO's "hurry up, we don't care about the road just get our fields done
philosophy, which in turn puts everyone in a "hurry up and rush this project" mode of operation.
Staff manipulated the site selection choice for this parcel, they knew the highway would go on the
7 acres, they knew of the significant archaeological site, they knew of the probability of the Corps
involvment, they knew there was no EIR on the Maragarita specific plan and that no construction
could take place till the specific plan was adopted, they knew all that is taking place now ,
including all the resulting impacts from Prado Rd's inclusion to the 23 acre site.
Shouldn't the road be analyzed from its affects on the sports fields design as mentioned by
David Foot, Firma designer and consultant (read carefully page 1 B-21, paragraphs 5-8)?
Shouldn't the road be analyzed environmentally because it has big time potential impacts. This
project is not really about a sports fields, it is about securing a segment of a big four lane highway
complete with a 100 ft or more tunnel and an blight forever on our hillside. That segment of
Highway 227. Prado Rd northern alignment, cutting through the parks, dividing our open space
access, narrowing our opportunities to expand the playing fields, endangering our kids safety with
off-site parking and 100 ft tunnels, creating on-going expenses for off-site parking, and tunnel
monitoring, scarring our hillsides, destroying a 6,000 year old archaeological site, and creating
noise and air quality impacts,just doesn't seem worth it. There are other alternatives, why so
much suffering and expense for this particular highway alignment?
Sincerely,
�p
COUNCIL C CDD DIR
CAO G FIN DIR
ACAO C FIRE CHIEF
June 17, 2002 ATTORNEY C PW DIR
CLERK/ORIG Cl POLICE CHF RED FILE
PT HEADS ❑ REC DIR MEETING AGENDA
C UTIL DIR
Mayor Settle, C HR DIR DAl'f_l$•ITEM #1 A A 13
Ken Swchartz, Jan Marx,
John Ewan, & Christine Mulholland
City of San Luis Luis Obispo, Cal. 93401
Dear Mayor Settle and Council Members.
Regarding: City Council Meeting, June 18. 2002, items relating to the Damon-Garcia
Sports Complex per Staff Report information.
We welcome the coming of the 16 acre Damon-Garcia sports field complex. We are
concerned though with what is happening to the balance of the 23 acre site not utilized by
the 16 acre sports fields. That is approximately 7 acres. The staff report does not discuss a
project, yet there are maps With Prado Road on the 7 acres. There is reference to Prado
Road, yet there is no information in the Negative Declaration. It is confusing. The map in
the staff report dated June 18, 2002, clearly depicts Prado.Road North as a proposed
project (attachment 4) utilizing those 7 acres.
Prado Rd north was proposed in the Margarita specific plan in 1998. In Feb 2000 and in
January. 2001, council took action regarding this alignment of Prado Rd north and again Prado
Rd north is depicted on the staff report before you now. With these events and actions, it is
reasonably forseeable that a se4gment of Prado Road north is proposed for construction on 7 acres
of the 23 acre site.
Prado Rd north is not invisible. It is a proposed project that will occupy 7 acres of the 23 acre
site purchased from the Damon-Garcia family for a cost of 2 million dollars. It is part of the 21
acre site you are currently undertaking action considerations per staff report dated June 18, 2002.
The Negative Declaration before you does not address Prado Rd except to state that the playing
fields will be six to ten, or more feet below the grade of Prado Rd...and that dense planting will
separate the fields from Prado Rd. The Negative Declaration as submitted is inadequate and
inaccurate because Prado Rd is 7 acres of the 23 acre site under your consideration. mit is uvm
parr of the 73 acre site, then what is being proposed or considered for those 7 acres' Shouldn't
Council members know before taking action? Isn't the CEQA process revolved around the
concept of providing accurate and adequate information to the decision makers prior to making
decisions?
From the beginning, Prado Rd north, (the newly adopted Feb 2000 northern alignment) has
caused delays and controversy. First, with the need for an Army Corp permit required to realign a
creek, which according to the Army Corps, a permit would never have been needed if Prado Rd
was not on site and creating development constraints (creek realignment) for the sports fields.
Second, there would have been no need for a General Plan amendment, or the waste of all those
funds. Third. there would be no need for this letter or thoughts of CEQA violations or legal
actions.
RECEIVE®
IS 2002
rr,,ry CLERK
Page 2
Other concerns we wish to include are under Item 1 A on the staff report where there are
differences in attached Map 1 A4 that depicts Prado Rd stopping in the middle of the Margarita
area and attached Map 1 B-9 that depicts Prado Rd adjacent to the sports field ending at Broad St.
This looks like improper segmentation of Prado Rd north, plus we could not find adequate
information in the proposed Negative Declaration. We would like to suggest that a focused EIR
be prepared for this proposal so more information could be learned and be more in complicance
with CEQA.
If the proposed text change and rezoning are approved as recommended by the staff report, it
appears that the resulting developments will be 16 acres of sports fields and 7 acres of Prado Rd.
We think if the development of the sports fields and the proposed northern alignment of Prado Rd
are the reasonably foreseeable results from approving theproposedGeneral Plan amendment text
change and rezoning (as depicted on.Map page I B-9), then the proposed Negative Declaration is
legally deficient and the Prado Rd north project is clearly being segmented in a manner that
violates CEQA.
Under Item IB on the staff report, we think as a result of your decisions on these items, that
reasonable and foreseeable potential impacts could result from the alignment of Prado Rd north.
These impacts should be classified as significant especially where the road will cross streams and
encroach upon wetlands and upon a well known archeological site. The Negative Declaration
does not give you; the Council, the decision making body, any alternatives or options for the
alignment of Prado Rd. or for whatever is going to be developed on the remaining 7 acres of the
23 acre site in question. The report actually says the road is not part of the project, yet numerous
maps in the report depict the road on.the 23 acre site. It is confusing that Prado Rd is included in
the map designs. Itis confusing that Prado Rd is the constraining factor as to why the sports
fields must be designed as they are, which in turn results in realigning a creek. It is confusing that
Prado Rd uses 7 acres of the 23 acre site yet, everyone is expected to believe that Prado Rd is not
part of the project. Prado Rd northern aligmnent i
2 s very definitely part of the 23 acre site. The
3 acres is one parcel of land. How can you approve a General Pian text amendment and a
rezoning classification and a Negative Declaration that only involves two thirds of a parcel? What
happens to the other one third of the parcel/site? Doesn't the entire parcel require an
environmental determination? One third of it did not disappear.
It might be a bit premature to make any decisions on these agenda items. It appears that the
Council has not fully been informed of possible alternatives or of adverse impacts. Absent is a
complete review of the General Plan for internal consistency and legal adequacy, especially in
regards to the Circulation Element and it's application to the proposed alignment of Prado Rd
north as depicted. To date, the revised Margarita specific plan:has not been adopted nor has the
Environmental Impact Report. To date, there is no significant environmental determination on
Prado Rd. In addition, we believe the northern aligtment of Prado Rd as demonstrated on Map
1B-9 is inconsistent with the following General Plan policies: LUE Policy 62.2, LUE Policy
6.4.1, LUE Policy 6.6.4, Open Space Element Policy C.2.(A), OSE Policy C.3, OSE Policy
I.A(Creeks), OSE Policy I.A(Archeological Resources).
