HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-14-2014 ac - christieph1Goodwin, Heather
From: Codron, Michael
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:45 PM
To: Goodwin, Heather
Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force
meeting
Attachments: SLOLUCE 11- 14- 13.docx
From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com]
Sent: Monday, January 13, 2014 4:41 PM
To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan;
Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony
Subject: FW: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting
Dear Councilmembers —
Attached are the comments submitted by the Sierra Club to the LUCE Update Task Foce on the LUCE Resource
Protection chapter for your information when you deliberate on this section at your upcoming meetings.
Thank you,
Andrew Christie, Director
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 15755
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
805- 543 -8717
From: Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club [mailto:sierraclub8 @gmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, November 14, 2013 3:37 PM
To: 'kmurry@slocity.org'
Subject: comments on the Resource Protection revisions for the 11/14 LUCE Task Force meeting
Hi Kim —
Please distribute the attached comments to the LUCE Update Task Force members for tonight's meeting.
Thanks,
Andrew Christie, Director
Santa Lucia Chapter of the Sierra Club
P.O. Box 15755
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
805 - 543 -8717
Nov. 14, 2013
S I E RRA
CLUB
FOUNDED 1892
Dear LUCE Update Task Force Members,
Santa Lucia Chapter
P.O. Box 15755
San Luis Obispo, CA 93406
(805) 543 -8717
www. santalucia. sierraclub. org
Following are the comments of the Sierra Club on the proposed revisions to the Resource Protection
chapter of the LUE.
6.0.3 Land Use Element Map Revision
Resource Mapping is retained at 6.0.2 but the proposed deletion of the following section eliminates the
purpose of the program. As written, 6.0.3 provides the reason why the Resources Mapping program exists
and its role in determining the locations for appropriate development. We see no purpose in deleting the
rationale for the Resource Mapping program from the description of the program.
6.1.1 Open Space and Greenbelt Designations
We strongly agree with the decision not to delete and relocate this information to "the new uses and
standards table" and to keep it as it is and where it is. The COSE update process of 2005 -06 made clear
that City staff and elected officials need to be reminded frequently of the definition and uses of Open
Space. That language should be readily available to them, and to the citizens of San Luis Obispo for the
likely future occasions when the City will need to be reminded. This information belongs where it is,
intact, prominently featured in the City's General Plan, in the location where anyone would expect to find
it when looking for it, under Open Space Policies, not diverted to a table. We suggest this rule of thumb
be followed throughout the update process: Major policies belong under their policy headings, not shifted
to tables.
6.1.4 Interim Open Space
Regardless of any restrictions that may be "covered in Section 8.0, Specific Planning Areas," the
overarching description of the nature and purpose of Interim Open Space should remain in the Resource
Protection chapter. As to the issue of takings, a designation of Interim Open Space would appear to be a
clear indication to any future land purchaser that the land in question may be eventually zoned in a
manner incompatible with future development proposals. If "as worded, this designation has potential
implications for a takings finding," it is the job of the city council, on advice of the city attorney, to apply
the policy in such a way as to avoid such implications.
6.1.5 Interim Open Space Uses and Parcel Sizes
We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion.
6.1.6 Eventual Uses
We register the same objection as above to the text proposed for deletion.
6.2 Hillside Policies
All hillside policies should remain where they are with greater emphasis rather than being moved to
Special Planning Areas. Protection of hillsides was 1 of only 4 service areas in the LUCE Survey for
which city residents and business owners said they were willing to pay more. The Update should reflect
this priority.
6.2.7- B The Woodland Drive area
This should not be deleted as significant parts of it are not developed, re 2.5 acres just above Skylark, as
well as remaining Upper Goldtree lots and County Property -- see pg. 1 -I I 1 consultant comment box.
6.2.7 -C Orcutt area
The reference to specific development limit line at 460 feet should be retained.
6.3.3 Architectural Guidelines
Architectural guidelines should be retained as it states the City's underlying presumption and intention
that "all hillside development occurs on sensitive sites, where architectural review is required. The
Community Development Director will screen all proposals to identify any which do not need
architectural review." Though the current design guidelines may include this now, retaining the language
here preserves the city's presumption and intention to protect hillsides.
6.4.5 Porous paving
As the measures suggested here go beyond "porous paving," we suggest replacing this title with the more
accurate and comprehensive "Runoff reduction and groundwater recharge." We suggest adding "and new
development" to "Parking lots and paved outdoor storage areas," and appending the following to the
suggested measures: "ample landscaped areas which receive surface drainage and which are maintained
to facilitate percolation, consisting of rain gardens, vegetated bioswales constructed wetlands and/or
trees planted with mulched root zones."
6.5.1 Previously Developed Areas
Policies protecting creeks -- a top priority of residents responding to the LUCE Survey and one of only
four things which they were willing to pay more for — should not be deleted. Before agreeing to delete the
policies for limiting potential flood damage, we suggest Task Force members ascertain that listed policies
A through D proposed for deletion are in fact identical to those in "the City's flood plain ordinance,
setbacks, specific plans, and design standards," per the text proposed to replace the current list of policies.
If the current list in the General Plan represents policies in addition to those to be found elsewhere, they
should be maintained as written. Per the stated rationale for their deletion -- "state and federal standards
change over time" — the Task Force should determine if this list does in fact represent state and federal
standards or are the City's standards adopted in exceedence of state and federal standards. If the latter,
they should be retained.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns,
Andrew Christie
Chapter Director