Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Water Project topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Board adopts mitigated negative declaration for Crystal Plains Elementary water improvements
Summary
Trustees approved a mitigated negative declaration and mitigation‑monitoring program for a state‑funded water improvements project at Crystal Plains Elementary School; staff said the project addresses nitrate exceedances and is in DSA submission for design approval and state funding.
The Atascadero Unified School District Board of Trustees approved Resolution 16‑24‑25 to adopt a mitigated negative declaration (MND) and a mitigation‑monitoring and reporting program for the Crystal Plains Elementary School water improvements project.
Why it matters: Board materials and staff said the project is intended to address nitrate exceedances in the site’s well water and to secure a long‑term clean water source with state funding. The district’s action clears a key CEQA procedural step and allows staff to file a Notice of Determination with the San Luis Obispo County Clerk‑Recorder and the state Office of Planning and Research.
Brent Lloyd, director of support services, summarized the environmental review process required under the California Environmental Quality Act and said the district served as lead agency and circulated a draft initial study and draft MND during a public review period that closed Jan. 17. “Denise Duffy and Associates has determined that the project requires an initial study, mitigated negative declaration and the mitigation monitoring and reporting program,” Lloyd told trustees.
Lloyd and others described next steps: design approval through the Division of the State Architect (DSA) is in progress, and, once plans are approved, the project will enter the state funding queue. Lloyd said the district historically used bottled water as a short‑term mitigation and is seeking a permanent remedy. He also referenced a 5,000‑gallon storage tank and state funding processes necessary to complete construction.
Board action: Trustee motion and second preceded a roll‑call vote approving Resolution 16‑24‑25. The roll call recorded a unanimous approval among trustees present.
Implementation notes and timeline: Lloyd said plans are in DSA submission and that the state must subsequently approve funding; the district does not yet have a firm construction start date. Trustees thanked facilities staff for the work required to position the project for state funding.
Remaining uncertainties: Board discussion noted the possibility that a new well could also contain nitrates; Lloyd said the state process includes steps that reduce that risk and the state would coordinate mitigation if a new well showed similar exceedances.