I
Page
Maybe removing Prado Rd north from the entire 23 acre site and adding one or two more
playing fields would be the best and simplest and most environmentally friendly decision. It
would certainly make for a bunch of happy ball players.
We have stated our concerns with the best interest of our youth at heart. They deserve the
biggest, best, and safest sports complex that the City of San Luis Obispo can provide. We are a
great community and a wonderful place to live, we can provide a sports complex to be proud of,
not one that we have to make constraining allowances for just because someone wants Prado
Road from Highway 101 to Johnson Avenue. Our children deserve the best we can provide.
Prior to making a decision we hope you will seriously considered our issues. Our children should
be the priority, not a road.
Thank You.
/ �� 'C
1 � }
%.`'CFS 1 (H 1 �-' I�J----`-- � ♦.,\, � �- �l �; >. '
hrne-
Kn
Ult-
'� '%� ,III• j \ ��` � � _. \` h�,
o1 = _
'• \ - � 1 } mil 1 �t; �riF .� _ . �
bL
SI
CL
IL a
1 1 •-
y 1-�`:y�'. _s T'. \-•_ 11"\.\` --� � 'f ,'\I N ��p.. '`a ��� b1' ti
\ cay tijJ
i \
� � �, :. l,1 \ , \ � II 'mss I o`;�\ I�.\. �� --b'JII'Li� �/ wvrsr<A•x+�'-�_
\r I � I �\ l I � �• I` I
.iii i \ ��� i \,I �_• ! \- 1�
1.(1 `� ai
cz
j i7
Oto
Q ITU
_� \ •`
1 ,
7 a g n 6g Hnacnment,2 c--
LIJ
fm
9SµEES
80.
CO�
/�
' 4 J
\ I
orf
0
0- 0LL
\�.\
d°\
O0 - - - - - -- = - -
p is I I
v
O
05
0 co
10 vool!
10 Frer,♦N qI111V N n
I
Its
'v
'�'R 1 '0 M
OF
"A M
le a
MT
Molt
I OR E;AMW r K
1001
MIN%p
iM
a
aIt
�
.. � ..:d.!Il�c ��n 11.'E'
fill,
pq
[moolliff
'Jot
Noll"
Aut.
tt'
P.
I its
IM
�!I 1
.4 M m
sw PasFrrs
�'• °N San Lids Obispo Youth Sports Association u pgi�D
P.O.Ba 13509 MEETING AGENDA UnLWO0ewo
San was Obispo,ca s3aosDATE. -1 -D Z ITEM # B
New o m. YSA
................... RICOUNCIL ! CDD DIR
brCA0 7 FIN DIR
CYACAO ❑ FIRE CHIEF
RECEIVED CebATTORNEY E] PW DIR
GKLEKORIG ❑ POUCE CHF
Elj � , 2DEPT HEAD ❑ REC DIR
Q 13,",01M ❑ UTIL DIR
Gar tLt B UM F 0 HR DIR
SLO CITY CLERK --
being
Softball and baseball players overea�ugh&naatiot�of atthe�andservi
getting new home base Garth Homrdch is the project architect Mauro
Construction will serve as the general conuactorfor the
After it was decided in 2000 that the Damon-Garcia Sports Field Complex should be for tun`. th' .
cages.The City equip cages wi
machines
sports only,the youth sports community proposed the construction of lighted softball fields, and _balls,and will staff the facility during lis finites of
primarily for adults,somewhere in SLD. -. ., .
operation Cash contributions to.tite:i�gge-project have
They advocated to City Council that new lighted softball fields would enable the SLD Parks& been received from City of SIO Joint Use Committee,SLD
Recreation Department to create a"home base"for both softball and baseball.Stockmn Field, Babe Roth Baseball,the Janssen Foundation,Cal Ripkm
adjacent to Sinsheimer Stadium,could be transformed from a softball facility into a full-size Baseball,SIO Girls Softball,the Rotary Club of San Luis
youth baseball field.The City Council adopted the concept Obispo de Tolosa and the YSA itself We expect the rages
The City will also add significant upgrades to the so$baIl field at Santa Rosa Park,which will will be open to the public this fall
remain part of the adult program.The new set up will increase the adult program fields from
two to three.The Parks&Recreation Department proposed renovating and adding lights at the
two old softball fields at SLD County's Rancho M Chorro Regional Park•A joint use agreement Other YSA Projects
was hammered outwith the County,enabling the City to make the necessary improvements.The
will serve as a home for adult softball 1 The YSA and the County cooperative
park eagnes and youth tournaments. ty Office of Education,
project to puede fingerprinting services for youth sports
Once the softball project is complete,the City will begin renovating Stockton Field to be used groups is prig smoothly,Three spoils leagues have
year round by youth baseball leagues for regular seasons and tournaments. used the five setvl and 53 coaches
ce, appear on the YSA
list of approved volunteers.
In January,the Olympic Torch Run came through SLD.The
Batting cageprod ect receives City YSA,a local sponsor of the event,hosted a hospitality tent
for hundreds of contributors and guests,including torch
permits, construction-begins runners and their families.After expenses,the YSA netted
Tbe Youth Sports Association has raised$85,000 In rash to construct eight softball and more than Kom from contributors,donations and will
baseball batting cages behind the tight field wall at Smsheimer Stadium.The total project cost use the money for the batting ages and other youth sports
facility projects.
e 'ro
` Construction begin for the beltittp cages at S IMbeimer Part
t
<3
s
': Newsletter de dgned by Barnstt Cmc 8 Assodates
Council Agenda Report
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 2
Council for permission to go out to bid on the project. The project schedule anticipates
beginning construction in January, 2003, although work in the creeks is not permitted to begin
until May 15, 2003, after the rain season.
The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed and unanimously supported components of the
project on two occasions. On January 3, 2001,the turf field design and the overall project layout
were approved (see Attachment 3, PRC Minutes). On March 7, 2001, all proposed on-site
buildings were approved. While no formal action was taken, the Commission was briefed on the
lighting plan, as currently proposed, at the March 7 meeting and concurred (Attachment 3).
On March 29, 2002, the Army Corps of Engineers issued a permit to allow for the realignment of
Orcutt Creek (Attachment 4). The park plan includes the creek realignment in order to
maximize the area and efficiency of the fields. The plan also includes creek bank stabilization
measures and new riparian planting that will significantly enhance both the Acacia Creek and
Orcun Creek corridors, improving their appearance and habitat value.
On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission approved a recommendation to the City Council to
approve the Administrative Use Permit and Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project.
Attachment 5 includes Planning Commission Resolution 5334-02 and minutes of the April 24
Planning Commission hearing. The Planning Commission discussion focused on floodwater
management, creek setbacks,field lighting, parking and cultural resources.
On May 6, 2002, the Architectural Review Commission approved the proposed project design.
Attachment 6 includes the ARC Action Letter and draft minutes from the hearing. ARC
discussion focused on the design of the restroom and maintenance buildings, the parking lot, the
pathways and bridges,the lighting design, and on landscaping throughout the site.
Data Summary
Address: 3615 Broad Street
Applicant: City of San Luis Obispo, Parks and Recreation Department
Representative: FIRMA, Principal: David W. Foote, ASLA
Zoning: Conservation/Open Space-25 (C/OS-25)
General Plan: Park
Environmental status: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was approved by the Community
Development Director on June 1, 2001 and was revised on May 22, 2002, based on direction
from the Planning Commission.
Site Description
The site includes 23 acres of mild slopes and is intersected by both Acacia Creek and its
tributary, Orcutt Creek. Hopkins Lane is a small gravel road on the site that bridges Acacia
Creek. There are presently no buildings on the project site. There are two to three small trees
near the bridge and there are native grasses and plants indicative of wetlands on the site. The site
//S-Z
Ij
Council Agenda Report
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 3
has been primarily used for cattle grazing in recent time. The site is bordered by Broad Street to
the east, the South Street Hills to the north, grazing land to the west, and vacant land with an
approved commercial development to the south.
Proiect Description
The proposed plan includes four tournament size soccer fields that can be used for up to eight or
nine youth soccer fields for the fall youth soccer season. The turf areas can also be striped to
accommodate football and rugby. The fields are planned to be used year=round and in the
evenings. Night field lighting is proposed. Ancillary park features include parking for
approximately 150 cars, a restroom building, a maintenance and storage room, and two
pedestrian bridges. Pathways occur throughout, and encroach into the required creek setback
area at the bridges and where Orcutt Creek exits the Broad street culvert (see Attachment 5,
Exhibit A). An expanded project description is included as part of the Initial Study (see
Attachment 7).
Evaluation
1. Land Use Compatibility
The City's General Plan Land Use Map has designated the property "Park" since the 1994 Land
Use Element update: The project site is within the Margarita Area and the proposed
improvements and uses are consistent with the draft specific plan for the area. The draft specific
plan indicates that surrounding land uses include permanent open space to the north (South Street
Hills), low, medium and medium-high density residential development to the northwest (across
Prado Road), greenways to the west, and service-commercial/business park development to the
south and east. Sports fields are listed as a compatible use in Zone 6 of the Airport Land Use
Plan. The sports fields project was reviewed and approved by the Airport Land Use Commission
on June 20, 2001.
2. Parking
The proposed 150 space parking lot is not projected to meet the parking demand on certain days.
A report prepared by Associated Transportation Engineers (ATE) indicates that parking shortfalls
occur during AYSO weekend games, when nine fields are in use (see Environmental Review
Technical Reports). This is a seasonal shortfall that may occur up to 10 Saturdays per year. A
combination of overflow parking and parking demand management strategies are proposed to
alleviate inconvenience and on-street parking problems that could occur. If necessary, the City
can require soccer leagues to manage total parking demand by a combination of methods listed in
the Initial Study, including shuttling teams from other City parking lots and programming game
start and finish times so that they do not overlap.
113--3
Council Agenda Report
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 4
3. Creek Setback Exceptions
Staff has worked closely with the project consultants to reduce encroachments into creek setback
areas as much as possible. As shown on the Cannon site plan (revised 03/04/02), creek setback
exceptions have been minimized to the bridges and to a small portion of the pathway, where the
realigned Orcutt Creek channel daylights out of the Broad Street culvert. These encroachments
have been limited to the greatest extent possible, consistent with the requirements of the Open
Space Element (OSE) of the General Plan. OSE Policy 3.2.1.E(5) (Digest) says that pubic and
private development must stay out of creek setback areas unless"the location is necessary for the
construction of new roads, bridges, trails, or similar infrastructure where the Community
Development Director determines that the project has minimized environmental impacts through
project design and infrastructure placement." OSE Policy 3.1.4 (Digest) encourages the location
of recreational uses adjacent to creeks provided they are sensitive to creek habitat. OSE Table 4
(Digest) says that bridges may be located in the creek corridor, provided that protection of the
creek is also provided.
OSE Table 4 (Digest)
Creeks, Within creek condors Passive Recreation such as viewing
Wetlands, (except Mission Plaza), recreation within stations and nature study may be
Sensitive within wetlands (except the outer appropriate within a creek
Habitat, and Laguna Lake Park and perimeter of a corridor as long as protection of
Unique Meadow Park), creek setback or the creek corridor is provided.
Resources sensitive habitat, a habitat buffer. Crossings (such a trail bridge)
unique resources, or may be provided in the creek
similar areas. corridor.
All other improvements, including field lights, buildings and the remainder of the pathways are
outside of the required 35' creek setback area. According to the City's Natural Resources
Manager, the proposed enhancements to the creeks more than mitigate any potential impacts of
the pathway location. The Creek Setback Ordinance requires eight specific findings for approval
of an exception. The findings, recommended by the Planning Commission, are listed separately
in the approving resolution (see Attachment#8, Section 2).
Environmental Review
On April 24, 2002, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt the
Mitigated Negative Declaration for the project. As part of the Planning Commission's action,the
Cultural Resources section of the Initial Study was modified. Impacts to cultural resources, that
were initially identified in the environmental document, occur because of the proximity of Prado
Road to a known archeological site. However, Prado Road will not actually be constructed as
part of this project, so the proposed mitigation measures would have been difficult to implement.
Section 5 of the Initial Study includes a complete discussion of cultural resources (Attachment
7). The following is a brief discussion of the potentially significant impacts identified in the
Council Agenda Report
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 5
environmental document.
1. Aesthetics
Aesthetic impacts are identified with respect to the proposed night lighting of the fields. The
Lighting Report, prepared by Thoma Electric and Garcia Architecture and Design, describes the
alternatives and shows a nighttime visual simulation of the proposed lighting. Mitigation
measures are recommended to control the number and height of light poles, the level of spill on
Broad Street and in the creek corridors, and to insure that the field lights are off by 10:00 P.M.
2. Air Quality
Air quality impacts were identified based on the Air Pollution Control District's (APCD)
construction activity screening criteria. Mitigation measures are recommended to reduce short-
term (construction generated) air quality impacts. The measures include requirements to use
water trucks or sprinkler systems to prevent airborne dust from leaving the site, to spray dirt
stockpiles daily, and to re-vegetate disturbed areas that will not be reworked within one month.
3. Biological Resources
Biological impacts associated with the project and identified in the Initial Study include
disturbance of serpentine bunchgrass habitat, riparian and wetland area disturbance, and potential
impacts to southwestern pond turtle habitat. As discussed in the Biological and Wetland
Assessment, prepared by Rincon Associates, Inc. (see Environmental Review Technical Reports
on file in the Community Development Department), the National Marine Fisheries Service has
determined that Acacia Creek has inappropriate habitat for steelhead. Rincon also reports that no
California red-legged frogs were observed during a focused survey on the project site. Several
bullfrogs, a red-legged predator and competitor, were observed leading Rincon to conclude that
red-legged frogs do not occur on the site. Measures to insure that no impacts occur to red-legged
habitat are included in the Army Corps permit.
4. Water Quality
A potentially significant impact to water quality is identified relative to elevated nitrogen levels
in the creeks associated with fertilization and irrigation of the sports fields. The Initial Study
discusses the recent experience from the Cal Poly sports fields project. Nitrogen in the water was
monitored and an increase from 5 ppm (parts per million) nitrate to 8 ppm nitrate was observed
during the establishment phase of the turf, when fertilization is double the normal rate. This
increase is a short term effect, and a similar increase at the Damon-Garcia Sports Fields project
would not constitute a significant impact to water quality.
A mitigation measure is recommended to deal with the potential for long-term elevated nitrogen
levels in the creeks. A turf management program will be developed to insure that nitrogen
fertilizer is applied at rates and in a form that is efficiently taken up by the turf with minimum
/B-S'
Council Agenda Report -
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 6
residual nitrogen in the root zone or below. This mitigation measure will be monitored through
testing of the water prior to project development, during turf establishment, and for three years
after the turf is established to ensure that nitrogen levels are not substantially increased.
Fertilization frequency and type can be adjusted if necessary.
5. Transportation/Traffic
The Initial Study identifies the potential for parking at the project site to be inadequate, as
discussed under the heading Evaluation, above.
CONCURRENCES
The project plans have been thoroughly reviewed by all City departments. The Cannon site plan,
dated 03/04/02 includes additional information and plan revisions requested by Public Works,
Utilities, Fire, and Community Development staff. Other comments have been incorporated into
the conditions of approval or code requirements for the project, as applicable.
FISCAL IMPACT
When this project was first proposed, the design and construction budget was $3,000,000. Funds
for that amount were approved by the City Council, through Lease-Revenue Bonds, originally
issued in 1999, and refunded in 2001.
The original project called for the lighting of one of the four fields in the complex. When the
community requested that all four fields be night lighted, additional funding was added to the
project. The source of that funding is the City of San Luis Obispo's allocation of$391,000 from
Proposition 12, approved by the voters of the State of California in March of 2000. This funding
was approved by the City Council as a part of the 2001-03 Capital Improvement Program.
The final estimated cost of this project will be known when the engineer's estimates are
completed as a part of the phase II design. Should cost estimates exceed the current project
budget, staff will present a funding plan that does not call for additional appropriations of City
reserves. This could include: the 2002 State allocation from Proposition 12, savings from other
Capital Improvements projects, or deferral of lower priority projects.
ALTERNATIVES
1. Deny the proposed Administrative Use Permit. Denial of the use permit should be based on
findings if the Council determines that the proposed use is incompatible with the site or with
other uses in the vicinity.
2. Continue consideration of the project and provide direction to staff if new or additional
information is necessary in order make a decision on the project.
Council Agenda Report
A/ER 185-99 (Damon-Garcia Sports Fields)
Page 7
Attachments:
Attachment 1: Vicinity map
Attachment 2: Project Plans
Attachment 3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes, 1/3/01 and 3/7/01
Attachment 4: Army Corps of Engineers Permit 200100244-LM
Attachment 5: Planning Commission Resolution#5334-02 and Minutes of May 24, 2002
Attachment 6: ARC Action Letter and Draft Minutes of May 6, 2002
Attachment 7: Revised Initial Study of Environmental Impact and Mitigated Neg. Dec.
Attachment 8: Draft Resolution"A,"as recommended by the Planning Commission
Provided for Council and Available to the Public in the Community Development
Department 990 Palm Street:
Environmental Review Technical Reports
Damon Garcia Sports Fields, Master Plan Report, prepared by FIRMA
Full-Size Project Plans
L:1m dwn1wunciVDGSFic1ds(185-99)
Attachment t
o
0
Acacia Creekr�
Orcutt Creek
ON Limit Line
Q F PQM
�1 init y. Mai Eg/ARC 185-99
® 100 0 100 Feet Damon-Garcia Sports Fields
��►�•��' = '��7 �'�Ali
_ t �
•
•
� J
v�
",,5hment 2 I—
• \ t
-----
-
a \
LL.
i
ii
` O•\ • til
O\ 1
VJ
------------
LL
Qa - j o
U \ ------ --------
U
Q ---------- -- ,_—
Ur
O1, oo
MJ [ ig — �o
/940
ttacwe
/ 0Q0 PD �.,C.
� b
— iol. 1110
\
\ ri4
6
Od\
a ,
ry \\ \
oa.
� \
-u
LL
CO
[Q
Vf n
m e,
1 0 ;1��' \
a l ,
Z (n
o I a \\ \\
z 111I #d es
ac
xN
W ��.-moi-•'' /.` � -d
I
0
0. Q
LL
Q1 I
CD
Fit
05
II
0 CD g i €ftll Ilia iii; �
A achm nt 2
Z
.O r
o
- � U
w
` tl
CO
w
1 �
z
(n
s t
< Ln
jr
IL 4
tl LLp
rQq yyy2QQ2
y C
a
c
a
Y f`
CL
a
a $
� z � Q
0
(n J jam .
QQ
. 0
d
OLu
LLI
cn
v�
A4achinent 2 Z
� � U
c
u
o c'
' CD
1 Q �
t
. Y
z
w 5
a
�• o
M l
Q _
µ f
F
co
Iry
�
Z -----
O o �'
O
LL
J
Q V
�.
Q
ZC/1)
! 1 W
O _
G
o a f�li Alii_ `Kill \-- 9
�a-�y
Attachment 2 0 r
J
W
LL
Cn
H
Ir
O
CL
Cn
_Q
U
rr
Q
0
Z
O
31
11
Q
n 2A�-.6
Z a E r
O G *
{
d u m a
44
S E
~ ' N
C SI I 2
111
--- -__- -- o S� a 5' d /r- I+ •�.,a $ e Q jl�
tl 1GG
'g
a
I _
a
17
i ------ it 1 c I
I m
Q
8 e
tt4c t 2
<NO
US
€�$ s
off= 3 n
p� Q ora � •
J e F 111^!x
N1 li Y6 x Y
of x �
B I a
_ 1
,P
-
[
• � i� p
s€ ge4
gNl
Vim.
o-
E _ /
�-
1
A �
—
�,.<���_—_ III III 1 —�
_INS
I Illi 1 'r T— ,-
Ma•, i.,.+rAN�i! 7 111 � �y _ 'i
r
\
'I�
I fill
If be YI k_. \ y�"� / x;1\;1'\
( \ �µ
;i 11 /11 f I Ng1'�.
nw.e menro m�K wn-mmn\ o r.�.
Attachment 3
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 3, 20019 6:00 P.M.
CITY HALL COUNCIL CHAMBERS
990 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
CALL TO ORDER Chairperson Neville called the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Jim Neville, Commissioners Debbie Black, Peter Dunan,
Teresa Larson, BonnieMarzio, and Ron Regan
ABSENT: Commissioner Gary Clay
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES
The minutes of December 6. 2000 were unanimously approved with the following corrections:
Commissioner Bonnie Marzio was present and corrected the spelling of Commissioner Peter
Dunan
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
There were no public comments.
Item #1: THE MONTH
Grace Dempsey was recogmz e January Volunteer of the Month her generous service
with the Ranger Service.
Item #2: MAJOR CITY GOAL
Paul LeSage reviewed the process of submitt r endations for City goals to the City
Council.
Chair Neville opened this item for publi ent.
It was moved by Reg mit the following City goal to C il: endorse the
implementation o arks & Recreation Element, with an emphasis co etion of the
Damon- rts Fields; 2) construction of two lighted softball fields; and 3) co ction of
a ty center and therapy pool; motion passed unanimously.
Item #3: REVIEW DESIGN CONCEPT OF THE DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS FIELDS
COMPLEX
Paul LeSage presented a background review of this item in two sections: 1) review of the
action related to the Prado Road alignment and 2) review of the design concept of the Damon-
Garcia Sports Fields with the assistance of David Foote, the architect on this project. On
January 16, the City Council will review the realignment and possible adjustments of Prado Road
as it relates to the Sports Fields complex, and at a later date (possibly in April 2001) review the
design concept that this Commission will ultimately approve and recommend to them.
/9-/7
� ! Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 2
January 3, 2001 — 6:00pm
Paul reviewed the charge of the Commission is provide the City Council with a recommendation
on the Parks and Recreation aspects of the both of these projects. He indicated there are several
issues relating to the road realignment (i.e. traffic, circulation, planning) which are not under the
charge of this commission and will not be reviewed tonight with this Commission. This
discussions held tonight are dealing strictly with the fields and how they relate to Prado Road.
PRADO ROAD ALIGNMENT
In reviewing this project, Paul recommended the Commission ensure that whichever proposal is
approved by the City Council meets the following criteria:
1. Can 4 regulation fields be constructed on this site?
2. Can the project be designed safely?
3. Can the project be completed without further delay?
If each realignment proposal meets with the stated criteria, the ultimately the Commission
should be satisfied with whatever decision the City Council approves. Paul suggested the
Commission recommend to the City Council that construction of the fields not be delayed and
not recommends any one particular realignment proposal.
In reviewing the background of this project, Paul indicated in February 2000 the City Council
approved the northern alignment of Prado Road. Since that time, the design of the fields has
begun based on this approval. Work has been completed on the environmental process, analysis
of the field drainage, developed a model of field conditions, completed biological and wetland
delineation, extensive archaeological investigation has taken place. This resulted in a
modification in the alignment of Prado Road with 84% of the site which had been in the road has
now been moved out. The major feature of the site, which is the grinding rocks, has been
preserved. There have been two public workshops held leading to a turf field design concept.
Question: Can 4 re infields be constructed on this site?
Yes, the northern alignment meets these criteria. This is also true of the southern alignment
known as the Industrial Way alignment. The Prado Road to Tank Farm realignment also meets
the criteria. In each of the alignments, there is a school and a park planned the development of
the area. Any downsize of the Margarita development, could ultimately reduce the size of the
park and may, in fact, eliminate the school. Nether the Industrial or Tank Farm alignments offer
an opportunity for more fields because Orcutt Creek cannot be moved.
Question: Can the project be designed safely?
The safety issue of the northern alignment of Prado Road was reviewed. Paul indicated that
safety at this site is an issue taken seriously and consideration is given to both Broad Street and
Prado Road. To further ensure the safety of children near this site location, there would be an
under crossing of Prado Road constructed, fully lighted by sunlight and visible from the fields.
The site would also be supervised when open.
/a'1
Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 3
January 3, 2001 - 6:00pm
A large number of field users will also Broad Street cross to the Marigold Center where there is
fast-food restaurants and shopping. No matter which proposal is approved, the design will have
to consider this intersection.
School district administrative personnel have reviewed the pedestrian intercrossing of Prado
Road from the sports fields to the school and have not expressed objections.
Question: Can the project be completed without further dela
Last year, the City council amended the.Circulation Element to include the northern alignment of
Prado Road. Changing the alignment now would require an amendment to the Circulation
Element. This could cause the project to be delayed. The Commission was urged to consider
this when recommending that the City Council move forward with this project and avoid any
delay of the project.
Addressing concerns raised by the public - M by this site?
Paul reviewed the idea of adding sports fields has been in the works since 1995. It became a
major city goal in 1997. The city was approached by Cal Poly to contribute $3M to accomplish
joint-use fields - ultimately this did not happen. At this time, the City began looking at site
locations:
1) Laguna Lake Park - 4-field proposal, not recommended due to neighbors strong support
of the current Master Plan for the Laguna Lake Park and would have required a major
amendment to the existing plan.
2) The Pereira Property - Not recommended because bad circulation problems, not in an
accessible part of the town outside the city's urban reserve line, requiring an annexation
into the city. City staff felt this would be opposed.
3) Martinelli property - location not able to use due to being within a restricted flight zone
of the airport and building was prohibited in this area.
4) Damon-Garcia property - 16 acres we could expand on, part of town where young
people are primarily located, met the major criteria.
Negotiations for the Damon-Garcia property were completed in August 1999. After the City
council determined that Prado road could be aligned in the northerly direction, a design firm was
selected and work began on the fields.
It has been noted that the needs of the community are 40-50 acres to adequately meet the needs
of the needs of the local sports organizations. However, the main issue with meeting this need
was cost. To purchase 40-50 acres and develop athletic fields on them would cost in the
neighborhood of$15,000,000.
Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 4
January 3, 2001 - 6:OOpm
In conclusion, the City is now into the 4' year of this project yet we still have not begun
development. While the community has been patient with their unmet needs, it is staff's
recommendation to complete the fields in a timely fashion ensuring no further delays.
Chair Neville opened the item for public comment.
Nick Munich, SLO resident, spoke in opposition to the Orcutt expansion area and felt the
circulation must be considered and reviewed. He further suggested the school district obtain an
expert to review the safety of the proposal tunnel.
Jane Godfrey, Joint Use Committee member, urged the commission to do nothing, which may
delay the project in any way.
Bill Wilson, SLO resident, agreed that safety is a major issue, spoke to the expansion
possibilities if the southem realignment is approved, felt the tunnel would be a danger to
children, and felt the bike lanes were not a safe idea though supported the link to the bike trails.
Richard Kreit, Joint Use Committee member and Girls Softball representative, indicated that 20
years ago the Damon Garcia property was proposed as a park site and throughout all the
discussions surrounding this project, safety has been of the utmost importance.
Ron Alders, SLO Resident, spoke of several issues: open space remaining within the city, i.e.
Damon Garcia property, and was opposed to splitting this area by placing a major road and
sports fields through the hills; criteria for 4 fields is only a minimum - if rid of the northern
alignment, could get 5-6 fields; emphasis should be on safety of children accessing the fields;
and supported pedestrian off highway routes and bike paths. Urged to move forward with the
playfields, do not delay the project, but not recommend the northern alignment.
Michael Sullivan, SLO Resident, spoke in opposition to the northern alignment due to safety
issues and the archaeological impacts, and urged the Commission give careful planning of this
project.
Dave Romero, SLO Resident, expressed concerns for the pressure felt by staff and
commissioners to pursue this project without any delay. He felt the critical issue is the design of
the fields (with possibly giving up 2 fields by choosing the northern proposal), and expressed
concern for nearby state highway, the cut and fill of land to obtain the overpass, and having the
road close to the site.
Eugene Judd, SLO Resident, spoke in opposition to the northern alignment. Spoke in support of
mitigation pollution, alternative transportation being considered first, (i.e. connection to the
trails, pedestrian, bike, and public transportation) and of the Tank Farm Road proposal.
Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 5
January 3, 2001 — 6:OOpm
Mila LaBarre, SLO High School teacher, spoke in opposition to the northern proposal as it
minimizes the potential uses of the acres available and expressed concerns for the tunnel
becoming a hangout for teenagers and/or homeless; possible delays of the project of the turf
fields, and gave appreciation to the City for the gift of the fields.
Mary Lou Johnson, SLO Resident, spoke in support of amending the Circulation Element to
facilitate the southern alignment.
Bill Toma, SLO Resident, expressed concern as a parent and member of the community,
recommending no delay in the project, and gave appreciation for expertise of what is possible
and not possible for each proposal presented.
Jim Gauld, SLO Resident, reviewed the history of need for these fields, and supported Mr.
LeSage's recommendation and proceeding with the project as it stands.
David Foot, FIRMA designer and consultant for the project, reviewed the alignment proposals
for Prado Road and its affects on the field's design.
The northern alignment would permit 4 fields. The Prado Rd. section would require a cut on the
adjoining hillside. He indicated this proposal does not provide additional parking space as other
proposals, however, it does provide more parking than the other proposals, using off site
alternatives. He reviewed the excavation of the dirt required from the rock quarry, developing
links toward the bike paths, and consideration of necessary buffering from the future home
development.
The Commission discussed urging City Council look at the points discussed: environmental
damage, Circulation Element, the Prado Rd under crossing, future expansion of the fields, open
space, and the importance on not delaying the project. The Commissioner requested clarification
of realignments issues and its affects on the development of the fields.
Paul LeSage indicated that if City Council chose to amend the Circulation Element, prior to
starting work on the fields, there could be a delay of approximately 6-9 months. If Council
should consider an alternate road alignment that had not been previously reviewed, this
consideration could take an additional 18 months.
The Commission reviewed and discussed moving Orcutt Creek, not delaying this project and
doing what is best for this piece of property. The Commissioners expressed their appreciation to
the public for stating their wishes and concerns for safety issues presented.
Bill Wilson, indicated the northern alignment would actually delay the project according to his
conversation with a representative from the Army Corp of Engineers.
After much discussion, it was moved by Regan/Larson to recommend to the City Council
Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 6
January 3, 2001 - 6:00pm
construction of the Damon Garcia sports fields not be delayed and to consider realignment of
Prado Road if it would not delay the project; motion passed unanimously.
DESIGN CONCEPT
David Foote reviewed the design of the turf only fields and how many fields could be
accommodated with the design. He discussed the flood zones of the area and the grading of the
fields required to accommodate the fields. The parking allows for 150 spaces and consideration
would need to be given for off-site parking accommodations. The restroom area, concession
stands, storage bins will also be located near the parking facility. He reviewed the circulation
within the park, emergency access, footbridges, access to bike pathways, and the Riparian
Enhancement Zone and Wetland Creation Concept for Acacia and Orcutt Creeks, to create
naturalistic creek corridors enhancing the existing property.
Paul LeSage reviewed the lighting proposed for this project. There may be additional funding
required for lighting - if necessary will request Council to give Prop 12 monies available
(approx. $400,000) to fund.
He reviewed the Council Goal Setting on January 17 and February 3. The Commission and the
community will have an idea of where this project will be on the list of goals. If this is the only
sport fields to be recommended as a goal, suggested that the commission reconsider looking into
this facility as a multi-use facility.
The Commission reviewed the importance of establishing a goal for diamond sports fields as well
as turf only fields.
Chair Neville opened this item for public comment.
Jeff Whitener, AYSO Commissioner and SLO Resident, spoke in support of the all turf facility
to accommodate many teams and future tournaments. If the design is lighted facility, this facility
could accommodate all teams and would meet the needs of the AYSO. Supported the baseball
needs and wish to support their efforts. Willing to work on developing outside parking,
carpools, etc. along with the City.
Richard Kreit, SLO Resident, reviewed the background of how this facility's use was decided.
Organizations are more likely to take care of a facility if belong to them and the City will do a
tremendous service by establishing a home for sport organizations. He spoke in support of the
need for 2 more lighted fields to meet needs of diamond players.
Michael Sullivan, SLO Resident, expressed concerns for parking and safety for crossing Broad
Street. And spoke in support of the southern proposal.
Bill Wilson, SLO Resident, indicated a signature drive was conducted and more than 1,500
- Attachment 3
Parks & Recreation Commission Minutes Page 7
January 3, 2001 - 6:00pm
signatures were obtained supporting an all-turf field.
Mala Labarre, SLO High School Teacher, appreciated the commission's recommendation and
supported the lighting of the facility in every way, possible eliminate the pedestrian under
crossing, and requested clarification of "wildlife" passing through.
Dave Foote clarified the wildlife passing through the under crossing of Acacia Creek (due to it
being a large size) is a possibility.
The Commission reviewed the advisory status of the commission to the City Council and felt the
commission should stand behind the decision made on September 17 for a turf only field,
supported the lighting of the facility, and giving consideration to the vendors within the Marigold
Center as possible concession stands are installed.
After much discussion, it was moved by Regan/Black to endorse the turf only concept for the
Damon Garcia Sports Fields project; motion passed unanimously.
TAFF REPORTS
Lighted Fields
Paul LeSage repo on possible site locations for 2 lighted diamon elds:
Unocal Prope - Broad;
Froom Property adonna;
Dalidio Property;
City's Water Trea t Plant;
Awards
Paul LeSage informed the Co on the CPRS Di ct VIII Community Service Award will
be given by staff to Jim Neville for involveme ith youth sports, disabled individuals, and
serving on the Parks and Recreation C ssi The award will be presented at the Lompoc
Community Center on January 26. Rich , Recreation Supervisor, will also be installed at
the President of District VIII CP era ds our department will be receiving will be:
Outstanding Facility nance for the Swim Cent
Outstanding Pub ' ece for the Creek pamphlet
Outstanding for the STAR Program
Outs acility for the Bishop Peach Natural Reserve.
In ad on, the Parks & Recreation Department will be receiving a CPRS sta a award for
Ou Website and gave much of the credit for this award to Linda Fitzgerald her work
on the website.
/�-23
Attachment 3
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY,MARCH 7, 2001
CITY-COUNTY LIBRARY CONFERENCE ROOM
995 PALM STREET, SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
CALL TO ORDER: Chairperson Neville called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Chairperson Jim Neville, Commissioners Debbie Black, Peter
Dunan, Bonnie Marzio, Ron Regan, and Gary Clay.
ABSENT: Commissioner Teresa Larson
PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD:
There was no public comment.
CONSIDERATION OF MINUTES:
There were no minutes presented to the Commission.
Mark Williams was honored as the Volunteer of the Mont .
Item#2: DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS FIELDS STRUCTURES
David Foote,firma, and Paul LeSage went over the field structure and lighting options
and offered recommendations to the Commission.
It was moved by Clay/Regan to endorse the concept of the recommended structures;
motion passed unanimously.
Bill Thoma, Thoma Electric, also discussed lighting options. Bill updated the
Commission on the difficulties lighting has proposed and reported that options are still
being considered.
It d by Dunan/Regan to endorse Paul LeSage's written recommendation of
adding soft • otion passed unanimously.
Item#4: DIRECTOR'S
Paul reported the following:
• Salary Increase was approved for part-time s ding$160,000 to budget;
e 2001-2003 Budget has been submitted—staff requeste tional:
-$20,000 for rents and leases of non-City facilities;
-$10,000 for sports groups that offer tourism benefit;
-O ra
Attachnierlt 4
LOS ANGELES DISTRICT
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
a
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT .
Permittee: City of San Luis Obispo,Parks and Recreation Department
Attn: Paul Le Sage,Director
Permit Number. 200100244-LM
Issuing Office: Los Angeles District
Note: The term "you" and its derivatives, as used in this permit, means the permittee or any
future transferee. The term "this office" refers to the appropriate district or division office of the
Corps of Engineers having jurisdiction over the permitted activity or the appropriate official
acting under the authority of the commanding officer.
You are authorized to perform work in accordance with the terms and conditions specified below.
Project Description: The overall project involves construction of a sports field complex including
'four playing fields and ancillary facilities as shown in the attached diagram. Proposed project
development activities that would result in Corps-regulated discharges of fill material into waters
of the United States include realignment of approximately 775 linear feet (0.19 acres) of Orcutt
Creek, and filling of 0.82 acres of wetlands onsite. A culverted creek crossing is proposed across
the realigned portion of Orcutt Creek to provide foot and service vehicle access from the parking
area to the play fields.
Project Location: At the Damon-Garcia Sports Complex site, a 235 acre parcel located on the
west side of Broad Street (State Highway 227) approximately 0.5 mile north of the intersection of
Broad Street(State Highway 227) and Tank Farm Road at the eastern edge of the City of San Luis
Obispo,San Luis Obispo County,California.
Permit Conditions:
General Conditions:
1. The time limit for completing the authorized activity ends on March 29, 2005. If you find that
you need more time to complete the authorized activity,submit your request for a time extension
to this office for consideration at least one month before the above date is reached.
2. You must maintain the activity authorized by this permit in good condition and in
conformance with the terms and conditions of this permit. You are not relieved of this
requirement if you abandon the permitted activity,although you may make a good.faith transfer
to a third party in compliance with General Condition 4 below. Should you wish to cease to
maintain the authorized activity or should you desire to abandon it without a good faith transfer,
Attachment 4 ;
you must obtain a modification from this permit from this office,which may require restoration of
the area.
3. If you discover any previously unknown historic or archeological remains while accomplishing
the activity authorized by this permit, you must immediately notify this office of what you have
found. We will initiate the Federal and state coordination required to determine if the remains
warrant a recovery effort or if the site is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places.
4. If you sell the property associated with this permit, you must obtain the signature of the new
owner in the space provided and forward a copy of the permit to this office to validate the
transfer of this authorization.
5. If a conditioned water quality certification has been issued for your project, you must comply
with the conditions specified in the certification as special conditions to this permit. For your
convenience,a copy of the certification is attached if it contains such conditions.
6. You must allow representatives from this office to inspect the authorized activity at any time
deemed necessary to ensure that it is being or has been accomplished with the terms and
conditions of your permit.
7. The permittee understands and agrees that,if future operations by the United States require
the removal,relocation,or other alteration,of the structure or work herein authorized,or if,in the
opinion of the.Secretary of the Army or his authorized representative,said structure or work shall
.cause unreasonable obstruction to the free navigation of the navigable waters, the permittee will
be required, upon due notice from the Corps of Engineers, to remove, relocate, or alter the
structural work or obstructions caused thereby, without expense to the United States. No claim
shall be made against the United States on account of any such removal or alteration.
Special Conditions:
1. The permittee shall ensure the archeological site,CA-SLO-1427,identified in the
Archaeological Investigations report prepared by C.A.Singer and Associates,Inc.,is
completely avoided during construction of the Damon Garcia Sports Complex
project. Furthermore,none of the materials obtained during cut operations
associated with grading for the Damon Garcia Sports Complex project shall be used
as fill for the road or roadbed of the future Prado Road extension where it passes
through site CA-SLO-1427. Prior to initiation of construction the boundaries of site
CA-SLO-1427,including a 100-foot buffer,shall be clearly fenced or flagged to avoid
accidental intrusion into the area. The permittee shall contact the Corps to arrange
for a compliance inspection following installation of the flagging. Project
construction shall not be initiated until the Corps has conducted the compliance
inspection and issued a written notice to proceed.
2. The permittee shall ensure that a Final Mitigation Plan (Final Plan)is submitted to and
approved in writing by the Corps prior to initiation of work in waters of the United
States. The Final Plan shall constitute a final version of the"Draft Riparian and
Wetland Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan for the Damon-Garcia Sports
2
Attachment 4
Complex Project" (hereafter"Draft Plan," Rincon Consultants,Inc,February 21,
2002),modified only to incorporate all of the Corps comments on the Draft Plan
outlined in a letter to Rincon Consultants from the Corps dated March 12,2002.
3. To avoid offsite adverse affects to steelhead and its designated critical habitat, the
permittee shall submit written documentation to the Corps verifying the manner in
which the project has complied with the requirements outlined in the National
Marine Fisheries Service's letter to the Corps dated January 10,2002. Specifically, the
sports complex will be designed in a manner that ensures the project does not
introduce pollutants into the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed through surface
water runoff,and Best Management Practices will be implemented at the time of
construction,and after if necessary,for the purpose of avoiding of soil and
sediment/water slurry to the creeks. Project construction shall not be initiated until
receiving written verification of compliance with this special condition from the
Corps.
4. To avoid adverse affects to California red-legged frog,the perp-duee.shall adhere to the
conditions outlined in the U.S. Fish and Wildlife.Service's (FWS)letter to the Corps
dated February 4,2002. Specifically, the permittee shall ensure that all work near
water bodies,with the exception of wetland revegetation,is conducted during the
period between May 15 and October 15. Pre-construction surveys for California red
legged frogs shall be conducted the morning of the first day of construction.in or near
any waterway to determine whether the species has moved into the project site since
the original surveys were conducted. The surveys shall be conducted by a qualified
wildlife biologist with verifiable experience identifying CRLF. The biologist shall
keep a written record of the surveys,and shall submit these data.sheets to the Corps
within 30 days of project completion. If CRLF are found, the biologist shall
immediately contact the Corps. Construction shall be halted and not resumed until
the Corps has completed section 7 consultation with the FWS.
5. To minimize project related increases in downstream turbidity associated with diversion
of flows into the newly constructed portion of Orcutt Creek,prior to initiation of
construction the permittee shall submit an erosion control plan to the Corps
addressing this issue. The erosion control plan must be consistent with the
mitigation measures for southwestern pond turtle outlined in the Damon Garcia
Sports Complex Project Biological and Wetland Assessment dated October 13,2000
and prepared by Rincon Consultants,Inc.
Further Information:
I. Congressional Authorities. You have been authorized to undertake the activity described
above pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1344).
2. Limits of this authorization.
a. This permit does not obviate the need to obtain other Federal, state, or local
authorizations required by law.
3
��a7
(" Attachment 4
b. This permit does not grant any property rights or exclusive privileges.
c. This permit does not authorize any injury to the property or rights of others.
d. This permit does not authorize interference with any existing or proposed Federal
project.
3. Limits of Federal Liability. In issuing this permit, the Federal Government does not assume
any liability for the following:
a. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of other permitted or
unpermitted activities or from natural causes.
b. Damages to the permitted project or uses thereof as a result of current or future activities
undertaken by or on behalf of the United States in the public interest.
c. Damages to persons, property, or to other permitted or unpermitted activities or
structures caused by the activity authorized by this permit.
d. Design or construction deficiencies associated with the permitted work.
e. Damage claims associated with any future modification,suspension,or revocation of this
permit.
.4. Reliance on Applicant's Data. The determination of this office that issuance of this permit is
not contrary to the public interest was made in reliance on the information you provided.
5. Reevaluation of Permit Decision. This office may reevaluate its decision on this permit at.any
time the circumstances warrant. Circumstances that could require a reevaluation include,but are
not limited to,the.following.
a. You fail to comply with the terms and conditions of this permit.
b. The information provided by you in support of your permit application proves to have
been false,incomplete,or inaccurate(See 4 above).
c. Significant new information surfaces which this office did not consider in reaching the
original public interest decision.
Such a reevaluation may result in a determination that it is appropriate to use the suspension,
modification, and revocation procedures contained in 33 CFR 325.7 or enforcement procedures
such as those contained in 33 CFR 326.4 and 326.5. The referenced enforcement procedures
provide for the issuance of an administrative order requiring you to comply with the terms and
conditions of your permit and for the initiation of legal action where appropriate. You will be
required to pay for any corrective measure ordered by this office, and if you fail to comply with
such directive, this office may in certain situations (such as those specified in 33 CFR 209.170)
accomplish the corrective measures by contract or otherwise and bill you for the cost.
4
� 9,2
FL /011TH S,
A
H � N
OCiA�`0? Nmko7 YSA
JUNE 2002
ThanksCafiCouncilDamon-Garcia Sports Field Complex.1 Project Timeline or "What Does It
All SIO-sports families are encouraged to attend the San Luis Obispo Qty Council meeting Take to Get Some
at 7 p.m.Tuesday,June 18,at 990 Palm St for final approval of the Damon-Garda Sporn Town ,
Field Complex.This is a chance for the kids to wear their uniforms and say thank you to
The city.Their leadership mesas a lot to familieg.
1970s Damon-Garda site proposed as a park site
President's Letter 197a Stadnon Feld completed at Sinsheimer Park
,995 Qty offers to renovate Taylor Field for joint
use of district and city
Dear Youth Sports Families, 1996 Cal Poly joint Use project proposed to Qty
On June 18,2002,at 7:00 pm.,the San Luis Obispo Qty Council will be voting to approve the 1997 Poly deal collapses
construction pbase of the Damon-Garda Athletic Feld It has been a long and,at times, 1997 YSA formed
tortuouspmcess.Although several steps in this preliminary phase remain,this is an Important 1997 Construction of fields established as a major
for everyone—parents and children—to attend We hope,at this meeting,to: dry goal
• Thank the City Council,staff and the representatives of the City Parks and 1997 Site search begins
Recreation Department for their support and hard work. 1997 Damon Carla she selected
• Remind the CouncD to fully hind this project during this financially 1999 Qtypurchases D-G site
challenging time. 2000 Planning stain
• Focus on the"Margarfta Pian'as a revitalization of our community providing, 2000 Users groups reach consensus on
among other coeds.affordable housing so young families tart live in our �use coao�P
community and enjoy what we have come to appreciate. 2000 lido Road alignment decision by council
• Maintain the impetus for the highest-quality project possible with lighted, 2000 Corps Permit application filed
sand-based fields at Its foundation. 2001 Repeat�Road alignment decision by
Please attend this important meeting,and let us all celebrate together the reahwion of these 2002 Corps Permit issued
new facilities,twenty-seven years in the making,for our children and our communitx
2002 Panning Commission approves project
2002 Architectural Review Commission approves
John A Spatafore project
President,San Luis Obispo Youth Sports Association 2002 Qty Council Review of Plan Qune 18)
2002 City Cohmctl Approval of Contract(October?)
DAMON-GARCIA SPORTS COMPLE X04 Project Comlildid'Play (M)
SAN LUIS OBISPO, CALIFORNIA
0Z
�`a""' SITE
TALLEDOE
PLANTM
WiP90F
SAN
,
/ R
AND atonA(E
/y ��4 W• ° 1 a n • �' /�� � TrtABN
PARIPC
SIGN MVEMY
/
/ ' fz�F^ � IAa T • , j{w c. w " �. Gt! 1` 1
R v � e• kp'r'7 ti '
a ..